English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Delhi HC dismisses Swamy’s ‘political interest litigation’ in Sunanda Pushkar’s death case

Published

on

Subramanian

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Court witnessed heated arguments between Swamy and Justices S Muralidhar and IS Mehta who told him to be extremely circumspect in sharing petitions with media

The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by BJP MP Subramanian Swamy seeking a court-monitored SIT investigation into the mysterious death of Sunanda Pushkar, wife of Congress MP Shashi Tharoor.

Questioning the locus standi of Swamy in the case and strongly chastising him for the allegations he made against Shashi Tharoor and the Delhi Police, the Division Bench of Justices S Muralidhar and IS Mehta also asked the BJP MP and his co-petitioner Ishkaran Bhandari to “be extremely circumspect in placing such a petition in the public domain even before it is properly considered by the Court”.

The judges were peeved at the fact that Swamy had reportedly made his entire petition public, through his social media accounts and the media a day before it was first heard by the court on July 12, 2017.

Through the proceedings of the case on Thursday, Swamy and the Bench entered into heated arguments with the former often attempting to emphasise on his understanding on the law and his social profile – that of a former law minister of India. The Bench was clearly not impressed with Swamy’s arguments and during verbal observations – and later in the written order too – said that his petition “is perhaps a textbook example of a ‘political interest litigation’ dressed up as a PIL”.

At one point during the arguments, Subramanian Swamy told the judges: “This is not my first PIL. I have appeared before many courts. I have filed several petitions in the past. Many of them are reported judgments and I have been successful in most of them. I have also been the Law Minister of the country.”

While the court kept insisting that it wanted to hear the case on the basis of facts and merits and sought Swamy to furnish evidence to support his claims of the Delhi police botching up the investigation into Pushkar’s mysterious death at the behest of Tharoor, who was a union minister at the time of his wife’s demise, the BJP leader failed to present any document to support his allegations.

In its verdict, the court noted: “Nothing has been placed on record (by Swamy) to probablise, let alone substantiate, the vague and sweeping allegations made in the petition. Dr. Swamy was asked whether he had any basis for alleging that the investigation was “botched” by the Delhi Police at the “behest of rich and influential”. He was also specifically asked if, indeed, he had any information in his possession as to who these persons are. In response, Dr. Swamy stated that he would file a further affidavit to substantiate the above as well as other sweeping allegations referred to hereinbefore (sic).”

The Bench went on to say in its order that: “The failure by Dr. Swamy to disclose the full facts and information in his possession, assuming that his assertion in this regard is right, is a fatal lapse. It is contrary to the assertion made by him in the affidavit.”

The court then came down heavily on Swamy, who it said “likes to be thought of as a veteran PIL petitioner”.

Terming his petition as a “textbook example of a political interest litigation”, the Bench said: “The Court should be careful in not letting the judicial process be abused by political personae for their own purposes… That is not to say that no political person can file a PIL. It is only that, in such instances, particularly where the principal allegations are against political opponents, the Court should be cautious in proceeding in the matter.”

In an effort to ensure that petitioners in future do not file PILs like the one filed by Swamy in the Sunanda Pushkar death case, the Bench ordered: “hereafter every writ petition (which includes a PIL petition) filed in the Registry (and not obviously a letter or post card) should be supported by an affidavit which, apart from complying with the legal requirements in terms of the governing Rules of the High Court, should clearly state which part of the averments (with reference to para numbers or parts thereof) made (including those in the synopsis and list of dates and not just the petition itself) is true to the Petitioner’s personal knowledge derived from records or based on some other source and what part is based on legal advice which the petitioner believes to be true.”

While the sternly worded order of the court left Swamy with little to say in the courtroom, the BJP leader – with his reputation for making outlandish claims on a variety of issues – took to Twitter later in the day to rant against the setback her received from the Delhi High Court and also to take a dig at his detractors.[/vc_column_text][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Rahul Gandhi urges Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah to enact Rohith Vemula Act to end caste-based discrimination

“There was plenty of food with us… but we were to sleep without food; that was because we could get no water, and we could get no water because we were untouchables,” Gandhi quoted Ambedkar.

Published

on

In a significant move aimed at addressing caste-based discrimination within the education system, Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and senior Congress leader, has written to Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah advocating for the implementation of the ‘Rohith Vemula Act’. This proposed legislation aims to ensure that no student in Karnataka faces discrimination due to their caste.

In his letter dated April 16, Gandhi reflected on the struggles and indignities faced by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a key figure in India’s fight against caste discrimination. He recounted a powerful incident described by Ambedkar from his childhood, highlighting the harsh realities of being labelled an “untouchable” and the systemic barriers that prevented him from accessing basic necessities and an equal education.

“There was plenty of food with us… but we were to sleep without food; that was because we could get no water, and we could get no water because we were untouchables,” Gandhi quoted Ambedkar.

Gandhi emphasised that despite the progress made, millions of students from Dalit, Adivasi, and OBC communities continue to experience unjust discrimination within the educational framework. “It is a shame that even today, our educational system perpetuates such brutal discrimination,” he declared.

The Congress leader further expressed his grievances regarding the tragic losses of young lives due to caste-based discrimination, citing the suicides of students like Rohith Vemula, Payal Tadvi, and Darshan Solanki as evidence of the urgent need for legislative action. “Such horrific incidents cannot be tolerated at any cost. It is time to end this cycle of injustice,” he stated.

