Connect with us
Wednesday,10-September-2025
Breaking News

National News

‘Surpassed Laxman Rekha, indelible scar’, ex-judges, bureaucrats on SC remarks against Nupur Sharma

Published

on

A group consisting of 15 retired judges of various high courts, 77 retired bureaucrats and 25 retired armed forces officers have written an open letter criticising the observations of the Supreme Court on a plea by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma.

They alleged that the comments made by the two judges — Justices Surya Kant and Justice J.B. Pardiwala — are unfortunate and unprecedented, and the top court surpassed the ‘Laxman Rekha’ and called for urgent rectification steps.

The statement said: “In the annals of judiciary, the unfortunate comments have no parallel and are an indelible scar on the justice system of the largest democracy. Urgent rectification steps are called for as these have potentially serious consequences on democratic values and security of the country.”

The veterans said they believe that the democracy of any country will remain intact till all the institutions perform their duties as per the Constitution. “Recent comments by the two judges of the Supreme Court have surpassed the Laxman Rekha and compelled us to issue an open statement.”

It further added that observations are not in sync with judicial ethos and by no stretch these observations, which are not part of the judicial order, can be sanctified on the plank of judicial propriety and fairness.

The veterans said through such observation, perceptionally there is virtual exoneration of the dastardliest beheading at Udaipur in broad daylight. “The observations also graduate to the most unjustifiable degree that this was only to fan an agenda… In the annals of judiciary, the unfortunate comments have no parallel and are an indelible scar on the justice system of the largest democracy,” said the three-page open statement. They said Sharma was de facto denied access to the judiciary and in the process, there was an outrage on the Preamble, spirit and essence of the Constitution.

The veterans said the legal fraternity is bound to be surprised and shocked at the observation that an FIR should lead to arrest and the observations on other agencies in the country, without notice to them, are indeed worrisome and alarming. “Forcing a petitioner by such damning observations, pronouncing her guilty without trial, and denial of access to justice on issue raised in the petition, can never be a facet of a democratic society,” added the statement.

Sharma had moved the top court seeking clubbing of FIRs, registered in various parts of the country, into one FIR at Delhi in the matter connected with her remarks against the Prophet Muhammed. On July 1, the apex court slammed Sharma for her controversial remarks.

The statement said the allegations constitute only one offence for which separate prosecutions (FIRs) were launched and Article 20 (2) of the Constitution prohibits prosecution and punishment more than once for the same offence. “Article 20 falls under Part III of the Constitution and is a guaranteed fundamental right. The Supreme Court in a number of cases, including Arnab Goswamy vs. Union of India (2020) and T.T. Anthony vs. State of Kerala clearly laid down the law that there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation in respect to the second FIR on the same issue. Such an action is violative of fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution”, it said.

“Such an approach of the Supreme Court deserves no applause and impacts the very sanctity and honour of the highest court of land,” it added.

The signatories include former chief justice of the Bombay High Court Kshitij Vyas, former Gujarat High Court judge S.M. Soni, former Delhi High Court judge S.N. Dhingra, former chief justice (acting) Gauhati High Court K. Sreedhar Rao, former Rajasthan High Court judges R.S. Rathore and Prashant Agarwal.

The other signatories include: former IAS officers R.S. Gopalan and S. Krishna Kumar, former DGPs S.P. Vaid and B.L. Vohra, ambassador (retired) Niranjan Desai, Lt Gen V.K. Chaturvedi (retired) and Air Marshall (retired) S.P. Singh. The coordinators are Justice P.N. Ravindran, former judge of Kerala High Court, and Anand Bose, former chief secretary, Kerala.

National News

SC asks HCs to ensure timely upload of reasoned judgments

Published

on

suprim court

New Delhi, Sep 9: The Supreme Court has directed High Courts across the country to ensure that reasoned judgments are uploaded without delay after the pronouncement of operative orders.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta termed the delay a “matter of grave concern” after noting that the Punjab and Haryana High Court pronounced its decision on February 18, 2016, but uploaded the full judgment only on July 18, 2018 — a gap of about 2 years and 5 months.

“Over a period of time, it has been the practice of a few High Courts to pronounce the operative part of the order without the reasoned judgment and after a substantial length of time, the reasoned judgment is uploaded. This practice has been deprecated by this court in many of its judgments and orders,” the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench said.

Citing the apex court’s earlier ruling in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, it said: “Delay in disposal of the cases facilitates the people to raise eyebrows, sometimes genuinely, which, if not checked, may shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system. For the fault of a few, the glorious and glittering name of the judiciary cannot be permitted to be made ugly.”

The Supreme Court directed that its judgment be circulated to all High Courts, reiterating the guidelines laid down in the Anil Rai case requiring judgments to be delivered without delay.

“We hope that we may not have to come across any matter wherein there is a delay at the end of the High Court in uploading the reasoned order, more particularly after the operative part of the judgment is pronounced,” the bench observed.

Earlier in August, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra had voiced strong concern over long delays by High Courts in pronouncing judgments after hearings are concluded, warning that such a situation erodes “litigants’ faith in the judicial process”.

The Justice Karol-led Bench noted that it is “repeatedly confronted” with cases where proceedings are kept pending in the High Courts for over three months, and in some instances for more than six months or even years.

