Tag: Supreme court

  • Brainstorming in CJI court regarding the little life sitting in the womb, the court will hear again on Wednesday

    Brainstorming in CJI court regarding the little life sitting in the womb, the court will hear again on Wednesday

    New Delhi:

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear again the case of a tiny life which is still in the mother’s womb and is 26 weeks old. On Monday itself, the Supreme Court had given permission to abort the fetus. But after coming to know about the dilemma of AIIMS doctors on Tuesday, CJI DY Chandrachud understood the seriousness of the matter. CJI Chandrachud’s bench has said that AIIMS should not do abortion at present. CJI said that the Center should file a formal application to withdraw this order.

    AIIMS urges Supreme Court to withdraw its order

    In fact, on the basis of the medical report of AIIMS experts, ASG Aishwarya Bhati mentioned the case before the bench of DY Chandrachud before the court took up. Bhati told the bench that AIIMS experts are in a dilemma because of the Supreme Court order. AIIMS urged the Supreme Court to withdraw its order as the fetus growing in the woman’s stomach is alive and has favorable chances of being born. AIIMS doctors say that in this situation it would not be abortion but a kind of murder. CJI Chandrachud understood the seriousness of this matter and said that he will form a bench and hear the matter on Wednesday.

    In fact, AIIMS has informed Aishwarya Bhati that since traces of life are visible in the fetus, abortion cannot be done without stopping its heartbeat. In such a situation, this is a situation of serious dilemma. It should be made clear in the Supreme Court whether parents can give birth to a child. Or the process of adopting him can be done later.

    On Monday the Supreme Court had ordered abortion

    In fact, on Monday itself, the Supreme Court had given permission to a married woman to abort her 26-week unwanted pregnancy. The bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice BV Nagarathna said that the petitioner has said that she is already the mother of two children and is suffering from various health related problems including post-natal depression. She is financially, mentally and socially incapable of raising this third child.

    The court also believes that when the mother does not want it, then this court respects the decision of the petitioner. The petitioner told the court that she was breastfeeding her second child. According to medical reports, pregnancy does not occur during this condition of lateral amenorrhea. But she did not know when she became pregnant again. By the time she came to know, it was too late. The court had asked the experts of AIIMS to conduct a medical examination and submit a report and the court directed that on the medical advice Abortion can also be done through the process of incubation.

  • Strictness increased on Ola and Uber, bike taxis will be confiscated

    Companies like Ola and Uber, which provide bike taxi services through apps, may face difficulties if they continue this service in the capital. Delhi government has said that if these companies do not follow the court order banning bike tax, then their bike taxis will be confiscated. The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the Delhi government’s ban on bike taxis. This was a shock to Uber who had appealed to the court to continue this service. The Delhi government had argued in the court that bike taxis violate city laws as they do not have a license for this service. Uber said that due to this ban, its riders will lose their livelihood. Ashish Kundra, principal secretary and transport commissioner of the Delhi government, told Reuters that these companies should focus on the safety of passengers instead of chasing profits. He said, “We will issue an advisory to these companies asking them to comply with the court order. If they do not do so, we will start seizing the vehicles.” Uber and Ola did not respond to requests for comment. Both these companies were offering bike taxi service through their apps on Tuesday also. The Supreme Court had stayed the High Court order in which these bike taxi operators were allowed to continue service in Delhi. The High Court had directed the Delhi government not to take any action against these firms until a new policy is made. The vacation bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Rajesh Bindal had stayed the High Court’s May 26 order. Along with this, the information of Delhi Government’s lawyer about giving notification of the final policy before the end of July was recorded. Two separate petitions were being heard in the Supreme Court. These petitions were to challenge the High Court order of May 26 of the AAP Aadmi Party government in Delhi. Last week, the court had sought answers from the central government in this regard. The Delhi government had approved the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Scheme last month. In this, cab aggregators and delivery service providers were regulated in the capital.

  • Hearing on petitions of Rahul, Sonia, Priyanka Gandhi and AAP postponed in Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court has asked at what stage the court proceedings are. Why did the petitioner file the writ with a delay of five months? Justice Sanjeev Khanna said that delay in such cases can be fatal?

