Delhi High Court Issues Notice to Police on Tahir Hussain's Appeal in Ankit Sharma Murder Case

The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi Police to respond to an appeal filed by former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain against his conviction in the murder of Intelligence Bureau officer Ankit Sharma.

What the High Court did

The court issued notice to the Delhi Police, which means it has formally asked the prosecution to file its reply to the appeal.

The matter has been listed for hearing on 2 December, along with other connected appeals in the same case.

The Bench also called for Hussain's nominal roll from the jail authorities. A nominal roll is the prison record of a convict. It sets out details such as the sentence undergone so far, remission earned and conduct in custody.

The case in brief

Ankit Sharma, an officer with the Intelligence Bureau, was killed in the Dayalpur area during the northeast Delhi riots in February 2020.

On 13 July, nearly six years after the incident, a Karkardooma court convicted Hussain along with four co-accused: Nazim, Kasim, Javed and Anas.

On 31 July, the same court sentenced them to life imprisonment.

Hussain has now challenged that conviction before the Delhi High Court.

The charges he was convicted under

The trial court convicted Hussain under the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly):

Section 302 — murder

Section 365 — kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person

Section 147 — rioting

Section 148 — rioting armed with a deadly weapon

Section 153A — promoting enmity between groups

Section 188 — disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant

Section 149 makes every member of an unlawful assembly liable for an offence committed by any member of that assembly in pursuit of its common object.

What happens next

Issuing notice is a procedural step, not a ruling. It does not mean the High Court has formed any view on the merits of the appeal.

The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court remain in force. An appeal being admitted does not by itself suspend either.

The Delhi Police will now file its response. The High Court will hear the appeal on 2 December, together with the connected appeals filed in the same matter.

Quick answers

What does "issuing notice" mean?

It is a formal direction asking the opposing party, here the Delhi Police, to file a reply. It is a procedural step and not a decision on whether the appeal will succeed.

Has the conviction been set aside?

No. The conviction and the life sentence passed by the Karkardooma court stand. The High Court has only sought a response and fixed a hearing date.

When will the appeal be heard?

2 December, along with other connected appeals in the same case.

Who else was convicted?

Four co-accused: Nazim, Kasim, Javed and Anas. All five were sentenced to life imprisonment on 31 July.

What is a nominal roll?

It is the official prison record of a convict, covering matters such as sentence served, remission earned and conduct in custody. Courts often call for it while dealing with appeals or bail applications.

Bombay High Court Evicts Son From Parents' Pune Flat: Senior Citizens' Rights Come First

A son said he had lived in the flat since the day he was born. The Bombay High Court has told him to hand it back to his parents.

What the court decided

On 21 August 2026, Justice Amit Borkar upheld an order evicting a son from a flat in Pune owned by his elderly parents.

The court's central line was simple. A senior citizen cannot be deprived of the use, occupation or beneficial enjoyment of their own property in a way that disturbs their normal life.

The son has been directed to hand over peaceful possession within four weeks.

The dispute

The son said he had lived at the address since birth. He married in 2012, and his wife moved in with him.

His argument was that the property had been built using income from ancestral property, making it joint family property. He also pointed out that his name appears on the building's occupancy certificate as an occupant.

His parents said the property belonged to them.

Relations broke down after the parents sold one property in September 2015 without consulting him. He said people acting for the buyer pressured him and his wife to leave. More property transactions followed. He filed a civil suit seeking partition and lodged a police complaint against his parents, his brother and others.

Meanwhile, the parents went to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

How the case travelled

• 8 February 2019: The SDM rejected the parents' application.
• 27 June 2019: The Additional Collector, Pune allowed their appeal and set aside the SDM's order.
• 21 August 2026: The Bombay High Court upheld the Additional Collector's order.

Three points that decide the case

1. You don't have to ask for money

The son argued the parents had not made a proper maintenance claim. The court disagreed.

Maintenance, it held, is not only about money. It includes the right to live peacefully in your own home and to enjoy the benefit of your own property. So an eviction plea by senior citizens can stand even without a specific demand for financial maintenance.

The parents' handwritten application mentioned rent, medicines, a loan and possession. Read as a whole, the court said, that is a maintenance grievance.

2. Living in separate flats makes no difference

The building has 15 flats. The son lived in one, his parents in another. His lawyers argued the Act should not apply because they were not sharing a home.

