English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

CBI court gags media from reporting on Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case trial

Published

on

CBI court gags media from reporting on Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case trial

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Court’s order comes at a time when the mysterious death of CBI judge BH Loya in 2014, who at the time was presiding over the case, has triggered a sensation

Amid renewed interest in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case following conflicting news reports over the mysterious death of a judge who was presiding over the trial in 2014, a special CBI court in Mumbai, on Wednesday, banned the media from reporting on the proceedings of the trial.

“It may happen that the publication may create security problem for the accused persons, prosecution witnesses, the defence team and the prosecutor as well. I, therefore, find justification in the request of the defence team of lawyers. The application is allowed,” Additional Sessions Judge SJ Sharma said in his order on Wednesday.

While ordering the “complete ban on print, electronic and social media” reporting on the case, special CBI judge Sharma said: “Considering the sensitivity in the matter, likelihood of happening of any untoward incident and likelihood of effect on the trial of this matter, in case of day-to-day publication of evidence that may be brought on record, I am of the view not to allow media to make publication of any of the proceeding during the trial in the matter until further order.”

While the court order does not expressly mention whether or not the media will be allowed to attend the trial, reporters who were present in the courtroom when judge Sharma imposed the gag said that they were orally informed that they could sit in court while the proceedings go on.

The gag-order came on a handwritten request submitted by advocate Wahab Khan, counsel for Rajasthan policeman Abdul Rehman Khan – one of the accused in the alleged fake encounter case – in which he claimed: “Every day, a new development is being reported. The case already has a chequered history. We apprehend the security of witnesses, accused and even the defence lawyers (sic).”[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1512031835862{padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 5px !important;padding-bottom: 5px !important;padding-left: 5px !important;background-color: #dddddd !important;border-radius: 5px !important;}”]Mysterious death of CBI Judge BH Loya mentioned in court

The defence advocates also referred to reports on the mysterious death of CBI Judge BH Loya, who had died under mysterious circumstances in 2014 while presiding over the trial in the case, which was then being heard in Gujarat. Judge Loya’s family members have recently alleged – according to an investigative report carried in The Caravan magazine – that his death was from “unnatural” causes and that reports of him succumbing to a cardiac arrest were fabricated. However, two contrary reports – first in The Indian Express and then on NDTV – have sought to demolish the arguments built up in the Caravan article and quoted sitting judge of the Bombay High Court – Justice Bhushan Gavai – as saying that there was nothing suspicious in Judge Loya’s death.

The doubts raised over the cause of Judge Loya’s death – by a section of the media, the legal fraternity and Opposition parties – have provoked calls for an independent inquiry. It is pertinent to note that at the time when the 48-year-old Judge Loya was presiding over the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter trial, BJP national president Amit Shah was an accused in the case. Shah was later discharged in the case by the judge who took over from Judge Loya.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]Other defence advocates appearing in the case also supported advocate Wahab Khan’s plea while special public prosecutor BP Raju submitted that the court may pass “appropriate orders” on the issue.

Reporters who were present during the proceedings told APNLive that some journalists made oral submissions before Judge Sharma, pleading that publication of the proceedings was in public interest, especially since the case was one that had evoked mass interest.

While the special CBI judge complimented the media for its “hard work and efforts to collect essential events and to publish them to make the public aware”, he said: “Even during collection of such events, number of incidents had happening in the past where many media persons had to face assault and suffer serious injuries.”

“However, in the proceedings…the popularly known case of the killing of Sohrabuddin, his wife, Kausarbi and their associate Tulsiram Prajapati….wherein the accused persons are none else but the police of Gujarat state, Rajasthan state and Andhra Pradesh and this case has been transferred to Mumbai court by the order of the Honourable Supreme Court. Number of witnesses have been examined by the state CID crime, Gujarat and CBI and the witnesses are police as well as private persons and in the past four years from the receipt of chargesheet, 15 accused who are the ministers of Gujarat and Rajasthan and high ranking police officers have been discharged, the matter appears sensational,” the court observed.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1512032405316{padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 5px !important;padding-bottom: 5px !important;padding-left: 5px !important;background-color: #e5e5e5 !important;border-radius: 5px !important;}”]Backgrounder to the alleged fake encounter case

In November 2005, Sohrabuddin Sheikh was traveling in a Sangli-bound bus from Hyderabad along with his wife Kausarbi and associate Tulsiram Prajapati. A police team had chased the bus and forced the three to de-board. Sohrabuddin, Kausarbi and Prajapati were then reportedly taken to Ahmedabad where Sheikh was allegedly killed. Kausarbi, a witness to the alleged murder of her husband by policemen, was also reportedly gunned down though later investigators in the case claimed that they never traced her remains. Prajapati, who had apparently escaped the encounter, was also allegedly killed in 2006.

In 2012, the Supreme Court had transferred the case to Mumbai after the CBI submitted that witnesses were being threatened and a free and fair trial was not possible in Ahmedabad under the circumstances.

Of the 38 original accused in the case, prominent persons who have so far been discharged on various grounds include former Gujarat anti-terrorism squad chief DG Vanzara and BJP national president Amit Shah.[/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