English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Those who took decision on transfer must answer how it was done: Karnataka HC judge Patel after resignation

Published

on

Karnataka High Court

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Justice Jayant Patel had resigned after learning that he was being transferred to Allahabad HC where he would have been third in queue for chief justice post

Justice Jayant Patel of the Karnataka High Court, who famously ordered a CBI enquiry into the Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case while he was a judge in the Gujarat high court, had sent in his resignation letter to Karnataka’s Chief Justice SK Mukherjee, on Monday. Justice Patel’s decision to quit – 10 months before he was set to retire –had come after he learned that he was being transferred to the Allahabad High Court, a move that would have ensured that he isn’t promoted to the rank of Chief Justice in Karnataka – or Allahabad for that matter.

While his resignation has created a flutter in the legal community of Karnataka, sent ripples across India’s judiciary and reignited the debate on the lack of transparency in the manner in which judges are appointed, transferred or elevated, all that Justice Patel has to say on the chain of events he has triggered is that those who took the decision on his transfer “must answer” on how this was done.

Had Justice Patel not been transferred to the Allahabad High Court he would have, by convention, been elevated to the rank of Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. Incumbent Karnataka Chief Justice Mukherjee is set to retire on October 9, and Justice Patel was the next senior-most judge in the court. However, had he moved to the Allahabad High Court, Justice Patel would have been the third seniormost and with just 10 months left for his retirement, he would have effectively been out of the race for a promotion.

In an interview to the Indian Express, Justice Patel declined to attribute motives to the Supreme Court collegiums for deciding to transfer him to the Allahabad High Court and robbing him of his elevation but said: “Those who have taken decisions must answer how it was done. I cannot say anything”.

The judge, who enjoys support and respect across bar associations of Gujarat – where he had briefly been elevated as Acting Chief Justice before being transferred to the southern state as a regular judge – and Karnataka refused to link the denial of his confirmation as Chief Justice to his landmark decision of ordering a CBI probe in the Ishrat Jahan encounter case in 2011.

“When I became aware about my contemplated transfer to the Allahabad High Court, I decided to resign. I have already sent my resignation to the President of India. From yesterday, I am relieved of responsibilities. How it happened and what happened is for you to consider,” the Indian Express quoted Justice Patel as saying.

“I had no desire to be shifted to Allahabad. I have worked with dignity for 16 years as a judge, and for (the remaining) ten months why should I go to another place,” Justice Patel added.

Clearly anguished over being forced to resign and being denied what many feel was his rightful due, Justice Patel said: “What I feel is that I did my duty as per the oath of my office. Punishment is ultimately in God’s hands. One thing I can say is that wherever I worked, it has been with all sincerity and strictly as per my oath of office.”

Asked specifically if he would have been elevated had he not ordered the CBI probe in the Ishrat Jahan encounter – a case that had pointed fingers at the then Gujarat chief minister and now Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the then minister of state for home in Gujarat, Amit Shah, who is now the BJP national president – Justice Patel said: “Everyday we take decisions. We do not look at whether the case is about X or Y and we cannot decide a matter like that. We do not see the name of the party and decide the course. This is what is expected of us. I don’t think this could be the reason (for my transfer) but I cannot answer as the decisions were taken by someone else.’’

Senior Supreme Court advocates Dushyant Dave and Yatin Oza have both indicated that Justice Patel was denied the Chief Justice’s rank on account of his decision to order a CBI probe into the Ishrat Jahan case.

Advocates who met him after news of his resignation broke on Tuesday in an effort to get him to reconsider his decision said that Jutice Patel had conveyed that matters were beyond reconsideration.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Rahul Gandhi, Centre clash over Ladakh deepens as eight Congress MPs suspended

The Lok Sabha saw repeated disruptions after Rahul Gandhi was denied permission to speak on the Ladakh issue, leading to protests and the suspension of eight Congress MPs.

Published

on

Chaos engulfed the Lok Sabha on Tuesday as tensions between the opposition and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party intensified over Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s attempt to raise the issue of the India-China military standoff in Ladakh. The disruption eventually led to the suspension of eight Congress MPs for the remainder of the parliamentary session.

The confrontation unfolded after the Leader of the Opposition tried, for the second consecutive day, to read out excerpts from an unpublished book by former Army chief General M.M. Naravane that refer to the 2020 Ladakh crisis. The Speaker denied permission, citing procedural rules, triggering protests from opposition members.

Several MPs protested by refusing to speak when called upon, expressing solidarity with Gandhi. The uproar forced repeated adjournments of the House and, according to reports, involved members throwing pieces of paper towards the Chair.

Following the disorder, eight Congress MPs — including Hibi Eden, Amarinder Raja Warring and Manickam Tagor — were suspended. Warring later questioned the action, saying the protests were in response to Gandhi being denied the opportunity to speak despite having authenticated the document and submitted it to the House.

The BJP strongly criticised the Congress leadership. Party MP Anurag Thakur accused Rahul Gandhi of undermining Parliament and insulting the armed forces, alleging that the opposition was attempting to distract from recent government actions, including the presentation of the Union Budget. He also said the BJP would move a formal complaint seeking strict action against the suspended MPs.

Outside Parliament, Gandhi accused the ruling party of trying to silence him, saying he was prevented from speaking on the sensitive issue of the India-China border. He argued that he had followed procedure by authenticating the content he wished to quote but was still denied permission.

