New Delhi:

The Supreme Court is scheduled to deliver today its verdict on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case linked to the alleged excise policy scam.

As per the cause list of July 12 uploaded on the supreme court’s website, a bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna will pronounce the judgement.

On May 17, the bench, also comprising Justice Dipankar Datta, had reserved its verdict on Arvind Kejriwal’s plea.

The supreme  court had on April 15 sought a response from the ED on Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest in the money laundering case.

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief has challenged in the top court the April 9 order of the Delhi High Court that had upheld his arrest in the case.

The high court had upheld Kejriwal’s arrest in the case, saying there was no illegality about it and that the ED was left with “little option” after he skipped repeated summonses and refused to join the investigation.

The chief minister was arrested on March 21 by the ED in the money laundering case.

On June 20, he was granted bail by a trial court here on a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh in the case.

However, the ED had moved the Delhi High Court the next day and contended that the trial court’s order granting bail to Kejriwal was “perverse”, “one-sided” and “wrong-sided” and that the findings were based on irrelevant facts.

The high court, on June 21, imposed an interim stay on the trial court’s bail order till passing of an order on ED’s application for interim relief. On June 25, the high court had passed a detailed order staying the trial court order.

Kejriwal was also arrested by the CBI on June 26 in connection with the corruption case related to the alleged excise policy scam.

The matter relates to alleged corruption and money laundering in the formulation and execution of the Delhi government’s excise policy for 2021-22, which has now been scrapped.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

Even as the Supreme Court deferred its hearing on contrasting petitions seeking a retest for NEET-UG and those opposed to it amid the alleged irregularities in the exam, Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan met students from both sides and heard their concerns. 

Sources said that during the 30-minute meeting, Mr Pradhan assured the students that injustice will not be allowed to happen to them under any circumstances and that the government is taking a series of steps to ensure that such irregularities do not take place in future exams. 

While some students told the minister that it would be unfair to penalise people who have not indulged in cheating of any sort by asking them to sit for a retest, others said the irregularities were widespread enough to necessitate one.

Nearly 24 lakh students had appeared for the NEET-UG 2024 for undergraduate medical courses, which is conducted by the National Testing Agency, on May 5. The results were announced on June 4, 10 days before schedule, but allegations of question paper leaks and grace marks to over 1,500 students triggered protests. Cases were also filed in courts, including the Supreme Court. 

The education minister told the students that since the matter is now being heard by the Supreme Court, the government will take further action based on its decision. He said the Education Ministry has presented its side before the court and it is now up to the judges to decide. 

In an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the Centre said that a comprehensive analysis of the results had revealed that there was no large-scale malpractice or evidence of a local set of candidates benefiting. 

The Union government also reiterated its stance that it does not intend to hold a retest of the medical entrance exam. Doing so on the basis of “unsubstantiated suspicions”, it said, would burden nearly 24 lakh students. 

The Centre told the court that it intends to start the counselling process for NEET-UG, which is the final stage for admissions, from the third week of July in four phases. If any candidate is found to have benefited from any irregularity, their counselling will be cancelled in any of the phases or even after, it said. 

In its affidavit, the Centre said the data analysis was carried out by experts from IIT Madras. The data revealed that there is an overall increase in the marks obtained by students, specifically in the range of 550 to 720, and this rise has been seen across cities and centres. 

The Centre said the increase can be attributed to a 25% reduction in syllabus.

In a hearing on Monday, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said it was loathe to order a re-test for nearly 24 lakh students – many of whom come from poor families and could ill afford to spend money travelling to exam centres – unless necessary. A re-test is the “last option”, it said.

“One thing is clear… questions were leaked. The sanctity of the exam has been compromised… this is beyond doubt. Now we have to establish the extent of the leak,” the Chief Justice said.

Another hearing was supposed to be held on Thursday, but it has been deferred to July 18.

New Delhi:

White-collar crimes present a formidable challenge to judicial and the economic systems, requiring a “multipronged and nuanced” approach, Supreme Court judge Justice Hima Kohli said on Wednesday.

The top court judge batted for using advanced technologies to prevent such crimes.

“Leveraging advanced technologies such as data analytics, artificial intelligence, and blockchain will enhance the ability to detect, investigate, and prosecute white-collar crimes, she said.