    He said that, as far as concurrent jurisdiction is concerned, subject-matter jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction are different. Generally we intervene only where there is a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Also, it is important to note that it is not being shifted out of Delhi. All this is in Delhi only.

    Challenge the decision of Delhi High Court

    Actually, the Supreme Court heard the petitions filed by Sonia Gandhi, Priyanka, Rahul Gandhi, Aadmi Party and five trusts. Everyone has challenged the decision of Delhi High Court. A demand has been made to stay the High Court’s decision. The High Court had upheld the Income Tax decision to transfer tax assessment to the central circle.

    On May 26, Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Aam Aadmi Party did not get relief. The Delhi High Court had upheld the Income Tax Department’s decision to transfer assessment to the central circle. The petitions challenging the decision to transfer the cases from faceless assessment to the Central Circle were rejected.

    The High Court had said that there is no fundamental or inherent legal right to conduct assessment through faceless assessment. The assessment has been transferred as per law and for better coordination.

    The transfer was in accordance with the law

    The bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma had said that this transfer was as per the law. However, the court clarified that it did not examine the case on merits. The parties are free to present their arguments before the appropriate statutory authority.

    Actually, the Income Tax Department had transferred the IT assessment of five non-profit organizations – Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust, Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, Rajiv Gandhi Charitable Trust, Young Indian and Jawahar Bhawan Trust. This was challenged in the Delhi High Court. The challengers included Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Aam Aadmi Party and Charitable Trust.

  • Bihar caste census case: complaint in Supreme Court on making data public

    Bihar caste census case: complaint in Supreme Court on making data public

    The last time all castes in the country were enumerated was in 1931.

    New Delhi:

    The matter of making Bihar caste census data public has reached the Supreme Court. The petitioner has expressed objection to making the data public. It has been said in the complaint that how can the data be released while the hearing in this case is pending in the Supreme Court? A demand has been made for an early hearing in this matter in the Supreme Court. The court has decided that this case will be heard on October 6.

    The Supreme Court says that we cannot say anything on this matter right now. Actually, the Supreme Court is hearing petitions against caste enumeration. Justice Sanjeev Khanna’s bench is hearing this case. However, the bench had already refused to stay the calculation. Also, there was no restriction on making the data public. However, before this the Patna High Court had allowed caste enumeration, against which petitions were filed in the Supreme Court.

    Let us tell you that the Nitish Kumar government in Bihar on Monday released the much-awaited caste-based census figures, according to which the share of Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Extremely Backward Classes (EBC) in the total population of the state is 63 percent. According to data released by Bihar Development Commissioner Vivek Singh, the total population of the state is a little over 13.07 crore, in which EBC (36 per cent) has emerged as the largest social class, followed by OBC (27.13 per cent).

    Bihar’s Nitish Kumar government had ordered caste-based enumeration in the state last year after the Narendra Modi government at the Center made it clear that it would not count castes other than SCs and STs as part of the general census. Will be able to do it. The last census of all castes in the country was done in 1931. Along with giving approval to conduct caste based census on June 2 last year, the Bihar Cabinet had also allocated an amount of Rs 500 crore for it.

    Read this also :-

  • “No fault of police”: UP government’s affidavit in Supreme Court in Atiq Ahmed murder case

    The Uttar Pradesh government said that it has left no stone unturned in the investigation of the murder of Atiq Ahmed. (file)

    New Delhi :

    strong leader ateek Ahmed In the case of murder of (Atiq Ahmed) and his brother Ashraf in police custody. Government of Uttar Pradesh (Uttar Pradesh Government) Supreme Court An affidavit has been filed in the (Supreme Court). In the affidavit, the government has said that there is no fault of the police in the murder of Atiq Ahmed. Along with this, the government also said in the affidavit that it has investigated seven alleged fake encounter killings, including that of Ahmed, and has concluded that there was no mistake on the part of the Uttar Pradesh Police.

    The Uttar Pradesh government also reiterated that it has left no stone unturned in the investigation of the murder of Atiq Ahmed. The widespread allegations leveled against his police are false. Also in the affidavit, the UP government has said that it will ensure a fair trial in the Atiq Ahmed murder case.

