English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Justice Sikri recuses himself from hearing plea contesting appointment of CBI interim chief

Published

on

Justice AK Sikri

Apprehensions of Supreme Court Justice AK Sikri recusing himself from hearing the petition challenging appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director came true today (Thursday, Jan 24).

Earlier, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi had recused himself from the case and ordered that the plea be heard by a Bench headed by Justice Sikri on Jan 24.

Today is also the day when the high powered selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the CJI or his nominee and the Leader of Opposition – or the leader of largest opposition party – meets to choose a CBI directo from a list of 17 IPS officers. The CJI had cited this as the reason for his inability to hear the case.

Justice Sikri, withdrawing himself from hearing of the case, said, “I would have opted out had CJI passed an administrative order allotting the case to me. But CJI did it in court and I had no opportunity to refuse.” He then asked the matter to be listed tomorrow (Friday, January 25).

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave protested Sikri’s move today, saying the Supreme Court was trying to frustrate the cause of the petition. “The high-powered committee is meeting today on a new CBI Director. Hearing this case tomorrow is too late. We wish you hear this case. We have no problem with you having participated in the earlier committee meeting to remove Alok Verma,” he said.

Attorney General KK Venugopal, who appeared for the government, also agreed with Mr. Dave that Justice Sikri should hear the case. “I wish I could. There are points of interest in this case. But, no. Better not to,” said Justice Sikri.

“Since I’m rescuing, I cant hear…please understand my position” Justice Sikri told senior advocate Dushyant Dave, who is representing the petitioner.

Justice Sikri was part of the selection committee meeting on Jan 10, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which removed Alok Verma as CBI Director and paved the way for the appointment of Rao as interim Director. The CJI had named Justice Sikri as his nominee and recused himself from being part of the selection committee to decide if Verma can continue in office as he had authored the verdict that conditionally reinstated Verma as CBI director on January 8, over two months after he was divested of his charge by the CVC and the Modi government.

In the committee meeting, Justice Sikri had voted with PM Modi to remove Verma, resulting in a 2:1 verdict against the CBI director.

Leader of Congress, the largest opposition party, Mallikarjun Kharge had disagreed with the decision.

With Verma’s removal, Rao was brought back as the interim CBI chief. Earlier, Rao had held the same position when Verma was on forced leave and his petition in the apex court challenging the Centre’s decision to divest him of his responsibilities was pending decision.

Rao’s appointment was challenged before a bench headed by Chief Justice Gogoi, but the CJI had recused himself from hearing the plea, citing the selection committee meeting on Jan 24 to choose Verma’s successor and directed the Registry to list the petition before another bench that did not include him.

The petition was then listed before the bench of Justices Sikri, S Abdul Nazeer and MR Shah. However, as soon as the case came up for hearing, on Thursday, Justice Sikri announced that he is recusing himself from hearing the case and that the petition must be listed before a different bench with the permission of the Chief Justice.

It was known that Justice Sikri would likely recuse himself from the matter given his involvement in Verma’s dismissal. Yet, the petition was listed before a bench headed by him.

India News

DU VC Prof Yogesh Singh entrusted with additional charge of AICTE Chairman

Published

on

By

Prof. Yogesh Singh, Vice Chancellor of the University of Delhi, has been entrusted with the additional charge of the post of Chairman, AICTE till the appointment of a Chairman of AICTE or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

It is noteworthy that AICTE Chairman Prof. TG Sitharam was relieved of his duties after his term ended on December 20, 2025. According to a letter issued by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, on Monday, Prof. Yogesh Singh’s appointment is until the appointment of a regular AICTE Chairman or until further orders whichever is earlier.

Prof. Yogesh Singh is a renowned academician with excellent administrative capabilities, who has been the Vice-Chancellor of University of Delhi since October 2021. He has also served as the Chairperson of the National Council for Teacher Education. In August 2023, he was also given the additional charge of Director of the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA).

Prof. Yogesh Singh served as the Vice-Chancellor of Delhi Technological University from 2015 to 2021; Director of Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology, Delhi from 2014 to 2017, and before that, he was the Vice-Chancellor of Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda (Gujarat) from 2011 to 2014. He holds a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering from the National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. He has a distinguished track record in quality teaching, innovation, and research in the field of software engineering.

Continue Reading

India News

Goa nightclub fire case: Court extends police custody of Luthra brothers by five days

A Goa court has extended the police custody of Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, owners of the nightclub where a deadly fire killed 25 people, by five more days.

Published

on

Luthra brothers

A court in Goa on Monday extended the police custody of Saurabh Luthra and Gaurav Luthra, the owners of the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub, by five more days in connection with the deadly fire incident that claimed 25 lives on December 6.

The order was passed as investigators sought additional time to question the two accused in the case linked to the blaze at the Anjuna-based nightclub.

Owners were deported after fleeing abroad

According to details placed before the court, the Luthra brothers had left the country following the incident and travelled to Thailand. They were subsequently deported and brought back to India on December 17, after which they were taken into police custody.

Advocate Vishnu Joshi, representing the families of the victims, confirmed that the court granted a five-day extension of police custody for both Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra.

Another co-owner sent to judicial custody

The court also remanded Ajay Gupta, another owner of the nightclub, to judicial custody. Police did not seek an extension of his custody, following which the court passed the order, the victims’ counsel said.

The Anjuna police have registered a case against the Luthra brothers for culpable homicide not amounting to murder along with other relevant offences related to the fire incident.

Continue Reading

India News

Delhi High Court issues notice to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi in National Herald case

Delhi High Court has sought responses from Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on the ED’s plea challenging a trial court order in the National Herald case.

Published

on

The Delhi High Court has sought responses from Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the National Herald case. The petition challenges a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of the agency’s prosecution complaint.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notices to the Gandhis and other accused on the main petition, as well as on the ED’s application seeking a stay on the trial court’s December 16 order. The high court has listed the matter for further hearing on March 12, 2026.

The trial court had ruled that taking cognisance of the ED’s complaint was “impermissible in law” because the investigation was not based on a registered First Information Report (FIR). It observed that the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not maintainable in the absence of an FIR for a scheduled offence.

According to the order, the ED’s probe originated from a private complaint rather than an FIR. The court further noted that since cognisance was declined on a legal question, it was not necessary to examine the merits of the allegations at that stage.

The trial court also referred to the complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the summoning order issued in 2014, stating that despite these developments, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not register an FIR in relation to the alleged scheduled offence.

The ED has accused Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and a private company, Young Indian, of conspiracy and money laundering. The agency has alleged that properties worth around Rs 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which publishes the National Herald newspaper, were acquired through Young Indian.

The agency further claimed that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi held a majority 76 per cent shareholding in Young Indian, which allegedly took over AJL’s assets in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com