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]JTNDYmxvY2txdW90ZSUyMGNsYXNzJTNEJTIydHdpdHRlci10d2VldCUyMiUyMGRhdGEtbGFuZyUzRCUyMmVuJTIyJTNFJTNDcCUyMGxhbmclM0QlMjJlbiUyMiUyMGRpciUzRCUyMmx0ciUyMiUzRU5vJTIwanVkZ2UlMjBub3JtYWxseSUyMHdvdWxkJTIwcmVmdXNlJTIwJTIwYSUyMHBldGl0aW9uZXIlMjB0aW1lJTIwdG8lMjBmaWxlJTIwYW4lMjBhZmZpZGF2aXQlMjBvZiUyMGZhY3RzJTIwYXNrZWQlMjBieSUyMGNvdXJ0Lk11cmxpZGhhcmFuJTIwSiUyMHJlZnVzZWQlMjZhbXAlM0IlMjBkaXNtaXNzZWQlMjBTdW5hbmRhJTIwY2FzZSUzQyUyRnAlM0UlMjZtZGFzaCUzQiUyMFN1YnJhbWFuaWFuJTIwU3dhbXklMjAlMjglNDBTd2FteTM5JTI5JTIwJTNDYSUyMGhyZWYlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRnR3aXR0ZXIuY29tJTJGU3dhbXkzOSUyRnN0YXR1cyUyRjkyMzQ4ODk1MDkzNjg1MDQzMiUzRnJlZl9zcmMlM0R0d3NyYyUyNTVFdGZ3JTIyJTNFT2N0b2JlciUyMDI2JTJDJTIwMjAxNyUzQyUyRmElM0UlM0MlMkZibG9ja3F1b3RlJTNFJTBBJTNDc2NyaXB0JTIwYXN5bmMlMjBzcmMlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRnBsYXRmb3JtLnR3aXR0ZXIuY29tJTJGd2lkZ2V0cy5qcyUyMiUyMGNoYXJzZXQlM0QlMjJ1dGYtOCUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRnNjcmlwdCUzRQ==[/vc_raw_html][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Supreme Court judge calls police assault on CJP protesters very distressing

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan criticised alleged police assaults on CJP protesters and raised concerns over excessive force.

Published

on

Supreme Court

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has criticised the assault of protesters by police personnel during the recent CJP demonstrations in Delhi, describing the conduct as “very, very distressing” and a matter of serious concern.

Speaking at the launch of retired IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad’s book Policing the Republic, Justice Bhuyan said the detachment expected from police officers appeared to be diminishing.

He expressed concern over young Indian Police Service officers personally participating in the assault of protesters and demonstrators.

Justice Bhuyan stresses need for responsible policing

Justice Bhuyan said effective policing does not require excessive use of force or infringement of human rights. He emphasised that the police play an important role in maintaining public confidence because citizens generally approach the police when they feel they have been wronged.

He said maintaining the credibility of the police force was therefore of “utmost importance”.

The judge’s remarks come amid continuing scrutiny of the police and paramilitary response to the CJP protests in Delhi.

Supreme Court panel to examine police action

The Supreme Court has constituted a high-level panel to investigate allegations concerning the use of force by Delhi Police during the July 20 student protests at Jantar Mantar and the subsequent Parliament march.

The panel, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice R Subhash Reddy, will examine complaints relating to lathi charges, tear gas, pellet guns and electronic batons. It will also look into allegations of targeted harassment or molestation of female protesters and review available CCTV and video footage.

The police response during the protests has faced criticism, while Delhi Police has maintained that its personnel were also attacked during the clashes.

Judge raises concern over custodial deaths and torture

Justice Bhuyan also spoke about custodial torture and deaths, describing custodial death as one of the gravest crimes in a society governed by the rule of law.

He stressed that torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment cannot be accepted, regardless of whether such conduct takes place during investigation, interrogation or other circumstances.

The judge further warned that when government functionaries themselves become lawbreakers, it can undermine respect for the law and encourage lawlessness.

He questioned whether citizens lose their fundamental rights simply because they have been arrested by police.

‘Fake encounters’ cannot be part of policing

Justice Bhuyan also addressed allegations of extra-judicial killings, commonly referred to as “fake encounters”. Referring to a 2011 Supreme Court judgment, he said such encounters undermine the rule of law.