The court rejected this. The protection is not limited to cases where parent and child live under the same roof. The real question is whether the child's occupation stops the senior citizen from using their property or earning from it.

3. A pending claim is not a proven right

The son had a partition suit pending. The court said that a claim which has not yet been decided by a civil court cannot block his parents from seeking protection under the Act.

The parents are the recorded owners. Until a competent civil court declares otherwise, that stands.

What the court did not decide

Two things were expressly left open. The order does not decide the wife's independent rights, and it does not affect the son's pending partition suit.

The court also made clear it was not comparing who was richer. The question was only whether the parents needed protection over their residence, maintenance and property.

Why this matters

The 2007 Act was written for a common Indian situation: elderly parents with property on paper, but no control over it in practice.

This ruling widens its reach in two ways. Parents do not need to frame their plea as a request for money, and they do not need to be sharing a flat with the child. If a grown child's occupation is stopping them from living or earning normally, that is enough to bring the Act into play.

It is also a reminder that the Act offers a faster route than a civil suit. These proceedings go to the SDM and the Collector, not through years of ordinary litigation.

Quick answers

Which law was used?

Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Do parents have to ask for money to get an eviction order?

No. The court held that maintenance includes the right to peaceful residence and beneficial enjoyment of one's own property.

Does the Act apply if parent and child live in separate flats?

Yes. The court held the protection is not limited to shared residence. What matters is whether the child's occupation affects the senior citizen's use of or income from the property.

Does a pending partition suit stop an eviction?

No. Until a civil court declares the child's ownership right, an unproven claim cannot defeat the senior citizens' protection under the Act.

How long does the son have to vacate?

Four weeks from the order dated 21 August 2026.

Rejected for 1 cm: Gauhati High Court Orders Fresh Height Check for CAPF Candidate

One centimetre cost a young man a job. The Gauhati High Court has now asked the authorities to measure him again.

What happened

A candidate applied for the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Forces and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles under the 2025 recruitment drive.

At the Physical Standard Test (PST), his height was recorded as 164 cm on 26 August 2025. The minimum required is 165 cm.

He was rejected. Just one centimetre short.

The appeal that went nowhere

The PST rejection slip itself told him he could appeal in writing on the same day. He did.

Then things dragged. He first went to the High Court, which told the authorities to decide his appeal quickly. That did not happen, so he filed a contempt petition. While that was pending, he was informed on 12 May that his appeal had been rejected.

So he went back to the High Court a second time.

What the court noticed

Justice Nelson Sailo heard the matter on 12 August 2026. The judge spotted a simple problem.

The order rejecting the appeal did not show that the candidate had been measured again. The authorities had simply gone back to the same 164 cm reading taken at the recruitment centre months earlier.

In other words, the appeal was decided using the very measurement the appeal was against.

The court directed the authorities to measure his height afresh and inform him of the result.

Why this matters

An appeal is supposed to be a real second look. If the appellate authority just repeats the first reading, the candidate gains nothing by appealing.

Height measurement also has a margin of error. Posture, footwear, the equipment used and even the time of day can shift a reading by a centimetre. That is exactly why a fresh check matters when the gap is this small.

For lakhs of young people preparing for police and paramilitary jobs, a centimetre is not a technicality. It is the whole career.

Similar cases in other courts

Calcutta High Court: On 4 August 2026, the court set aside a Review Medical Examination Board decision that declared a CAPF constable candidate unfit for a "winged scapula". Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that rejection cannot rest on clinical findings alone. It needs confirmatory tests and, where required, specialist opinion. A fresh medical examination was ordered.

Delhi High Court: On 1 July 2026, Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan dismissed pleas by two serving personnel denied promotion to Assistant Commandant over tattoos on their saluting arm. The court said members of disciplined forces cannot claim they did not know the rules, and that removing a tattoo later does not cure ineligibility that existed at the time of applying.

Quick answers

What was the candidate's height?

164 cm, recorded on 26 August 2025. The minimum required was 165 cm.

What did the Gauhati High Court order?

It directed the authorities to measure his height again and communicate the result to him.

Did the court say he must be selected?

No. The order is about a fresh measurement, not guaranteed selection.

Which post was he applying for?

Constable (General Duty) in the CAPF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, under the 2025 recruitment process.

Stray dog menace: Solicitor General seeks urgent intervention of Supreme Court

Stray dog menace: Solicitor General seeks urgent intervention of Supreme Court

On noticing the lawyer wearing a bandage during a hearing, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asked the reason.