Justice Kohli was speaking on the topic of ‘Second Discourse on Judicial Perspective on Economic Offences and Corporate Malfeasance’ at an event organised by the Centre for Discourses in Criminal and Constitutional Jurisprudence.

“White-collar crime presents a formidable challenge to India’s judicial and economic systems, necessitating a nuanced and comprehensive response. Fighting against this crime requires a multipronged approach.

“The judiciary, supported by robust legislative frameworks and dedicated institutional mechanisms, is pivotal in addressing these offences. Establishing specialised courts assisted by experts in financial and economic crimes is essential for timely and effective adjudication,” she said.

Differentiating between traditional and white-collar crimes, she said traditional offences often stem from emotions like anger or revenge, and if cold-blooded, are meticulously planned and executed, sometimes with the help of those with previous criminal history.

“Conversely, white-collar crimes are driven by greed and are characterised by careful planning and execution by individuals with professional assistance. While white-collar crimes inflict reputational or financial damage and lead to substantial financial penalties when detected, traditional crimes result in physical harm and emotional damage,” Justice Kohli said.

However, both types of crimes have a profound effect on the victims and the society at large, she added.

“Ensuring robust cyber security controls to address digital frauds, effective management of third-party risks and compliance culture in Financial Institutions is essential. Digital case management systems can streamline judicial processes, reduce delays and improve efficiency,” she said. Continuous training and capacity building for law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and judges are critical for staying ahead of the evolving curve of these crimes, she said.

“Strengthening these areas can help build a more resilient and transparent legal system that upholds justice and integrity, mitigate the impact of white-collar crime and foster a society where trust and accountability are paramount,” she said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

A day before the Supreme Court hears a clutch of petitions on the alleged irregularities in NEET-UG, the Centre on Wednesday submitted an affidavit in the court stating that a comprehensive analysis of the results has revealed that there was no large-scale malpractice or evidence of a local set of candidates benefiting. 

The Union government also reiterated its stance that it does not intend to hold a retest of the medical entrance exam. Doing so on the basis of “unsubstantiated suspicions”, it said, would burden nearly 24 lakh students, who had appeared for the exam on May 5.

Importantly, the Centre has said that it intends to start the counselling process for NEET-UG, which is the final stage for admissions, from the third week of July in four phases. If any candidate is found to have benefited from any irregularity, their counselling will be cancelled in any of the phases or even after, it said. 

While some petitioners in the Supreme Court have demanded that the medical entrance exam be held again in view of the irregularities and the alleged paper leak, others have petitioned against a retest. 

Bell Curve

In its affidavit, the Centre said experts from IIT Madras have carried out a technical analysis of data from NEET-UG 2024 and found no indication of mass malpractice or a localised set of candidates being benefited, leading to abnormal scores.

The data revealed that there is an overall increase in the marks obtained by students, specifically in the range of 550 to 720, and this rise has been seen across cities and centres. 

The Centre said the increase can be attributed to a 25% reduction in syllabus, and the fact that high scorers were spread out points to a very low likelihood of mass malpractice. 

The analysis also showed that the distribution of marks follows a bell-shaped curve, which is seen in any large-scale examination, and was further evidence of there not being an abnormality, the affidavit stated.

Counselling Plan

The Centre “respectfully submitted” that it intends to start the counselling process in the third week of July and conduct it in four rounds. The government said that IIT Madras has been requested to investigate the people involved in irregularities through data analysis and if evidence from that, or other sources, reveals that any candidate is found to have benefited, their counselling will be cancelled at any stage during or after the process.

On the re-examination issue, the Centre said it is not in support of that because it does not want nearly 24 lakh candidates burdened on the basis of “unsubstantiated suspicions”.

In an earlier affidavit too, the government had said scrapping the 2024 exam in its entirety would “seriously jeopardise” the future of lakhs of honest candidates who had appeared for it. In the absence of proof of any large-scale breach of confidentiality in the examination, it had said, taking such a step would not be rational.

The Centre has also proposed a seven-member expert panel to consider all the issues raised, so that no such leaks or irregularities happen in future exams.

New Delhi:

Prosecuting persons involved in child marriages will not resolve the problem which has social dimensions, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday while reserving the verdict on a PIL over the alleged rise in underage weddings in the country.

