Court's On Friday
Shashank Pandey
Book Curator | Bi-Weekly Newsletters ( 7 oct 2024) | Helping You Find Your Next Great Read | Data Science Enthusiast | Math Background | Driven by Curiosity, Resilience
The Supreme Court, on Friday, issued a notice in response to a plea filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi seeking a stay on his conviction and two-year jail term imposed on him by a Gujarat court in a criminal defamation case. The case revolves around Gandhi's remark "All thieves have Modi surname," where he linked Prime Minister Narendra Modi with fugitives like Nirav Modi and Lalit Modi during an election rally in Karnataka's Kolar constituency in 2019.
A bench consisting of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra sought responses from respondents Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi and the State of Gujarat and scheduled further consideration of the case for August 4.
During the hearing, Justice Gavai offered to recuse himself from the case due to his family's association with the Congress party. However, both parties did not object to Justice Gavai hearing the matter.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahul Gandhi, pressed for interim relief, stating that the petitioner had already suffered for 111 days, losing one parliamentary session and facing the prospect of losing another. Elections to the parliamentary constituency of Wayanad, represented by Gandhi, were approaching. Singhvi argued for an interim suspension of disqualification, but the Court refused to pass any order, stating that the respondents also needed to be heard.
The Court also observed that the order of the Gujarat High Court, which refused to stay the conviction, was unusually long for a matter seeking a stay. The High Court's single-judge bench, Justice Hemant Prachchhak, had refused relief on July 7, stating that staying conviction is not a rule and should only be exercised in rare cases.
The initial proceedings arose after Purnesh Modi, a former BJP Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), objected to Gandhi's remarks, claiming that he humiliated and defamed individuals with the Modi surname. The Magistrate court in Surat accepted this contention, and Gandhi was convicted on March 23, 2023.
Gandhi's conviction led to his disqualification as a parliamentarian. He then approached the Gujarat High Court seeking a stay on his conviction, but the court refused to grant relief, leading to his appeal before the Supreme Court.
In his plea before the apex court, Gandhi argued that the High Court's order had no precedent in the jurisprudence of defamation law in India. He also contended that an undefined amorphous group of 13 crore people was held to be defamed based on the complainant's claim.
The entire approach of the High Court judgment, according to Gandhi, was to mischaracterize his one-line statement as "very serious."
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta wrote a strongly worded letter to Home Secretary Ajay Bhalla expressing deep concern over the presence of convicted terrorist Yasin Malik in the Supreme Court. Malik appeared in person before the top court on Friday in connection with an appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against a special Jammu court's order calling for his physical presence for trial proceedings in Jammu.
In the letter, SG Mehta pointed out that neither the Supreme Court had requested Malik's personal presence nor had any permission been taken from the appropriate authority to produce him in court. Mehta emphasized the seriousness of the matter, as Malik, with his terrorist and secessionist background and connections to terror organizations in Pakistan, could have potentially escaped, been forcibly taken away, or even killed while being brought to the Court.
The SG learned that Malik was presented before the Court based on a general notice sent by the Supreme Court to all litigants. However, such a notice does not authorize or permit the personal production of a convict facing an order under Section 268 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to appear in court.
Mehta also highlighted that there is an existing order by the Home Ministry under Section 268 of the CrPC that bars jail authorities from bringing Malik out of jail for security reasons. Despite this order, Malik was brought to the Supreme Court, which posed a serious security risk not only to him but also to the Court's security.
The Jammu special court had summoned Malik's appearance for cross-examination of witnesses in two cases—the killing of four IAF personnel and the abduction of Rubaiya Sayeed, daughter of former Chief Minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed in 1989. However, the Supreme Court had issued a notice in April, staying the orders directing Malik's physical presence.
In conclusion, SG Mehta urged the Home Secretary to take suitable steps to address the serious security lapse, considering it a matter of great importance to be brought to his personal attention.
The Supreme Court has asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to respond to a plea filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader and Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji and his wife S Megala, seeking the minister's release after his arrest last month in connection with a money laundering case.
A bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh issued notice to the ED and requested both parties to keep their submissions brief, taking into consideration that three judges of the Madras High Court have already considered the matter.
Balaji and his wife moved the Supreme Court challenging a Madras High Court order that had declined to release him in a cash-for-jobs scam case being investigated by the ED. The minister was arrested in connection with the case last month after being questioned by the ED.
On July 14, the Madras High Court ruled against Balaji's release in a habeas corpus petition filed by his wife. This order was issued by Justice CV Karthikeyan, who was appointed as the tie-breaker judge after two other judges of the High Court failed to reach an agreement on the matter.
