English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

SC asks Navlakha to respond to plea against cancellation of his transit remand and release from house arrest

Published

on

SC asks Navlakha to respond to plea against cancellation of his transit remand and release from house arrest

The Supreme Court today (Monday, October 29) asked journalist-activist Gautam Navlakha to respond in two weeks to a plea filed by the Maharashtra police challenging a Delhi High Court order which set aside his transit remand in Bhima Koregaon violence case and released him from house arrest earlier this month.

Navlakha was among the five activists arrested in August in connection with a case linked to the Bhima Koregaon violence. The Delhi High Court had released Navlakha from house arrest on October 1 and quashed a Magistrate court order granting transit remand to the Maharashtra police to transfer him to Pune.

While the plea challenging it was heard in Supreme Court, in a related development, the Delhi High Court today initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against S Gurumurthy of RSS-linked Swadeshi Jagran Manch and now a director in Reserve bank of India,  for his tweets against sitting High Court judge Justice S Muralidhar who had passed the order in Navlakha case.

In Supreme Court today, a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, while hearing submissions by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, also stayed a Bombay High Court order that had declined to extend the time granted to the Maharashtra police to complete its investigation against Navlakha and the other activists – Varavara Rao, Sudha Bhardwaj, Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonsalves.

The order by the top court comes days after it rejected a petition filed by eminent historian Romila Thapar that had sought review of an earlier verdict by the court which refused to direct constitution of a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the controversial cases slapped by the Maharashtra police against Navlakha and the other activists.

A day after the bench headed by Chief Justice Gogoi rejected Thapar’s review petition, the Maharashtra police had sought custody of all five activists and succeeded in getting transit remand for Ferreira, Gonsalves and Bharadwaj from respective jurisdictional courts.

Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Chartered Accountant S Gurumurthy for his tweets against sitting High Court judge Justice S Muralidhar.

Gurumurthy had shared a tweet alleging bias on the part of Justice Muralidhar after the judge had passed an order setting aside the transit remand order against activist Gautam Navlakha earlier this month.

He had retweeted a link to a blog called ‘Drishtikone’, titled ‘Why has Delhi High Court Justice Muralidhar’s relationship with Gautam Navlakha not been disclosed?’

SC asks Navlakha to respond to plea against cancellation of his transit remand and release from house arrest

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Yogesh Khanna issued notice to Gurumurthy, Drishtikone and filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri. The Court also ordered that the tweets in question, and a YouTube video making allegations against Justice Muralidhar, be taken down. Notice has also been issued to the NCT government.

This is not the first time Gurumurthy has targeted Justice Muralidhar and been pulled up for it. After the court granted interim relief to Karti Chidambaram, Gurumurthy, who is the editor of the magazine ‘Thuglak’, through his tweets, had asked whether Justice Muralidhar had been a junior to Karti Chidambaram’s father and Senior Advocate P Chidambaram.

Taking cognisance of the tweet, the Court observed, “Being the editor of a magazine that has a wide readership in Tamil Nadu, had Mr. S. Gurumurthy cared to check, he could easily have ascertained that the presiding Judge of this Bench was as a junior of Mr. G. Ramswamy, who then was the Additional Solicitor General of India and who later was the Attorney General for India.

“At no time did the presiding Judge work as a junior to Mr. P. Chidambaram, Senior Advocate, the father of the Petitioner. It is unfortunate that despite some of the tweets in response clarifying the correct factual position, Mr. Gurumurthy chose not to withdraw his mischievous and false tweet.”

The Court, in that matter, did not initiate contempt proceedings against Gurumurthy.

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