Unimpressed by the Centre’s submissions that state-specific programmes like awareness campaigns and training are being undertaken, the top court said, “These programmes, lectures do not really change things on the ground”.

Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action, a non-government organisation in 2017, had filed the PIL in the top court alleging that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act was not being enforced in “letter and spirit”.

A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard submissions from the counsel of the petitioner NGO and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, before reserving the verdict.

“It is not about prosecution only. Prosecuting persons involved in child marriages will not resolve the problem as it has social dimensions,” the bench said and asked the counsel for both sides to give suggestions on a way forward to deal with the issue.

“We are not here to criticise anybody. This is a social issue,” the CJI said and asked the law officer to apprise as to what the government was doing on it.

At the outset, the additional solicitor general informed the bench about the present status and said states like Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra and Assam have witnessed more child marriage cases.

She said northeastern states, sans Assam, have hardly any such incidents.

Five states and UTs including Dadra Nagar Haveli, Mizoram and Nagaland have not reported any case of child marriage, she added.

The law officer referred to the data and said there was marked improvement in the last three years.

She said out of 34 states and UTs, 29 have provided the data on child marriages.

There was no data available on convictions in child marriage cases, she said, adding, “That data is not here. We can get it. But please see, there is a lot of improvement. There is a 50 per cent reduction in cases of child marriages compared to 2005-06.” “We have to work towards the wholesome education of young girls and women. That is how one-half of the population will be able to contribute as national builders and get out of this social evil,” the law officer said.

The court asked why officers like district magistrates and SDMs are being given the additional charge to act as child marriage prohibition officers.

The law officer said that these officers, being in a position of power in districts, are more equipped and empowered to deal with the issue of child marriages.

Earlier, the top court had directed the Ministry of Women and Child Development to file a status report detailing steps taken by it to execute the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

“The Union of India should also engage with the State governments in order to apprise the court on the compliance by states of the provision of Section 16(3) for the appointment of the child marriage Prohibition officer. Affidavit shall also clarify whether the officer so appointed or given other multifarious duties,” the court had said. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, founded by yoga guru Ramdev, to file an affidavit stating whether advertisements of its 14 products, whose manufacturing licences were initially suspended but later restored, have been withdrawn.

The Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority had on April 15 issued an order suspending the manufacturing licences of 14 products of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and Divya Pharmacy.

In a fresh development, the state licensing authority has filed an affidavit in the apex court stating that the suspension order has been cancelled following a report by a high-level committee which examined the grievances of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd in the wake of the row.

It said on May 17, the operation of the April 15 order was paused and later the the suspension order was cancelled.

However, during the hearing, a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta took note of the May 16 affidavit of Patanjali in which the firm stated that the sale of these 14 products was stopped in light of the April 15 suspension order.

The affidavit stated that the company has also taken steps to remove the related advertisements from its official verified social media accounts/handles.

“Respondent number five (Patanjali Ayurved Ltd) is directed to file an affidavit stating inter alia whether the request made to social media intermediaries have been acceded to and advertisements of 14 products have been removed/ withdrawn,” the bench said.

The top court, which was hearing a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) alleging a smear campaign by Patanjali against the Covid vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine, asked the firm to file its affidavit within two weeks.

The bench asked senior advocate P S Patwalia, appearing for the IMA, whether they have done due diligence and checked if these advertisements were withdrawn after the affidavit was filed by Patanjali in May.

During the hearing, an advocate appearing for one of the applicants said the Centre should look into the matter related to misleading advertisements as quickly as possible.

“This is having a great impact on the online industry,” he said, adding, “The industry should not suffer. That is not the intent of the orders (of the court)”.

Justice Kohli said, “The intention is not to cause any harassment to anybody. The intention is only to focus on particular sectors and particular aspects.” One of the advocates said he was appearing for a radio association and they have advertisements which are of 10 seconds.

“We are also of the opinion that the industry should not suffer in any manner. The focus of this court has already been highlighted in the previous orders and needs no repetition,” the bench said.

It said the issue should be discussed by the authorities at the highest level.

“We don’t want that there should be layers of approval so that whatever has to be shortened and simplified, that should be done,” the bench said.