The problem of dog bites, highlighted once again by the recent death of a teen in Uttar Pradesh, came up in the Supreme Court today in an unexpected way as a lawyer walked in bandaged after a dog attack.

On noticing the lawyer wearing a bandage during a hearing, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asked the reason.

"I was surrounded and bitten by five dogs," the lawyer replied.

"Where, near your house?" the Chief Justice asked. The lawyer replied in the affirmative. Justice Chandrachud immediately offered assistance and asked if the lawyer needed medical help. "We can arrange to take you to the hospital right away," he said.

The government lawyer, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, also stepped into the conversation, saying, "This is a serious threat. Recently, a video emerged of a child being attacked by dogs in Uttar Pradesh. We usually don't pay much attention to these. The child was taken to the hospital after he caught a rabies infection. The doctor said nothing could be done and the child died in his father's arms."

The Chief Justice also shared another incident. "Two years ago, my law clerks were parking their car and street dogs attacked them," said the top judge.

Senior lawyer Vijay Hansaria urged Justice Chandrachud to take action on the menace of street dog attacks. "We will look into it," the Chief Justice responded.

Last week, a 14-year-old died of rabies a month after being bitten by a dog in Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh. The police filed cases against neighbours accused of feeding stray dogs, including one carrying rabies.

The Supreme court in June issued notice on a request to euthanise extremely dangerous stray dogs after a nine-year-old girl was attacked by a pack of strays in her neighbourhood in Kerala.

(Courtesy:- NDTV, 11 September 2023)

No immunity to corrupt public servants in pre-2014 cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday said that its 2014 ruling, removing the immunity to central government employees at the joint secretary level and above from probe in corruption cases, “will apply retrospectively” and that no such employee can demand a protection from coercive measures for the period between September 2003 – when the impugned law was framed, and May 2014 – when it was struck down.

A constitution bench, headed by justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, declared that Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act “is held to be not in force from the date of its insertion – September 11, 2003”.

The bench, which also comprised justices Sanjiv Khanna, AS Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari, further clarified that Section 6A was a procedural provision and that the 2014 decision on its validity had nothing to do with the applicability of Article 20(1), which lays down that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the alleged act.

The central question before the bench related to the applicability of Section 6A in DSPE Act, which required an investigating agency to go to the government to seek approval for the probe against public servants.

Section 6A of the DSPE Act mandated the government’s prior sanction to proceed in corruption cases against officers of the rank of joint secretary and above. However, an exception provided in Section 6A(2) states that no approval is necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept a bribe.

Section 6A of the DSPE Act was added in September 2003 through Section 26 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act (CVCA) when the NDA was in power. The then law minister, Arun Jaitley, had defended the provision in Parliament during a debate on the Central Vigilance Commission Bill. Jaitley said that those in decision-making positions, who must exercise discretion, and those who have to take vital decisions, needed to be protected against frivolous complaints.

In 2014, a five-judge constitution bench struck down Section 6A of the DSPE Act, ruling that “status or position” cannot shield an officer of the level of joint secretary and above from unconstrained probe by the CBI in cases of corruption. This bench termed Section 6A a “discriminatory” provision that “impedes tracking down the corrupt senior bureaucrats”. The court had at the time said that “the protection in Section 6A has propensity of shielding the corrupt”, adding the provision “suffers from the vice of classifying offenders differently for treatment thereunder for inquiry and investigation of offences, according to their status in life”.

The petitioner in the present case, Dr RR Kishore, was arrested by the CBI in 2004 for allegedly accepting a bribe. Kishore, at the time, was a chief district medical officer in Delhi and thus, holding the rank of a joint secretary-level officer. He had subsequently challenged the arrest in the Delhi high court, citing lack of sanction from the competent authority to arrest him. The high court, in 2006, held that the arrest was illegal since prior approval from the Union government was not obtained by CBI. At the same time, the high court allowed CBI to conduct a fresh investigation after seeking the government’s approval. In 2007, CBI challenged this order in an appeal.

While the matter remained pending in the top court, the 2014 ruling came that did away with the requirement of prior sanction for investigating charges against the central government employees at the joint secretary level or above.

When CBI’s appeal against Kishore came up before a two-judge bench in March 2016, it was noted that the 2014 judgment by the constitution bench did not mention if the ruling would apply retrospectively or prospectively. Therefore, the matter was again referred to a five-judge constitution bench to clarify whether the 2014 decision meant that officials with cases pending against them could be deprived of their immunity retrospectively.

