English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Judge Loya death case: CJI says there will be ground for suspicion if Section 174 CrPC has not been duly complied with

Published

on

supreme court

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud on Monday (February 12) continued hearing the plea seeking independent probe into the mysterious death of Justice B G Loya who was handling the Sohrabuddin Seikh fake encounter killing case.

In Monday (February 19) senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the State of Maharashtra, continued his defence.

He said that the whole of 30th, they (the judges) stayed in Nagpur AND MOVED TO Ravi Bhawan that night. At night the judge (Loya) had complained of distress and was rushed to Dande hospital where they spent 15-20 minutes and an ECG was taken.

Waikar also reaches there, continued Rohatgi. “There they met Dr Pankaj Harkutt who is a cardiologist and are advised to go to Medetirina which is 2-2.5 km from there. Unfortunately at the next hospital he was declared “brought dead”, hence he did not die in Medetirina.

“If we had to discount everything what the four judges said then we have the postmortem report. The postmortem was done in a government hospital and then the body was taken to Ghategaon,” he said.

Then Rohatgi was back at castigating the published article. He said: “The intention behind the appearance of the article is questionable itself.” He referred to page 19 and submitted the Marathi version first. “Whatever is written in the article appears to be false and unverified, which appeared three years after the death.”

Then Rohatgi read out a postmortem report – Department of Forensic Science, Govt of India, Nagpur report. “As per police, at 1:12 am he suddenly complained of chest pain. At 4:00 am, he was brought to the hospital and was declared dead.”

Also, the report talks about the jurisdiction of the police station. The main centre for the postmortem is Sitamarhi. Then the counsel submitted various angles of the reason why any particular hospital was chosen.

At the bottom of the page is the nakal bayan (or witness) who is Prashant Rathi. The time of death is 16:00 hours. Whereas in item 1, the time of death was 4:00 hours.

The bill of Medetirina is referred to, wherein Dr Pankaj Harkutt is the referred doctor. “Judge Srikant Kulkarni was present when Judge Loya was admitted to the hospital,” Rohatgi reads. “When the ailing judge’s name was entered as Brij Mohan and not Brij Gopal. Hence the change in name in medical report is just a mistake of dictation on the part of judge Kulkarni.”

He referred to the CG fiasco. “For a layman, any impulse taken by the ECG machine nodule, the ECG is recorded. Hence, one of the judges said that the ECG was taken and recorded. ECG was not done is not a conclusive fact in this case. There is disparity in the views regarding ECG.”

Page 59A was referred to, containing the statement of the father of Judge Loya.

He also tried to debunk the political angle, saying that the “Ishwar Vahiti concerned here was Justice Loya’s friend and not the one who is associated with the RSS.”

Senior counsel Indira Jaising, on the opposing side, submitted that nobody denies in this case that ECG was not attempted but it could not be done. She said that the article was preceded by a dismissal order of the person by the Supreme Court, which happened 2-3 months ago.”

Rohtagi submitted that “only because Vahiti  was a friend and that too close, he was handed over Judge Loya’s body. He established his close relationship with Judge Loya in court.”

He explained: “Maharashtra is divided into ten commissionarates and 67 districts.” He place before the court a judgment in which in Maharashtra special powers are given to ACPs to conduct the investigation. He submitted that the investigation was carried out properly and there was nothing suspicious about the natural death of the Judge Loya which was only due to heart attack. He agains raised the question as to why a petition has been file in the Supreme Court after a long time.

He submitted that there was nothing wrong in procedure as well, because as per the Bombay police manual of 1959 a police officer is authorised to conduct investigation in the case of suspicious deaths.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave stated his submissions. He said that the pressure which is built in this case is important to be considered and so it becomes important to issue judicial notice. He also said that things were not always as it appears on the record and as this case is related with the death of a judge. “Hence it should be considered seriously.”

He said that it was necessary that documents are brought under oath. “This is not a politically motivated matter,” he said.

Rohatgi interfered, saying: “It’s not written anywhere that in every writ petition, rejoinders, etc must be recorded.”

To which Dave said: “Until we have the documents on the affidavits, justice won’t be served because the judges will not be able to judge independently. The State has nothing else to show. How can Rathi reply on 23rd itself?”

At this the CJI commented: “The question is whether section 174 CrPC has been duly complied with or not. This could be a ground of suspicion.”

Dave said: “The state failed in providing proper security to Judge Loya, did not even provide proper medical services, also, post death, the real cause of death was not figured out by the state.”

The matter is again listed for March 5

India News

Hardeep Singh Puri set to win Rajya Sabha bypoll unopposed

Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri is set to be elected unopposed to the Rajya Sabha from Madhya Pradesh after the returning officer rejected the nomination papers of two independent candidates.

Published

on

Hardeep Puri

Union Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri is set to enter the Rajya Sabha unopposed from Madhya Pradesh after the nomination papers of two independent candidates were rejected during scrutiny on Tuesday.

The two candidates whose nominations were rejected were Kante Sayanna and Rajkumar Lohani, the latter being backed by the Congress. Their rejection leaves Puri as the only candidate in the contest for the vacant Rajya Sabha seat.

According to an official, the result will be announced on November 5, which is also the last date for withdrawal of nominations.

The Returning Officer, Umesh Sharma, examined the nomination papers on the last day of scrutiny and rejected the two independent candidates’ applications.

Objections raised against Hardeep Puri’s nomination

The nomination papers submitted by Puri also faced objections from the two independent candidates and Congress leader Hemant Katare.