Noting that the scope of the petition has been expanded in terms of its order passed on May 7, the bench requested advocate Shadan Farasat to assist the court as an amicus curiae in the matter.

It said the amicus shall assist the court in collating the data being furnished by the state authorities, including the Centre and other authorities, so as to save time and focus on the issues highlighted by the court earlier.

“Can we request you to convene a meeting so that all the stakeholders and the senior most officers of your department can have a brain-storming,” the bench told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K M Nataraj, who was appearing for the Centre.

Nataraj said the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has held high-level meetings with various stakeholders with an idea of resolving the issues and the difficulties expressed by them.

“He (ASG) submits that such meetings shall be taken further… to streamline the issues and point out the difficulties being faced by the intervenors and the manner in which they can be resolved,” the bench noted.

It asked the ministry to continue the “churning of ideas” and have further meetings in this direction and file an affidavit making its recommendations within three weeks.

The bench said affidavits filed by several state licensing authorities in the matter be furnished to the amicus for his perusal and to enable him to assist the court by pointing out if there were any non-compliance by any of the state authorities in terms of the orders passed by the court.

The bench has posted the matter for further hearing on July 30.

On May 14, the top court had reserved its order on the contempt notice issued to yoga guru Ramdev, his aide Balkrishna and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd in the misleading advertisements case.

Patanjali Ayurved Ltd had assured the top court on November 21 last year that it will not violate any law, especially those relating to advertising or branding of products manufactured and marketed by it.

It had also assured the bench that “no casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine will be released to the media in any form”.

The top court had said Patanjali Ayurved Ltd is “bound down to such assurance”.

The non-observance of the specific undertaking and subsequent media statements had irked the bench, which later issued notices to show cause why contempt proceedings should be not initiated against them. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

Indian Medical Association (IMA) president RV Asokan told the Supreme Court on Tuesday his unconditional apology to the top court over his “damaging” statements in an interview to PTI, where he had answered queries about Patanjali Ayurved Ltd’s misleading advertisements case, has been published in various publications.

The IMA’s counsel told a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta that his unconditional apology has been published in the association’s monthly publication, on the IMA’s website, as also by PTI.

“Last time, I (Asokan) had submitted an affidavit of apology. Your lordships were of the opinion that the apology should be given proper publicity like the interview…,” senior advocate PS Patwalia, appearing for the IMA, told the bench.

He said the IMA has a monthly publication, and on its first page, a full page advertisement says that Mr Asokan has apologised, expressed regret to the top court and has submitted his affidavit tendering unconditional apology.

Mr Patwalia said if the IMA’s website is opened, the apology comes immediately as a pop-up.

“Third, I have sent the apology to the PTI news. PTI has published it,” he said, adding that the same has been shared with other media houses as well. “Where is your publication in PTI?” Justice Kohli asked Mr Patwalia, who then referred to the news published by PTI.

“The deponent (Asokan) has also conveyed his unconditional apology and regret expressed to this court in the deponent’s affidavit to the same news agency to whom the interview had been given by the deponent on April 29,” he said, adding the unconditional apology was reported in various news publications.

The bench asked senior advocate Balbir Singh, who was appearing for Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, whether they have seen the additional affidavit filed by Mr Asokan.

“Balbir Singh, senior advocate appearing for the respondents, states that the respondents may be permitted to peruse the affidavit and assist the court on the next date of hearing,” the bench noted in its order and posted the matter for further hearing on August 6.

The bench told Singh, “If you want to file a reply, its okay. You don’t need to file a reply. It is really between the court and the party but you can assist the court in whatever way you want to.” Mr Patwalia told the bench that Mr Asokan was personally present in the court and he may be exempted from personal appearance.

“He is exempted for the present from appearance,” the bench said, while granting the request.

During the hearing on May 14, the bench had posed some tough question to Mr Asokan over his “damaging” statements against the court in an interview to PTI and said, “You cannot sit on a couch giving an interview to the press and lampooning the court.” The court had then made it clear that it will not accept his affidavit tendering apology at that stage.

Expressing displeasure over Mr Asokan’s comments a day before the top court was slated to the hear the matter, it had sought his response on an application filed by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, which had urged the court to take judicial notice of the statements made by him.