Meanwhile, in 2018, the central government brought an amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by adding Section 17A, extending the immunity from prosecution without prior sanction even to retired government officers.

Arguing in person before the constitution bench, Kishore contended that after Section 6A was struck down by the Supreme Court, the protection was reinstated by the legislature in 2018 and hence, the legal protection still continues.

CBI, on its part, opposed Kishore’s plea, arguing that Section 17A of the PC Act was not intended as a replica of Section 6A DSPE Act. Countering Kishore’s submission that the protection should be considered to be applicable in a way that it was never struck down in view of the 2018 amendment, the agency argued that such an interpretation could open floodgates of litigation.

The Constitution bench judgment on Monday means that there would be no protection to the public servants on the premise of a sanction under Section 6A in pre-2014 cases.

(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 11 September 2023)

Supreme Court Releases Man Jailed For 12 Years After Finding He Was Juvenile At Time Of Offence

The Supreme Court has ordered the release of a man who has already served over 12 years in jail after being awarded a life sentence in a murder case, holding that he was a juvenile when the offence was committed in 2005.

A bench headed by Justice B R Gavai referred to a May 2023 report of an additional sessions judge, who was asked to conduct an inquiry with regard to the plea of juvenility raised by the man, which said his date of birth was May 2, 1989.

"If the date of birth of the petitioner is May 2, 1989, he was 16 years and seven months old as of the date of the crime, i.e., December 21, 2005. Accordingly, the petitioner was a juvenile in conflict with the law on the date of commission of the offence," the bench, also comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar, said in an order passed on September 5.

The Supreme Court delivered its order on a plea filed by the petitioner seeking verification of his claim of juvenility and consequential orders as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

According to the provisions of the 2000 Act, the maximum period for which the petitioner could have been in custody is three years.

"However, as the plea of juvenility was raised for the first time in the present writ petition (filed in 2022) before us, the process of criminal law, which commenced in 2005, led to the petitioner being convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment concurrently by the trial court, the high court, as well as the Supreme Court," the bench said.

It said the petitioner has spent over 12 years in jail.

"Having accepted the report of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, the petitioner can no longer be incarcerated. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and direct that the petitioner be released forthwith if he is not required to be detained in any other case," the bench said.

The Supreme Court noted that it is well settled that the question of juvenility can be raised before any court and at any stage, as prescribed under Section 7A(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and confirmed by judicial precedents.

It said the petitioner was arrayed as an accused along with others in the case, and a trial court had in December 2009 convicted him and others and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court noted the high court, and later the top court affirmed his conviction and sentence.

It was also noted that two months after the Supreme Court passed the order in July 2022, the petitioner filed a petition seeking a direction to the state to verify his claim of juvenility.

The bench said the state had filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner had studied at a school in Andhra Pradesh from 1st to 3rd standard and that his date of birth was May 2, 1989.

Post a comment"Since the juvenility was based on the petitioner's school documents, this court considered it appropriate to direct the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Khammam, Andhra Pradesh, to conduct an inquiry with regard to the plea of juvenility raised by the petitioner," it said.

(Courtesy:- NDTV, 8 September 2023)

Supreme Court: India's statute, not J&K's, let Parliament make laws for J&K

 A five-judge Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant on Tuesday ordered the conclusion of arguments on scrapping Article 370 and bifurcating J&K into two UTs in 2019 after hearing rejoinders from petitioners' counsel Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramaniam, Rajeev Dhawan, Zaffar Mohd Shah and Dushyant Dave.

The Centre and supporters of the decision in many intervenors through attorney general R Venkataramani, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, senior advocates Harish Salve, Rakesh Dwivedi, V

Giri, Mahesh Jethmalani and Guru Krishna Kumar and others took just five and a half days to elaborate the validly exercised power to skeletonise Article 370 to make J&K's integration with India complete and its bifurcation to preserve territorial integrity.

To a query from the bench, the Union government had informed the court that it was ready to conduct assembly elections for J&K UT and detailed the commencement of the process by first putting in place people's representatives at the grassroots-level democratic institutions. "We are ready to hold elections to the J&K UT assembly at any time and that a call in that regard would have to be taken by the state and central Election Commissions," the SG had informed the SC.