Gandhi shared his thoughts on the social media platform X, revealing insights from recent discussions he had with students and teachers from underprivileged backgrounds in Parliament, who recounted their ongoing experiences of discrimination in higher education. He reaffirmed Ambedkar’s belief that education is a vital tool for empowerment and breaking the caste system, a principle he feels remains unfulfilled.

Expressing the need for immediate action, Gandhi urged the Karnataka government to prioritise the enactment of the Rohith Vemula Act, ensuring that no child in India endures the discrimination and hardships experienced by Ambedkar, Vemula, and countless others.

Rohith Vemula, a Dalit student, tragically took his life in 2016 due to the pressures of caste-based discrimination, igniting a national conversation about the urgent need for reform within educational institutions to protect vulnerable student populations. The push for the ‘Rohith Vemula Act’ has gained momentum among Dalit and student groups seeking systemic changes to safeguard against discrimination in education.

Continue Reading

India News

Opposition slams Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar after he criticises Supreme Court’s order on President

TMC’s Kalyan Banerjee accused Dhankhar of repeatedly disrespecting the judiciary.

Published

on

Opposition leaders on Thursday fiercely criticised Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar for his recent statements on the judiciary, accusing him of undermining its authority and veering close to contempt.

Leaders from the Congress, Trinamool Congress (TMC), Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), and notable legal figures condemned Dhankhar’s remarks as disrespectful to constitutional principles.

Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala emphasised the supremacy of the Constitution, stating, “In our democracy, no office—whether President, Prime Minister, or Governor—stands above constitutional accountability.”

He praised the Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling, which set a three-month deadline for the President to act on bills reserved by governors, calling it a bold and necessary check on high offices.

TMC’s Kalyan Banerjee accused Dhankhar of repeatedly disrespecting the judiciary. “His comments on Supreme Court judges are unacceptable and nearly contemptuous. As a constitutional figure, he must respect other institutions,” Banerjee asserted.

DMK leader Tiruchi Siva labelled Dhankhar’s remarks as “unacceptable,” stressing that no one, regardless of their position, can delay legislative bills indefinitely. “The rule of law must prevail over institutional overreach,” Siva said.

Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal defended Article 142, which grants the Supreme Court authority to issue orders for “complete justice.” He questioned, “This power is enshrined in the Constitution to ensure justice. Who is obstructing the President’s authority?”

Dhankhar’s controversial remarks were made during an address to Rajya Sabha interns on April 17, where he called Article 142 a “constant threat to democratic forces” and challenged the judiciary’s right to impose deadlines on the President. He also questioned why judges require judicial approval for FIRs, noting that only the President and Governors enjoy constitutional immunity from prosecution.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) defended Dhankhar, accusing the opposition of hypocrisy. BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla retorted, “The opposition, which ignores parliamentary laws, mocks the Vice President, and shields rioters for votes, has no moral ground to lecture on constitutional propriety.”

Continue Reading

India News

FASTag won’t be discontinued from May 1: Govt clears rumours on new tolling technology

While new technological approaches are under consideration, MoRTH clarified that the ongoing pilot tests featuring Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems at selected toll plazas are meant to enhance, not replace, FASTag functionalities.

Published

on

The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) has dismissed rampant rumours regarding the discontinuation of the FASTag system effective May 1, 2025. In an official statement released on Friday, the ministry reiterated that it has no intention of phasing out FASTag or replacing it with a satellite-based tolling system in the immediate future.

Authorities cautioned the public against believing misleading reports and viral messages that suggest FASTag will be eliminated, emphasising that the system remains active and mandatory for toll payments across the nation.

While new technological approaches are under consideration, MoRTH clarified that the ongoing pilot tests featuring Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems at selected toll plazas are meant to enhance, not replace, FASTag functionalities.

Understanding the hybrid tolling model

The proposed hybrid model seeks to combine the existing Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID)-based FASTag with ANPR technology. This innovative approach aims to facilitate barrier-less toll collection; sophisticated high-resolution cameras will capture vehicle number plates and link them with FASTag accounts for a more efficient toll payment process.

The ministry is currently assessing the hybrid system’s potential to:

  • Decrease congestion at toll plazas
  • Accelerate vehicle flow
  • Provide motorists with a smoother, uninterrupted tolling experience

However, MoRTH has confirmed that the hybrid model is still in the pilot phase and no final decision regarding its nationwide implementation has been established.

Although FASTag will not be replaced, the ministry stressed the importance of compliance under the hybrid system. Vehicle owners who neglect toll payment procedures may receive electronic notices, face suspension of their FASTag accounts, or incur penalties as per the VAHAN vehicle registration database.

The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways strongly urged motorists to disregard false information regarding the discontinuation of FASTag. Official updates on any changes to the tolling system will be communicated through trusted channels. The public is encouraged to stay informed by visiting the official websites at www.nhai.gov.in and morth.nic.in.

Fact Check: Claim: A satellite-based tolling system will replace FASTag starting May 1, 2025. Fact: This claim has been labelled false, as MoRTH has confirmed that FASTag will remain in use beyond the specified date.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com