In an interaction with PTI editors on April 29 for its programme ‘@4 Parliament Street,’ the IMA president had said it was “unfortunate” that the Supreme Court criticised the association and also some of the practices of private doctors.

Mr Asokan was replying to a query about the Supreme Court’s observations during a hearing on April 23, when it had said while it was pointing one finger at Patanjali, the remaining four fingers were pointed towards IMA. The top court is hearing a plea filed in 2022 by the IMA alleging a smear campaign by Patanjali against the Covid vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court has ordered appointment of a 100 per cent visually impaired candidate, who cleared the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in 2009, within three months while slamming the Centre for failing to implement provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act and fill backlog vacancies.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal said there is a “gross default” on the part of the Union of India in promptly implementing the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995.

“Unfortunately, in this case, at all stages, the appellant has taken a stand which defeats the very object of enacting laws for the benefit of persons with disability. If the appellant had implemented the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, in its true letter and spirit, respondent no.1 (visually impaired candidate) would not have been forced to run from pillar to post to get justice,” the bench said.

In this case, Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, who is 100 per cent visually impaired, appeared in the Civil Services Examination, 2008 and gave four preferences for services in the following order — Indian Administrative Services (IAS), Indian Revenue Services-Income Tax (IRS (IT)), Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS) and Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Excise) (IRS (C&E)).

After having taken the written test and interview, Srivastava was denied an appointment. He then moved the Central Administrative Tribunal which in 2010 directed the Union Public Service Commission and the Department of Personnel and Training to calculate the backlog vacancies following the mandate of the PWD Act, 1995 within six months.

CAT also directed the Union of India to inform Srivastava if service could be allocated to him.

Pursuant to the said order, on September 9, 2011, the UPSC informed him that his name did not figure in the merit list of CSE-2008 within the number of available vacancies for the PH-2 (Visually Impaired-VI) category.

Subsequently, Srivastava filed another application before the CAT which directed the UPSC to accomodate candidates selected on their own merit in the unreserved/general category in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated December 29, 2005.

A direction was issued that the candidates belonging to category VI must be selected against the reserved category and be given an appointment but the UPSC informed him in 2012 that he was not qualified for appointment in the PH-2 (VI) quota.

The Union of India, challenged the CAT judgment in the Delhi High Court which dismissed the appeal. The Centre then moved the top court.

The top court directed that cases of respondent no.1 (Srivastava) and 10 other candidates belonging to category VI, who were above him in the merit list of CSE-2008, shall be considered for appointment against the backlog vacancies of PWD candidates either in IRS (IT) or in other service/branch.

“Necessary action of giving appointments shall be taken within a period of three months from today. The appointments will be made prospectively. The appointees will not be entitled to the arrears of salary and the benefit of seniority, etc.

“Only for the purposes of retirement benefits, their services shall be counted from the date on which the last candidate of the VI category in CSE-2008 was given an appointment,” the bench said.

The top court made it clear that these directions have been issued as a one-time measure in the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and the same shall not be treated as a precedent.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Hathras incident that claimed the lives of 121 followers at a satsang, or religious gathering, of a self-styled godman last week, has reached the Supreme Court over a demand for a probe led by a retired top court judge.

Supreme Court lawyer Vishal Tiwari has filed a petition demanding that the stampede tragedy be probed by a five-member expert committee under the supervision of a retired top court judge.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has ordered the listing of the petition. The Supreme Court registry has scheduled the hearing on Friday.

The petitioner also demanded that the Uttar Pradesh government submit a status report on the incident and take legal action against those – including officials – found responsible. The petition urged the Supreme Court to frame the required guidelines.

A Special Investigative Team (SIT) probing the incident has blamed overcrowding as the main reason behind the stampede at the satsang of ‘Bhole Baba’, whose real name is Suraj Pal Singh.

The SIT, comprising Additional Director General of Police (Agra Zone) Anupam Kulshrestha and Aligarh Divisional Commissioner Chaitra V, submitted its report to the Yogi Adityanath government today.

While details are awaited, some reports claim that the SIT has said the self-styled godman and his aides could have prevented the tragedy.

According to the FIR registered in connection with the incident, the ‘satsang’ organisers had sought permission for a gathering of 80,000 people, but over 2.5 lakh followers turned up.