However, Mehta had said that though it is a solemn promise of the Union government to the Parliament to restore statehood to J&K UT, it would take some time till the goal of bringing normalcy to the decades-long terrorism affected erstwhile state is achieved. The government had also indicated that Ladakh would continue to remain a UT even after J&K gets back statehood .

On Tuesday, National Conference MP Mohammad Akbar Lone's counsel Sibal cited certain letters exchanged between Sardar Vallavbhai Patel, Jawaharlal Nehru and N Gopalaswami Ayyangar to make a startling claim that Patel "was the architect of Article 370". The CJI asked Sibal to read another letter where Patel appears to have expressed his serious reservations on giving special status to J&K under Article 370, a letter which was highlighted by Mehta, who did the bulk of arguments for the Union government.

The SC had, throughout the hearing, maintained that the Indian Constitution was supreme, J&K was an integral part of India, and that its Constitution was subordinate to that of India. On Tuesday it said, "The power to apply provisions of the Indian Constitution to J&K is found in the Constitution of India and not in the J&K Constitution. The domain of Parliament to make laws for J&K is found in the Indian Constitution and not in that of J&K."

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 6 September 2023)

Bail cannot granted bail in all cases only on the basis of the corona’s epidemic: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Saturday said, bail cannot be granted in all cases only on the basis of the corona epidemic. For bail it is necessary to consider the nature and severity of the crime.

A bench of Justices Vineet Sharan and Justice Anirudh Bose made these remarks while hearing a petition for anticipatory bail filed by a hotel owner against a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The hotel owner is accused of using his premises for prostitution. He moved the Supreme Court after the High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail.

The public prosecutor had said before the High Court that raids were conducted in the hotel on the basis of a secret information. The police arrested 14 people, including two young girls from Uzbekistan, from there. The hotel owner was successful in escaping from the spot.

It was said on behalf of the prosecutor that in order to expose this entire racket, questioning of the petitioner in custody is necessary. After which the High Court refused to grant him anticipatory bail.

In the Supreme Court, the hotel owner's lawyer said, one of the two women arrested is his wife while the other is his hotel receptionist. It was also argued that now it is time for the corona epidemic, so he should be given anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court said on this, so Covid came here too. The case is of the Immoral Trade (Prevention) Act. 14 customers were caught from the hotel. Corona is not the solution to all things.

The bench has refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and asked the petitioner to surrender immediately. The court has directed the SSP of Mohali to take appropriate steps for his arrest if the petitioner does not surrender. The court has asked the SSP to submit a compliance report in a week.

--------

Dr. Deepak Miglani

Email id:- legalbuddy@gmail.com

Bombay High Court: Center and BMC’s stand on door-to-door vaccination disappointing and insensitive

The Bombay High Court on Thursday said that the central government’s stance on the door-to-door vaccination policy is disappointing and insensitive. BMC is also on its way. Both are not focused on the elderly and helpless, who cannot go to the vaccination center to get vaccinated.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice GS Kulkarni asked the head of the expert team set up to determine the procedure for vaccination of Corona, to suggest to the Central Government in case of door-to-door vaccination. This will enable the central government to take a decision on it. This work should be done before the hearing of the case on June 2.

--------

Dr. Deepak Miglani, Email id:- legalbuddy@gmail.com

Singapore Government in Big Action against Arvind Keriwal’s statement, implemented fake news law, know what will be the effect

Arvind Kejriwal’s statement that the new strain of Corona virus was described as ‘Singapore variant’ created such a ruckus that the Indian government had to be clarified in front of Singapore. After the controversy over Arvind Kejriwal’s statement, Singapore on Wednesday expressed satisfaction with the cleanliness of the Indian government, but it has taken a big step to stop the dissemination of misinformation. The Singapore government has implemented the Anti-Misinformation Law, (Protection from Online Falsehoods & Manipulation- POFMA) against Arvind Kejriwal. Actually, it is the law in Singapore to stop the lies being spread online. It is designed to prevent the spread of misinformation.

Singapore's Ministry of Health has asked the POFMA office to issue general reform-related instructions to Facebook, Twitter and local social media platforms. This means that after the enactment of this law, now social media companies including Facebook, Twitter and Hardwarejondotcom will have to send a correction notice to all end-users in Singapore. This means that no information related to Arvind Kejriwal's statement will be shown in Singapore.