The case against Balaji relates to alleged irregularities in the appointment of bus conductors, drivers, and junior engineers in the State transport department during his tenure as the Transport Minister in the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) government between 2011 and 2015. Balaji had later joined the DMK in 2018.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Following his remand by a sessions court, Balaji was placed under judicial custody. However, instead of being sent to prison, he was transferred to a private hospital and underwent bypass surgery.
Subsequently, his wife filed a habeas corpus petition before the High Court seeking his release. After a division bench of the High Court delivered a split verdict on the plea, a third judge was appointed to decide the matter. Justice Karthikeyan, as the tie-breaker judge, concluded that Balaji's arrest by the ED was legal, and therefore, the High Court could not quash such an arrest to release the minister from custody.
The Supreme Court, in a hearing on Friday, stayed orders and proceedings in various High Courts against the makers of the Hindi film Adipurush. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia expressed concern over the declining tolerance for creative work.
During the hearing, the bench considered a batch of petitions, including a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the revocation of the film's certification for screening. The PIL alleged that the film hurt Hindu sentiments and distorted sacred texts. However, the Supreme Court did not find merit in these contentions.
Justice Kaul remarked, "Why should we interfere under Article 32? Everybody is now touchy on everything. Should we scrutinise everything? Tolerance for films, books these days is going down."
In a brief but strongly-worded order, the bench dismissed the PIL and emphasized the importance of cinematic liberties. It noted that cinematographic depictions play with the original material, but the extent to which it is permissible falls within the purview of a separate body. The court stated that it cannot interfere in each person's sensibilities under Article 32, and these matters are not for the court to hear and review certification decisions. Instead, individuals aggrieved by the decision of the appellate authority can pursue legal remedies.
Other petitions were filed by T-Series, the production company behind the movie, challenging orders and proceedings in different High Courts. The lead petition challenged an Allahabad High Court order summoning the film's makers following some strong remarks.
The Supreme Court issued notices in these appeals and stayed the proceedings before the Allahabad and Calcutta High Courts.
Adipurush, the film in question, has faced various legal challenges since its release, and the makers were compelled to modify some scenes and dialogues due to strong objections from different sections of society.
The Allahabad High Court had criticized the film's makers for the shameful and vulgar depiction of certain characters in the movie. Consequently, it directed the film's director Om Raut, producer Bhushan Kumar, and dialogue writer Manoj Muntashir to appear in person before the Court on July 27, along with personal affidavits explaining their intentions.
Additionally, the High Court ordered the formation of an expert committee to re-examine whether Adipurush remains faithful to the Ramayana, the source of inspiration behind the film.
The Supreme Court expressed its opinion that it would be in the best interest of all stakeholders if the civil suit concerning the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Idgah Masjid dispute is heard by the Allahabad High Court. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia remarked that High Courts are better suited to handle cases involving disputed religious sites, given the sensitive nature of the matter and the potential for creating disquiet in society.
The case pertains to an appeal challenging a May verdict of the Allahabad High Court, which allowed a plea by Hindu parties to transfer the suit from the trial court to the High Court. The Committee Management Trust of the Shahi Idgah mosque challenged this High Court order in the Supreme Court, contending that it was passed even though no transfer application was filed. The Trust argued that the High Court's decision was primarily based on the notion that the trial court would take time to decide on the suit.
During the hearing, the Trust's counsel emphasized that they did not intend to delay the trial. The counsel also questioned whether all parties involved in the case would have the means to travel to Prayagraj (where the principal seat of the Allahabad High Court is located) for hearings.
In response, Justice Kaul and Justice Dhulia remarked that it may be better if High Courts handle such sensitive issues. Justice Dhulia added that eventually, all parties would have to come to Allahabad.
The Court adjourned the matter by three weeks and requested details of all suits involved in the dispute from the High Court Registrar. The Supreme Court indicated that it would provide guidelines on how to proceed with the hearing.
The civil suit seeks the removal of the Mathura Shahi Idgah Masjid, claiming it was built on Krishna Janmabhoomi land. The Hindu side moved the High Court seeking a transfer of the trial court proceedings, stating the matter's significance concerning Lord Krishna's devotees and the interpretation of the Constitution of India.
Previously, a civil court had dismissed the suit in September 2020, citing the bar on admitting the case under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. However, the Mathura District Court overturned this decision in May 2022, holding the suit as maintainable and allowing it to proceed.
Follow me Shashank Pandey