Disposing of a special leave petition (SLP) concerning a criminal appeal pending since 2008 in the Allahabad High Court, the apex court had termed it “extremely shocking and surprising” that the judgment was not delivered for nearly a year from the date when the appeal was heard.

Continue Reading

Crime

Kalyan Advocate Suicide Case: Shiv Sena (UBT) Leader, Co-Accused Seek Anticipatory Bail; Husband Opposes

Published

on

crime

Of the five accused named in the alleged abetment to suicide case of activist-advocate Sarita Khanchandani, two have approached the Additional Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail. The pleas, however, have been strongly opposed by the deceased’s husband, Advocate Purshottam Khanchandani, who claimed that the accused have criminal antecedents and pose a high risk of tampering with evidence.

Accused Dhananjay Bodare, Shiv Sena (UBT) Kalyan district president, in his bail plea questioned the credibility of the suicide note recovered by Sarita’s family. Bodare described the note as “vague and omnibus,” alleging that it mentions several individuals collectively without assigning specific roles to any of them.

FPJ has accessed the detailed anticipatory bail application, which have challenged the suicide note alleging it to be‘so-called suicide note to be a vague and omnibus in nature’, which states:” Names of several individuals have been mentioned together in the notice without any details or attribution of acts. “

The ABA copy further reads, “The deceased, her husband, and daughter are all advocates by profession and well-versed with law. If there was any abetment, they would have produced the suicide note immediately. Instead, its discovery days later—after police initially refused to register abetment charges—raises serious doubts about its authenticity. The note appears to be an afterthought, fabricated to falsely implicate the applicant,” the plea argues.

The application further points out that initially, after the incident on August 28, no abetment offence was registered despite public allegations on social media by the family. The alleged suicide note was claimed to have been found on September 1, following a purported recovery of the deceased’s “lost mobile” and CCTV footage showing her writing in a diary.

Opposing the pleas, Advocate Purshottam Khanchandani, advocate Sarita’s husband,  alleged that Bodare and others, have allegedly  systematically harassed Sarita over a property dispute. He claimed that Bodare had allegedly illegally encroached on government land, built an unauthorized Shiv Sena Shakha, and attempted to capture part of Sarita’s property.

The objection states, “The accused deliberately created an atmosphere of fear and pressure, instigating Sarita to take the extreme step. They used political clout and even filed false cases under the Atrocities Act to force her to withdraw an FIR. They also defamed her through derogatory social media posts,” the reply reads.

The husband further alleged that Bodare rewarded co-accused Ulhas Falke by appointing him as Shakha Pramukh of the unauthorized shakha and used threats and nuisance to terrorize Sarita. The reply also cites Bodare’s alleged involvement in rioting, land encroachment, criminal intimidation, and violations under the Water Pollution Act.

The husband  asserted that custodial interrogation of the accused is essential for an effective probe, as they may possess vital evidence. He warned that granting anticipatory bail could allow them to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, and derail the investigation.

“Bodare is one of the masterminds of this crime and has been absconding since the FIR was registered,” the reply reads.

Another accused, Raj Chandwani, also sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the FIR does not attribute any specific role to him and that his arrest would cause hardship to his family. His plea too was opposed by Khanchandani.

The court has reserved its order on the anticipatory bail pleas.

Continue Reading

National News

Sonia, Rahul Gandhi cast their votes for VP election

Published

on

New Delhi, Sep 9: Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, and Congress Parliamentary Party (CPP) Chairperson Sonia Gandhi arrived at the New Parliament Building in New Delhi to cast their votes for the Vice Presidential election on Tuesday.

The election is witnessing the contest between the NDA nominee, Maharashtra Governor C.P. Radhakrishnan, and the INDIA bloc candidate, former Supreme Court judge B. Sudershan Reddy.

Congress National President Mallikarjun Kharge arrived to cast his vote. He was accompanied by Union Minister Nitin Gadkari, and both were seen smiling and walking hand-in-hand.

Congress Wayanad MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra was also seen arriving to cast her vote for the Vice-Presidential election.

Other parliamentarians of the NDA and the INDIA bloc were also trooping in to cast their votes.

Union Ministers Kiren Rijiju and Ram Mohan Naidu Kinjarapu, along with Shiv Sena MP Shrikant Shinde, have been appointed as official election agents for the process.

Counting of votes will be held later in the day, after which the results will be announced.

This election holds significant political weight, as the Vice President also serves as the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, making the role crucial in the functioning of Parliament.

The electoral college for the Vice Presidential election comprises 781 members, including 542 elected members of the Lok Sabha and 239 members of the Rajya Sabha (233 elected and 12 nominated, with six vacancies across both Houses).

All votes carry equal value, and voting is conducted through a secret ballot, as per established parliamentary procedure. The majority mark needed to win is 391 votes.

The Vice President’s post fell vacant after Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned on July 21, citing health concerns, on the first day of the monsoon session of Parliament.

Political observers expect a keenly watched contest, though the NDA is seen as having a numerical advantage in the combined strength of the two Houses.

However, all eyes remain on potential cross-voting and the outcome this evening.

Continue Reading

Trending