According to the statement of Singapore’s Ministry of Health, under this, now social media companies will have to give a correction and clarification to all end-users regarding the lies regarding Singapore variants. Social media platforms have to state that there is no Singapore variant of the Corona and there is no evidence that a Corona variant is extremely dangerous for children. The CM of Delhi said on Tuesday that the new strain found in Singapore may cause a third wave in India, which may affect children more.

However, earlier Singapore High Commissioner Simon Wong hinted at the implementation of the law in a virtual press conference. He said on Wednesday that Singapore wants to close this unfortunate chapter and focus on a common war against the epidemic. After the tweet by Kejriwal linking the new strain to Singapore, diplomatic relations with the South Asian country were affected. The Indian High Commissioner in Singapore was summoned on Wednesday and objected.

After this, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar himself took the front and called the Delhi Chief Minister's statement as irresponsible, saying that what he said is not the veiw of India. Wong said, “We praise the Indian government's clear answer and are satisfied with it,”. He also said that a prominent political figure in New Delhi without testing the facts said unfortunate things, on which Singapore has expressed deep concern.

Significantly, POFMA is commonly known as the Fake News Act. This law has been created towards the Parliament of Singapore to prevent the spread of false information. Wong said that it is the responsibility of those who hold important political positions not to spread lies. Referring to the statements of Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and Health Minister Satyendar Jain, he said that the investigation in Singapore has determined that it is only the B.1.617.2 variant, which was first found in India.

Vijay Mallya’s bankruptcy petition dismissed: UK High Court lifts security cover from fugitive businessman’s property in India, eases SBI debt recovery path

 9 thousand crore rupees owed to Vijay Mallya from all banks

This loan from Banko was taken for Kingfisher Airlines

London court has slammed fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya on Tuesday. Vijay Mallya, who filed a bankruptcy petition in the High Court, is defeated here. After this decision of the court, the State Bank of India (SBI) can be easy to recover debt by selling its assets.

Mallya took a loan for Kingfisher Airline. The London High Court has lifted the security cover imposed on Mallya’s property in India. With this, the consortium of SBI-led Indian banks has come closer to recovering debt from Mallya. Now Indian banks will be able to recover the loan given to Kingfisher Airlines, which has been closed by capturing Mallya’s assets in India.

The bank's consortium tried in April. A consortium led by SBI, during a hearing in the London High Court in April, tried very hard to declare the fugitive businessman bankrupt. Vijay Mallya owes a debt of Rs 9,000 crore to the closed Kingfisher Airlines. Vijay Mallya used to say that the debt owed on him is public money. In such a situation, banks cannot declare him insolvent.

London court ruled in favor of Indian banks. Mallya had also claimed that the insolvency petition filed by Indian banks was outside the purview of the law. They cannot impose the security of their property in India, as it is against the public interest in India. Michael Briggs, the judge of the Chief Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC) of the London High Court, ruled in favor of Indian banks, saying there was no public policy that would provide security rights to Mallya's assets.

There may still be a delay in coming to India. Mallya is trying everything so that he does not have to come to India. Law experts say that his chances of winning the case in the UK are slim, but still his maneuver gives him a few more days to live in the UK. Experts say that almost all laws of Mallya's stay in Britain have been closed.

--------

Dr. Deepak Miglani

If you want to receive legal news on your mobile, please send your mobile no to legalbuddy@gmail.com

Supreme Court: Petition of Parambir Singh was not heard, Justice Gavai separated himself from the case

The plea of former Mumbai Police Commissioner Parambir could not be heard in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Justice BR Gavai of the bench recused himself from the hearing, after which the hearing was deferred.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday was to hear the plea of former Mumbai Police Commissioner Parambir Singh to get his case investigated out of Maharashtra, but Justice BR Gavai distanced himself from the bench. Due to this, the plea of Parambir Singh could not be heard. Now another bench will hear this petition on another day.

In the petition, Parambir Singh has requested to transfer all the investigations against him outside Maharashtra and get an independent agency investigated. The matter came up for hearing before a vacation bench of Justice Vineet Sharan and Justice Gavai. At the commencement of the hearing of the case, Justice Sharan said that the member of the bench (Justice Gavai) had some difficulty in hearing the matter. We want to say that the matter should be referred to another bench. Justice Gavai said that I cannot hear this matter.

Senior advocate Puneet Bali, appearing for Singh, said that the investigation against his client was completely motivated by revenge and violated the orders of the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court. Singh is a 1988 batch IPS officer and was removed from the post of Mumbai Police Commissioner on 17 March.

