English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Supreme Court notice to Modi govt on plea against amendment to corruption law

Published

on

SUPREME-COURT

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The Supreme Court today (Monday, Nov 26) issued notice to Narendra Modi government on a plea challenging constitutional validity of amendments made to the Prevention of Corruption Act in July this year making it difficult for probe agencies to expeditiously act on complaints of graft against serving and retired bureaucrats.

The amendment to the anti-graft law mandates prior sanction before starting a probe against a serving or retired government servant in a corruption case.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Ajay Rastogi was hearing a petition filed by the Center for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL).

The petition seeks a review of Section 17A of the PC Act which mandates that the still-to-be-formed Lokpal at the Centre and the Lokayuktas in States will have powers to approve initiation of inquiries against all serving and retired bureaucrats upon receipt of any complaint of graft against them. The Centre has been asked to respond to the notice within six weeks.

The Centre notified amendments to the PC Act on July 26 this year. The amended anti-graft law introduced stringent penalties for bribe givers and bribe seekers once their culpability in the act was proven but, on the other hand it made the investigative process more cumbersome.

Many anti-graft crusaders had, at the time of the passage of the amended legislation, mocked the law as one that should be called Protection (and not Prevention) of Corruption Act”.

The provision of prior sanction also introduces an element of government discretion and preference in choosing which official should be proceeded against and who should be spared.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1543225561723{border-top-width: 10px !important;border-right-width: 10px !important;border-bottom-width: 10px !important;border-left-width: 10px !important;padding-top: 10px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #cecece !important;border-radius: 10px !important;}”]The amended Section 17A of the Act reads thus:

“(1) No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval —

(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government;

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed:

Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person:

Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Critics of the amended Act claim that Section-17A “violates of Article-14, 19 and Article-21 of the Constitution of India” and that it also takes away or abridge the fundamental rights of complainants of fair investigation as well as equality before the law.

The Modi government, on the other hand, has maintained that the amended legislation serves as a strong deterrent against corruption while it also safeguards conscientious bureaucrats against motivated complaints.

Votaries of the amended Act state that it had increased the punishment for those found guilty of offering a bribe from the previous mandated jail term of six months to three years to a more stringent “up to seven years imprisonment”. The amended law also provides for a sentence of “between five to 10 years” for repeat offenders. It also stipulates that investigation and trial against government employees alleged of crimes under that Act must be completed within two years – and if this condition is not met then a maximum extension of another two years may be granted.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Devendra Fadnavis says no one will be spared after firing at Tiger Shroff

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has assured strict action after gunmen opened fire at actor Tiger Shroff’s car in Mumbai’s Juhu area. Shroff suffered minor injuries, while two other people were injured.

Published

on

Tiger Shroff

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has assured strict action against those responsible for the firing incident involving Bollywood actor Tiger Shroff in Mumbai. The chief minister spoke to the actor after the incident and directed the Mumbai Police Commissioner to expedite the investigation and take action against the accused.

The shooting took place in Mumbai’s Juhu area on Sunday evening, October 18, when gunmen opened fire at the actor’s car as he was leaving a football venue. Tiger Shroff did not sustain any gunshot injuries but suffered minor injuries to his left hand from gunpowder and broken glass. Two other people, including his driver, were also injured in the incident.

Fadnavis directs police to speed up investigation

Following the incident, Fadnavis contacted Mumbai Police Commissioner Deven Bharti to seek details of the firing. He instructed the police to conduct a swift investigation, trace the accused and take strict action against those responsible.

The chief minister also spoke to Tiger Shroff and assured him of the government’s support, saying the accused would be traced and apprehended at the earliest.

The police have formed multiple teams to investigate the incident and identify those involved. According to reports published on October 19, 15 teams have been formed to track down the assailants.

Tiger Shroff suffers minor injuries in Mumbai firing

The incident occurred in Juhu as the actor was leaving a football venue in his car. Unidentified men allegedly arrived on a motorcycle and opened fire at the vehicle.

Although Tiger escaped direct gunfire, his driver sustained a gunshot injury. Another person, identified in reports as an autorickshaw driver, was also injured in the incident. Both were taken for medical treatment.

Police are investigating the circumstances surrounding the shooting and examining available evidence to identify the attackers.

Alleged gang claim under investigation

Following the firing, an audio recording and social media claims attributed to people claiming links to the Lawrence Bishnoi gang surfaced. The claims reportedly referred to Tiger Shroff’s association with actor Salman Khan. 