They questioned the validity and completeness of Puri’s affidavit filed in Form 26, raising concerns over whether the mandatory details had been properly furnished.

However, after examining the objections, Returning Officer Umesh Sharma concluded that Puri had not violated any requirements under the Representation of the People Act.

Sharma stated in his order that no defect had been found in Puri’s nomination papers that could justify their rejection.

Following the decision, Katare and Congress MLA Atif Aqeel announced that they would approach the court against the order.

Calling the decision an attack on Indian democracy, the Congress leaders said in a statement that Puri’s nomination should have been rejected despite what they described as significant errors.

Why the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sabha seat fell vacant

The by-election was necessitated by the resignation of Union Minister L Murugan, which left a Rajya Sabha seat vacant in Madhya Pradesh.

With the nomination papers of both independent candidates rejected and Puri’s nomination cleared, the Union minister is set to be elected unopposed.

The final announcement is expected on November 5, the last day for withdrawal of nominations.

Continue Reading

India News

Yogi Adityanath announces free LPG cylinders on Diwali and Holi

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has announced one free LPG cylinder each on Diwali and Holi for eligible Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana beneficiaries. The state has allocated Rs 1,500 crore for LPG refill subsidies covering more than 1.89 crore beneficiaries.

Published

on

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Tuesday announced that eligible families covered under the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) will receive one free LPG cylinder each on Diwali and Holi.

The announcement came as the Chief Minister participated in a programme organised for distributing LPG refill subsidies to more than 1.89 crore beneficiaries across the state.

The Uttar Pradesh government has allocated Rs 1,500 crore for providing subsidies on LPG cylinder refills to eligible families under the scheme.

Addressing the gathering, Adityanath explained the cost of a domestic LPG cylinder and the subsidy provided by the Centre.

“The price of one domestic gas cylinder is Rs 983.45, and out of this, the Government of India provides a subsidy of Rs 335. You have to spend Rs 648.55 from your own pocket,” he said.

The Chief Minister said the state government had decided to provide one cylinder to poor families covered under the Ujjwala scheme on Diwali and Holi.

“With the money you save, you can buy Diwali sweets and lamps,” he said.

Yogi Adityanath targets previous Congress government

During his address, Adityanath also compared the availability of LPG connections under the present government with the situation during the Congress government’s tenure.

He said people previously faced several difficulties in obtaining a single gas connection, while the present government had provided free gas connections to poor families.

The Chief Minister described the initiative as an example of good governance.

Yogi Adityanath on Ayodhya’s Deepotsav

Earlier on Tuesday, Adityanath described Ayodhya’s Deepotsav, scheduled for November 7, as a symbol of social unity.

In a post on X, he said the festival brought together people from different sections of society through shared faith and cultural participation.

He also referred to the Deepotsav tradition initiated by the state government in 2017, saying it had transformed Ayodhya’s cultural heritage into a celebration involving people from different walks of life.

The Chief Minister is scheduled to visit Ayodhya to review preparations for the event.

Continue Reading

India News

Election Commission clarifies Form 6 rules for existing voters under SIR

The Election Commission has clarified that voters previously enrolled in electoral rolls can submit Form 6 for inclusion if their names are missing from draft lists published during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

Published

on

Election Commission of India

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has clarified that voters whose names appeared in earlier electoral rolls but are missing from draft lists published during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) can submit Form 6 to seek inclusion in the final electoral roll.

In a communication issued on November 3 to the Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) of all states and Union Territories, the poll body addressed concerns among previously registered voters who were hesitant to submit the form because of the declaration required alongside it.

The Commission clarified that submitting Form 6 in such circumstances would not, by itself, amount to making a false declaration merely because the applicant had been enrolled as a voter previously.

It also stated that no action under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, would be initiated against such applicants solely on the ground of their previous enrolment.

However, this protection applies provided the applicant is not already registered in another Parliamentary or Assembly constituency and the declaration submitted is otherwise in accordance with the law.

Why existing voters were hesitant to submit Form 6

The clarification follows concerns that some previously enrolled voters were reluctant to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll after finding their names missing from the draft lists published during the SIR exercise.

Form 6 requires applicants to furnish a declaration stating that their names are being included in the electoral roll for the first time.

This created apprehensions among previously registered voters, who feared that submitting the form despite their earlier enrolment could be treated as a false declaration and expose them to prosecution under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

The Election Commission has now clarified that earlier registration does not prevent an eligible voter from submitting Form 6 again when their name does not appear in the draft electoral roll.

Election Commission refers to Delhi High Court order

In its communication, the Commission also referred to the Delhi High Court’s October 14 order in the case of Nilotpal Datta and another versus the Election Commission of India and others.

The case concerned an applicant who had previously been enrolled as a voter but was apprehensive about submitting Form 6 because of the declaration that the name was being included in the electoral roll for the first time.

The High Court observed that the petitioners’ apprehension was misplaced and allowed them to submit Form 6, if they wished, for processing in accordance with the law.

The Election Commission’s latest clarification is in line with this judicial observation.

EC asks states and UTs to publicise clarification

The poll body has asked Chief Electoral Officers across all states and Union Territories to ensure that the clarification reaches concerned voters.

It has also requested officials to publicise the information widely through available media platforms and in local languages so that eligible voters are aware of the procedure for seeking inclusion in the electoral roll.

The clarification comes amid ongoing concerns and legal challenges surrounding the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and the process of re-enrolling voters whose names do not appear in draft lists.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com