--------

Dr. Deepak Miglani

Kerala Math Teacher filed petition in Supreme Court for conducting 12th examination

In contrast to the plea to declare the results of 12th class board examinations on the basis of grading, a teacher from Kerala has approached the Supreme Court to ensure that the examination is conducted.

Kerala math teacher Tony Joseph has filed an intervention petition through lawyer Jose Abraham, saying that he is a teacher and concerned about the future of his students.

The intervention petitioner has said that the 12th-grade examination gives a new dimension to the career. Not only this, admission to higher education institutions depends on the result of this exam. In such a situation, cancellation of the examination will be an injustice to the hardworking students who have worked hard for the board examination.

The petitioner states that a large section of academics and heads of institutes in addition to students and teachers are in favor of conducting the examination. He also suggested that the exam should be conducted only after three to four months of delay in life.

It is worth mentioning that an original petition of Mamta Sharma is pending in the apex court, in which she has sought the direction to cancel the 12th board examinations due to the Corona epidemic and declare the result on the basis of internal grading.

--------

Dr. Deepak Miglani

Email id:- legalbudy@gmail.com

Central Government in Delhi High Court: WhatsApp privacy policy not in line with Indian IT law

 

The Center on Monday told the Delhi High Court that it sees WhatsApp's new privacy policy as a violation of Indian Information Technology (IT) laws and regulations and sought directions to the social media platform to clarify this. During the hearing of several petitions challenging WhatsApp’s new privacy policy, the central government had claimed before the bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh that the new policy had been implemented from May 15 and it was not postponed.

WhatsApp told the bench that its new privacy policy has come into effect from May 15, but would not start deleting the accounts of users who have not accepted it and would try to encourage them to join the board. WhatsApp stated that there was no universal or uniform time limit, after which it would start deleting accounts as each user would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

During the hearing, the Central Government said that according to it this policy is a violation of Indian IT laws and regulations. The center said it has written to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on the issue and is awaiting a response. Till then there is a need to maintain the status quo in relation to the implementation of the policy.

The next hearing on this issue will be held on June 3.

------------

Dr. Deepak Miglani

Email id.:- legalbuddy@gmail.com

Chitrakoot District Jail Gangwar and Encounter Case Reached Supreme Court

The case of Chitrakoot District Jail, which has exposed the security arrangements of all the prisons of the state with the country, has now reached the Supreme Court. A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court demanding a CBI or NIA investigation into the gang war and encounter cases in Chitrakoot District Jail.

Lawyer Anoop Prakash Awasthi has filed a petition in the Supreme Court. The case of Mukesh Kala and Meraj Ali, who were killed in a gang war in Chitrakoot District Jail, as well as the case of Anshu Dixit in a police encounter, looks very suspicious. Awasthi has demanded the Supreme Court to investigate the Chitrakoot District Jail murder case and the encounter case with the CBI or NIA under the supervision of the Supreme Court. He filed this application online on Sunday.

It is worth mentioning that on Friday morning in the Chitrakoot District Jail, the nephew and gang member Meraj Ali of the relationship of Mukai Kala, the main accused of Kairana escape and the mafia MLA from Purvanchal, was killed by the sharp shooter Anshu Dixit. The killer Anshu was also killed in a police encounter. During the two-hour gang-war and encounter in the jail, 50 rounds of bullets were fired in the jail. Along with the detainees, the prison security personnel also lurked in the barracks. When the police force reached , they took positions and retaliated by firing.

------------

Dr. Deepak Miglani

Email id:- legalbuddy@gmail.com

Delhi High Court has criticized the central government's dialer tune

The Delhi High Court has criticized the central government's dialer tune related to the Corona vaccine being heard over the phone. The High Court said on Thursday, “We do not know how many days this disturbing message has been ringing.” In this, people are being asked to get vaccinated. While the vaccine is not available in sufficient numbers.

A bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli said, “When people call, they hear the message that people should get vaccinated, whereas you (the central government) do not have enough vaccines.” You are not vaccinating people, but you are still saying to get vaccinated. Who will get this done? What is the meaning of this message?  Governments must work at the ground level.

The bench said, “Central and state governments will have to work according to the situation at the ground level. So please prepare some more (dialer message). When people hear different messages every time, they will probably be helped.” The court said that get the programme produced through TV presenters,producers to make the people aware. Popular people like Amitabh Bachchan can be asked to help in this.