    The UP government said in the status report that out of the seven incidents highlighted by the petitioner, investigation into all the incidents has been completed as per the guidelines already issued by the Supreme Court. Also said that in the encounter cases where investigation has been completed, no fault has been found on the part of the police.

    What did the government say in Vikas Dubey death case?

    On behalf of the government, it was said that in the Vikas Dubey case, the state government had constituted a 3-member judicial inquiry commission under the chairmanship of retired Supreme Court judge Justice BS Chauhan. Chauhan Commission was asked to investigate the Bikru incident and the subsequent death of Vikas Dubey and some of his associates. The investigation has not revealed any kind of suspicion in the case of Vikas Dubey’s death.

    Instructions for prompt investigation and disposal

    The government also said that guidelines have been given for prompt investigation and disposal of those killed in police encounters. Regular review is done at the police headquarters level after receiving information from all zones/commissionerates regarding the investigation of cases registered in relation to criminals killed in self-defense by the police and the ongoing investigations by the National Human Rights Commission.

    read this also :

    * Vijay Mishra used to demand extortion money in the name of Atiq Ahmed and Ashraf, know these things related to the lawyer
    * Uttar Pradesh: Gangster Atiq Ahmed’s lawyer also arrested in Umesh Pal murder case.
    * Tribute paid to Atiq Ahmed in Lok Sabha, know what Speaker Om Birla said?

  • ED Director: Rahul Naveen has been made the acting director of ED, will hold the post till the appointment of a new director.

    New ED Director: The tenure of current ED Chief Sanjay Kumar Mishra has ended today i.e. on 15th September. According to media reports, in his place, ED has made IRS officer Rahul Naveen as the new director. That means Rahul Naveen will be the new acting director of ED from today. It is expected that he will start taking charge as Executive Director from Saturday. Before this, Sanjay Kumar Mishra had served as ED Chief for about 5 years. At the same time, the Supreme Court had declared the third service extension of current Enforcement Directorate (ED) chief Sanjay Kumar Mishra illegal.

    IRS officer Rahul Naveen will be the new acting director of ED.
    Let us tell you, IRS officer Rahul Naveen is a 1993 batch officer. Originally he belongs to Bihar. Rahul Naveen is also working as the Chief Vigilance Officer of ED Headquarters. Now the Central Government has given him a big responsibility and made him the acting Director of ED. Now, until any officer is appointed as ED Chief, Rahul Naveen will hold the responsibility of this post.

    The Supreme Court had declared Sanjay Mishra’s service extension illegal.
    It is noteworthy that the third service extension of the current Director of Enforcement Directorate (ED) Sanjay Kumar Mishra was declared illegal by the Supreme Court. Also, the court was told that he should leave his post by July 31. A three-judge bench headed by Justice BR Gavai had said that as per the previous order of the Supreme Court in 2021, Mishra could not be given extension beyond November 2022. Here, after the order of the Supreme Court, the Central Government had requested the Supreme Court to allow him to continue in the post till October 15. On which the court allowed him to remain in the post till 15 September.

    Extension of service was challenged in the Supreme Court
    Actually, Sanjay Mishra’s third service extension was challenged in the Supreme Court. While challenging on behalf of a group of petitions, the Supreme Court’s order of September 2021 was cited. Let us tell you, the petitioners included Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala, Jaya Thakur and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and many others.

    Central government had given extensions to Mishra for the third time
    It is noteworthy that the current ED Director Sanjay Mishra was earlier appointed as ED Director for a two-year tenure ending in November 2020. After this, he was given a one-year extension in service, which was challenged in the Supreme Court by Common Cause, an NGO. After which the court had granted him extension in its September 2021 decision, as his tenure was ending in about two months, it was clear that Mishra was not to be given any further extension.

  • Hearing postponed in SC on Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren’s petition challenging ED summons

    Hearing postponed in SC on Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren's petition challenging ED summons

    Hemant Soren was called for questioning by ED on August 24, but Soren did not appear. (file)

    New Delhi :

    Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren has postponed the hearing in the case of challenging the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate in the Supreme Court. Hemant Soren’s lawyer had demanded postponement of the hearing in the Supreme Court. Now the next hearing in this case in the Supreme Court will be on September 18. Hemant Soren’s lawyer had demanded postponement of the hearing of the case due to ill health.