Reports suggest the stampede began when the ‘godman’ was leaving and his followers rushed to collect the dust stirred by his car’s tyres, thinking of it as his blessings. The godman’s private security guards started pushing his followers and in the chaos, people slipped and were trampled in the open field, according to the subdivisional magistrate’s report.

Cops have arrested nine people, including main organizer Devprakash Madhukar, so far while Bhole Baba has not been named as an accused yet.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Monday held that bail conditions allowing an investigating agency to continuously track the movements of an accused violate the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, which deleted a bail condition imposed on Nigerian national Frank Vitus in a drugs case that mandated him to drop a PIN on the Google map to ensure that his location is available to the investigation officer of the case, said this court has held that bail conditions cannot be “fanciful, arbitrary or freakish”.

The bench said, “The investigating agency cannot be permitted to continuously peep into the private life of the accused enlarged on bail, by imposing arbitrary conditions since that will violate the right of privacy of the accused, as guaranteed by Article 21.” It said if a constant vigil is kept on every movement of the accused released on bail by the use of technology or otherwise, it will infringe the rights of the accused guaranteed under Article 21, including the right to privacy.

“The reason is that the effect of keeping such constant vigil on the accused by imposing drastic bail conditions will amount to keeping the accused in some kind of confinement even after he is released on bail. Such a condition cannot be a condition of bail,” it said.

The bench said imposing any bail condition which enables the police/investigation agency to track every movement of the accused released on bail by using any technology or otherwise would undoubtedly violate the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21.

“In this case, the condition of dropping a PIN on Google Maps has been incorporated without even considering the technical effect of dropping a PIN and the relevance of the said condition as a condition of bail. This cannot be a condition of bail. The condition deserves to be deleted and ordered accordingly,” it said.

The court said in the case at hand, it is dealing with a case of the accused whose guilt is yet to be established and so long as he is not held guilty, the presumption of innocence is applicable.

“He cannot be deprived of all his rights guaranteed under Article 21. The courts must show restraint while imposing bail conditions. Therefore, while granting bail, the courts can curtail the freedom of the accused only to the extent required for imposing the bail conditions warranted by law,” the bench said in its order, which was reserved on April 29.

Underscoring that bail conditions cannot be so onerous as to frustrate the order of bail itself, the bench said the court may impose a condition of periodically reporting to the police station/court or not travelling abroad without prior permission.

“Where circumstances require, the court may impose a condition restraining an accused from entering a particular area to protect the prosecution witnesses or the victims. But the court cannot impose a condition on the accused to keep the police constantly informed about his movement from one place to another. The object of the bail condition cannot be to keep a constant vigil on the movements of the accused enlarged on bail,” it said.

The top court said the accused is bound by the conditions imposed while granting bail and if he, after being enlarged on bail, commits a breach of bail conditions or commits any offence, the courts always have the power to cancel the bail.

“A condition cannot be imposed while granting bail which is impossible for the accused to comply with. If such a condition is imposed, it will deprive an accused of bail, though he is otherwise entitled to it,” it said.

It added that the object of imposing conditions of bail is to ensure that the accused does not interfere or obstruct the investigation in any manner, remains available for the investigation, does not tamper with or destroy evidence, does not commit any offence, remains regularly present before the trial court, and does not create obstacles in the expeditious conclusion of the trial.

“The courts have imposed a condition that the accused should cooperate with the investigation when bail is granted before filing the final report or charge sheet. Cooperating with the investigation does not mean that the accused must confess,” it said, adding that the bail conditions must be consistent with the object of imposing conditions.

While imposing bail conditions, the constitutional rights of an accused, who is ordered to be released on bail, can be curtailed only to the minimum extent required, it said.

“Even an accused convicted by a competent Court and undergoing a sentence in prison is not deprived of all his rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution,” the bench pointed out.

The top court also deleted another condition imposed on Victus by the Delhi High Court that he will have to obtain a certificate from the Embassy/High Commission of Nigeria that he shall not leave the country and shall appear before the court as and when required in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act case.

Victus was arrested on May 21, 2014 in the case and was released on bail on May 31, 2022 subject to various terms and conditions incorporated in the said order.

He moved the Supreme Court challenging the twin conditions imposed by the high court – sharing of Google PIN location with the investigating officer and obtaining a certificate from the embassy. 

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)