------

Dr. Deepak Miglani

Email id:- legalbuddy@gmail.com

Arrangement for food and ration for migrant laborers, Supreme Court directive to central and state government

In the second wave of the Kovid-19 epidemic, the Supreme Court heard the case of migrant laborers facing an economic crisis. The court has sought information from Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh in the case. At the same time, the court asked the central and state governments to arrange food and ration for them and provide facilities for the people returning to their homes so that they can go home comfortably.

The court expressed concern over the situation of migrant laborers in the country and asked the state governments to respond within a week on the schemes launched for them. The court questioned the central government about the migrant laborers because of the closure and lockdown due to the corona epidemic that has rendered them impoverished, they have neither employment nor money. They must have some means of earning to eat.

----

Dr. Deepak Miglani

Email id:- legalbuddy@gmail.com

Those who lost their lives from Corona during election duty should get compensation of 1 crore- Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has called the compensation of the families of officers and employees killed due to corona in duty in the UP Panchayat elections less. The High Court said on Wednesday that the compensation amount should be at least Rs 1 crore. A bench of Justices Siddharth Verma and Justice Ajit Kumar said this during the hearing on the PIL filed in connection with the outbreak of epidemic in Uttar Pradesh and the quarantine centers. The matter will be next heard on May 17,2021.

The Uttar Pradesh government had announced a compensation of Rs 30 lakh to the kin of those killed from Corona during election duty. To this, the High Court said, “We hope that the State Election Commission and the government will reconsider the compensation amount and will tell us about it at the next hearing.”

The High Court also said that the state government and the Election Commission deliberately forced the employees to do duty without RT-PCR investigation. In such a situation, the compensation of the life of the person living the family should be at least 1 crore.

Public interest litigation (PIL) is a medium through which public issues involving minority or disadvantaged groups or individuals are raised through litigation or legal proceedings. In simple words, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is the result of judicial activism through which an individual or a non-governmental organization or civic group can seek justice in court on issues involving large public interest.

Any Indian citizen can file a PIL, the only condition being that it should be filed in the public interest rather than private interest. If an issue is of very public importance, many times the court also takes suo motu cognizance in such a case and appoints a lawyer to handle such a case. Public interest petitions can be filed only in the Supreme Court or the High Court. The court also imposes a penalty for filing a PIL for the wrong reasons.

----

Dr. Deepak Miglani

Email id:- legalbuddy@gmail.com

New Maneuver of Fugitive Accused of PNB Scam: Nirav Modi appeals to the UK High Court

Wanted diamond businessman Nirav Modi in PNB scam has appealed in the UK High Court against the decision to extradite India. He has filed a petition seeking permission to challenge the court's extradition decision and its decision to approve the UK Home Ministry. Earlier in February, the last hearing on Nirav's extradition took place in the Westminster Court of Britain. The court had approved to send Nirav to India. After this, on 16 April, the UK Home Ministry also approved the handing over of Nirav to India. 

Now after this, Nirav was sure to come to India. 

Judge Samuel Gooji had said that Nirav Modi would have to answer in the case going on in India. He admitted that there is enough evidence against Nirav Modi. The decision came after a 2-year legal battle. 

Nirav Modi is accused of committing fraud of around 14 thousand crores by taking a loan from PNB. He escaped from the country in January 2018 after the scam surfaced. Nirav Modi, arrested on March 19, 2019, is accused of conspiracy to commit money laundering, tampering of evidence, and intimidating witnesses. On 16 April, the UK Home Ministry approved the extradition to India.

------------------

Dr. Deepak Miglani

Email id:- legalbuddy@gmail.com

Bar Council of India extends the date for filling the AIBE XVI exam form[June 15, 2021]

The Bar Council of India (Bar Council of India, BCI) has put forward the last date of registration for the AIBE XVI (16) 2021 exam. According to this, candidates can now fill the form for the All India Bar Examination application form by June 15, 2021. To fill the online application form, visit the official website https://allindiabarexamination.com/" rel="nofollow .However the date of AIBE XVI (16) examination has not been announced yet. In this regard, the BCI has said that, when the conditions are normal, then the new dates of the examination will be announced. The last date for filling the AIBE 16th edition (AIBE 16) examination form by BCI was on 30th April, 2021. The All India Bar Exam will be conducted in 40 cities across the country. The exam pattern will be multiple choice.

-------

Dr. Deepak Miglani

Email id:- legalbuddy@gmail.com