What happened a day earlier

On Monday, the Speaker had also disallowed Gandhi from reading the excerpts, with senior ministers countering his remarks during the debate. Government sources later maintained that the Congress leader violated House rules by attempting to introduce unpublished material into the official record without prior approval.

When proceedings resumed on Tuesday, Gandhi again raised the matter, insisting that the information had been authenticated. As the Speaker moved on to other members, two opposition MPs from the Samajwadi Party and Trinamool Congress declined to speak, signalling their support for him.

Rahul Gandhi targets India-US trade deal

Separately, Gandhi also criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi over what he described as a lack of transparency surrounding the India-US trade deal. He questioned how negotiations that had reportedly remained unresolved for months were concluded overnight and alleged that the agreement compromised the interests of Indian farmers, particularly in agriculture and dairy.

Government sources, however, rejected these claims, stating that sensitive sectors would remain protected and that the deal does not undermine farmers’ interests. They said contentious issues, including market access, had been carefully handled.

The opposition has demanded full disclosure of the terms of the agreement, even as both sides continue to trade sharp political accusations inside and outside Parliament.

Continue Reading

India News

Mamata Banerjee alleges mass voter deletions in Bengal, targets Election Commission

Mamata Banerjee has accused the Election Commission of deleting thousands of voter names without due process, raising questions over the timing of the exercise ahead of elections.

Published

on

Mamata Banerjee

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Monday intensified her attack on the Election Commission over voter roll revisions, alleging that a large number of names have been deleted without due process as the state heads towards elections.

Addressing party workers, Banerjee claimed that 40,000 voters’ names were removed from her constituency alone, alleging that the deletions were carried out unilaterally and without giving voters a chance to be heard.

“In my constituency they have deleted 40,000 voters’ names unilaterally… Even a murderer gets a chance to defend himself,” she said.

Allegations against election officials

The chief minister directly accused an election official, alleging political bias and irregular conduct in the revision process. She claimed that voter names were being removed while officials sat in Election Commission offices, calling the process illegal.

“They cannot do it, it is illegal. 58 lakh names have been unilaterally deleted,” she said, echoing claims earlier made by Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee.

Banerjee also alleged that individuals described as “micro-observers” had been appointed illegally, claiming they had no role under the Representation of the People Act and were linked to the BJP.

‘Alive but marked dead’

In a dramatic moment during her address, the chief minister asked those present who had been marked as deceased in the voter lists to raise their hands.

“See, they are alive but as per the Election Commission they are dead,” she said.

She further alleged that names were being deleted under the category of “logical discrepancy,” adding that even noted economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen had earlier been questioned regarding the age of his mother.

Questions over timing of voter roll exercise

While stating that she did not oppose the Special Intensive Revision process in principle, Banerjee questioned the timing of the exercise.

“I have no problem with SIR, but why do it on the eve of elections? Why not after elections?” she asked.

Reiterating confidence in her party’s organisational strength, the chief minister said she was prepared to fight the issue politically and democratically.

Continue Reading

India News

Supreme Court raps Meta over WhatsApp privacy policy

The Supreme Court warned Meta that it would not tolerate any compromise of citizens’ privacy while hearing a case related to WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy and a CCI penalty.

Published

on

WhatsApp

The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered strong observations against Meta, the parent company of WhatsApp, over the messaging platform’s 2021 privacy policy, warning that it would not tolerate any compromise of citizens’ privacy.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya said the court would not allow the sharing of user data in a manner that exploits Indians, remarking that privacy protections under the Constitution must be followed. “You can’t play with privacy… we will not allow you to share a single digit of our data,” the Chief Justice said during the hearing.

The matter relates to a plea challenging the law tribunal’s decision that upheld a ₹213 crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on WhatsApp, while also permitting certain data-sharing practices for advertising purposes.

Court questions accessibility of privacy policy

During the hearing, the court raised concerns about whether WhatsApp’s privacy policy could realistically be understood by large sections of the population, particularly those who are poor or not formally educated.

The bench questioned if users such as roadside vendors, rural residents, or people who do not speak English would be able to comprehend the policy’s terms. It also expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of opt-out clauses, stating that even legally trained individuals find such policies difficult to understand.

Describing the alleged data practices as potentially exploitative, the court said it would not allow private information to be taken without genuine and informed consent from users.

The Chief Justice also cited a personal example, suggesting that users often begin seeing advertisements shortly after exchanging sensitive messages on WhatsApp, such as medical conversations, raising questions about how user data is being utilised.

Arguments from government and Meta

Appearing for the government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta criticised WhatsApp’s data-sharing practices, calling them exploitative and commercially driven. In response, the Chief Justice said that if companies cannot operate in line with constitutional values, they should not do business in India.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Akhil Sibal, appearing for Meta and WhatsApp, countered the allegations by asserting that all WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted and that the company cannot read message content.

Background of the case

In November 2024, the CCI ruled against WhatsApp over its 2021 privacy policy, holding that the company had abused its dominant market position by effectively forcing users to accept the updated terms.

The watchdog objected to WhatsApp making continued access to messaging services conditional on permitting data-sharing with other Meta platforms, leading to the imposition of a ₹213 crore fine. Meta has deposited the penalty.

In January 2025, Meta and WhatsApp challenged the CCI order. Later, in November 2025, the law tribunal lifted a five-year restriction on data-sharing while maintaining the financial penalty.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com