He stressed that an “encounter philosophy” cannot become part of legitimate policing and said proven fake encounters involving serving police officers must be treated with the utmost seriousness.

The Supreme Court’s panel will now examine the allegations surrounding the police action during the July 20 protests as scrutiny of the events continues.

Continue Reading

India News

8 Tamil Nadu engineering students killed in Kerala car-lorry crash

Eight engineering students from Tamil Nadu were killed after their car collided with a parked lorry on NH-66 in Kerala’s Thrissur district.

Published

on

Eight engineering students from Tamil Nadu were killed after the car they were travelling in crashed into a parked lorry on NH-66 in Kerala’s Thrissur district late Friday night, police said.

The accident took place at around 11.40 pm at Panambikkunnu in Kaipamangalam. The students were travelling from Guruvayur towards Kodungallur when their car collided with the rear of the lorry.

What happened in the Thrissur accident

According to the FIR, the lorry was parked illegally on the right side of the highway near a barricaded section where traffic had been diverted because of ongoing construction work.

Police said the car was travelling at high speed and its driver apparently failed to notice the diversion barricade before the vehicle crashed into the rear of the lorry.

The lorry was registered in Maharashtra.

Six students died at the accident spot, while two others were declared dead on arrival at a nearby hospital, police said.

Six victims identified

The victims were students of an engineering college in Dindigul and were travelling towards Kodungallur along NH-66.

Police have identified six of the eight victims. Four of them — Surya, Yuvasanjith, Vishva and Johua — were from Dindigul. The other two identified victims were Santhosh and Prasanna from Madurai.

The identities of the remaining two students are yet to be confirmed.

Residents, fire and rescue personnel and police took part in the rescue operation and pulled the students from the badly damaged car. The bodies were subsequently taken to the mortuary of Thrissur Medical College.

Case registered against lorry driver

Kaipamangalam police have registered a case against the lorry driver under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for culpable homicide.

Police said the driver went into hiding shortly after the accident.

The families of the victims were contacted using student identity cards recovered from the bodies. Police said some families were unaware that their children had travelled to Kerala.

Postmortem examinations will begin after the families reach Thrissur Medical College, police said.

Continue Reading

India News

Air India sacks Phuket-Delhi flight pilot after failing drug test

Air India has terminated the Phuket-Delhi flight pilot after a confirmatory test found a psychoactive substance following the August 4 incident.

Published

on

Air India has terminated the employment of the pilot-in-command of a Phuket-Delhi flight after he tested positive for a psychoactive substance.

The pilot was in command of flight AI2379, which was travelling from Phuket to Delhi on August 4 when the aircraft suddenly lost altitude over Odisha. The incident left 24 passengers injured.

Air India said the termination was in line with its zero-tolerance policy regarding safety violations and regulatory requirements.

Air India terminates pilot with immediate effect

In a statement, the Tata-owned airline said the pilot-in-command had tested positive for a psychoactive substance.

The airline said that, considering its zero-tolerance approach to violations related to safety, fitness and regulatory requirements, the pilot’s employment had been terminated with immediate effect.

Air India also said it continues to cooperate fully with the investigation into the incident and has provided access to relevant operational, maintenance and technical records.

What happened on the Phuket-Delhi flight?

According to the preliminary findings of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), the Airbus A320 was carrying 145 people when it experienced the near-simultaneous loss of all three hydraulic systems while cruising at around 36,000 feet.

The technical failure resulted in the autopilot disconnecting and triggered a brief stall warning. The aircraft subsequently lost altitude, resulting in injuries to 24 passengers.

The preliminary report also noted that the pilot tested non-negative for a psychoactive substance in a confirmatory test.

However, the report did not establish that the pilot’s drug-test result caused or contributed to the hydraulic system failure or the subsequent loss of altitude.

AAIB recommends action over psychoactive substance finding

The AAIB described the confirmation of psychoactive substance use as a serious concern and recommended that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) take appropriate action against the pilot on priority.

The investigation into the technical and other aspects of the incident is still underway.

The preliminary report also noted that the co-pilot was flying the aircraft when the incident occurred and attempted to bring the situation under control.

Air India said safety remains its highest priority and that its pilots undergo training, proficiency checks, medical examinations and other regulatory assessments in accordance with applicable requirements.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com