However, the authenticity of the claims had not been independently verified in the reporting available at the time. The claims should not be treated as confirmation of the attackers’ identity or the motive behind the shooting.

The investigation remains focused on identifying those who opened fire and establishing the circumstances behind the incident.

Continue Reading

India News

Journalist files police complaint against Rahul Gandhi over push allegation

Journalist Richa Parashar has filed a criminal complaint against Rahul Gandhi and others, alleging that she was pushed while covering the Opposition’s march to the Supreme Court. The Congress has denied the allegation.

Published

on

Journalist Richa Parashar has filed a police complaint against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over an alleged incident during the INDIA bloc’s march to the Supreme Court in New Delhi on October 12. She has sought the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Gandhi and others, alleging that she was pushed while covering the protest.

Parashar submitted her complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), New Delhi district, on Friday, seeking immediate action. She has said she was three months pregnant at the time of the alleged incident and accused those involved of mistreatment, threats and the use of force.

What Richa Parashar alleged in her complaint

Parashar alleged that she was reporting on the Opposition’s march when the incident occurred. According to her earlier account, she was waiting near a gate on the Supreme Court premises to seek a response from Gandhi when he allegedly grabbed her hand and pulled her forward. She further alleged that his security personnel pushed her away, causing her to fall on the Supreme Court steps.

In her complaint, Parashar said she asked Gandhi questions before he allegedly pushed her towards a gate. She claimed that the force caused her to lose her balance and fall, and that her repeated requests not to be pushed were ignored.

Parashar has sought legal action against Gandhi and others whom she alleges were involved. The complaint reportedly seeks action under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including Sections 74, 115(2), 131, 125 and 3(5). These provisions concern alleged assault or criminal force against a woman, voluntarily causing hurt, assault or criminal force, acts endangering human life or personal safety, and joint liability for acts committed with common intention.

The allegations and the sections cited in the complaint do not, by themselves, establish criminal liability.

Congress disputes the allegation

The Congress has challenged Parashar’s account of the incident. According to report, the party said a video released by the journalist did not show the sequence of events she described.

Congress leader Alka Lamba also questioned the circumstances surrounding the incident and accused those raising the issue of attempting to manufacture propaganda.

The allegations remain disputed. The complaint and the competing accounts should not be treated as an established finding of wrongdoing.

Incident took place during Opposition’s Supreme Court march

The alleged incident occurred on October 12, when Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders marched to the Supreme Court to submit a petition concerning alleged irregularities in the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The Opposition has raised concerns about the voter-list revision process and alleged irregularities.

Parashar’s police complaint adds a legal dimension to the controversy surrounding the march. Any further action will depend on the police process and the relevant legal proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

Delhi court orders release of CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke

A Delhi court on Saturday ordered the conditional release of Cockroach Janta Party founder Abhijeet Dipke, who was detained and subsequently arrested ahead of a planned protest march at Connaught Place.

Published

on

Abhijit Dipke

A Delhi court on Saturday ordered the conditional release of Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke, a day after he was detained and subsequently arrested ahead of a planned protest march in the national capital. The march was scheduled to take place at Connaught Place as part of demonstrations against alleged electoral irregularities.

Dipke was asked to furnish a bond and undertake to maintain peace as a condition of his release, according to reports. The court’s order came after he was produced before a Special Executive Magistrate following his arrest on Friday.

Why Abhijeet Dipke was detained

Dipke had planned to participate in the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march at Connaught Place, where participants intended to gather and wave the national flag. The proposed demonstration was part of ongoing protests over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demands for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

According to the Delhi Police, Dipke was taken into preventive custody before being formally arrested in a case related to the apprehension of a breach of peace. Police cited Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Neha Bora was also detained

All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora was also detained on Friday ahead of the planned march. She was released early Saturday morning after completing the formalities associated with her detention, according to the report.

Bora criticised the police action and called for the release of protesters who remained in custody. She also demanded an end to the SIR exercise and sought the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. These were her demands and allegations, rather than findings established by the court.

Protests over electoral rolls continue

The demonstrations involving CJP, student groups and opposition supporters have centred on allegations of irregularities in the voter-list revision process. Critics have questioned the exercise, while the Election Commission has maintained that its decisions were approved by the Supreme Court. The BJP has criticised the protests, describing them as attempts to spread anarchy, according to the report.

Dipke’s conditional release marks the latest development in the dispute over the planned Delhi protest. The court’s order concerns his release under specified conditions; it should not be interpreted as a judicial finding on the wider allegations surrounding the electoral-roll revision.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com