While Anand Teltumbde has protection order till February 11, 2019, the arrest made by the Pune police was illegal and was in gross violation of Supreme Court order, the Special Judge added. The Pune police are guilty of contempt of court for disdaining the order of the apex court, the Special Judge noted.
Hours after the claim made by the AG, one of the members of the High Powered Committee, Mallikarjun Kharge, contradicted the statement of the Attorney General and told counsel for the petitioner Prashant Bhushan that issue of the appointment of M Nagaswara Rao as interim director CBI was never discussed in the meeting.
Persons who are not covered under the scheme of reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs and whose family has gross annual income below Rs 8,00,000 are to be identified as EWSs for benefit of reservation. Income shall also include income from all sources i.e. salary, agriculture, business, profession, etc. for the financial year prior to the year of application.
This discloser has come to the light during a course of hearing of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO Common Cause and noted RTI activist Anjali Bharadwaj who have approached the Supreme Court of India seeking quashing of the appointment of IPS officer M Nageswara Rao as the interim Director CBI. Rao was given charge of the office of the Director CBI by an order dated January 10, 2019 issued by the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet.
A K Bassi, the former Investigation Officer (IO) in the FIR against the then special director CBI Rakesh Asthana, had filed the petition through advocate Sunil Fernandes. Bassi had challenged the transfer order dated January 11, 2019, issued with the approval of the interim director CBI Nagaswara Rao that had effectively nullified the order passed by the then CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma cancelling the transfer of DSP A K Bassi to Port Blair.
The Petitioner Debasish Roy had argued that the guidelines framed by the High Court were in conflict with the said Advocates Act, 1961 and Supreme Court’s judgment dated October 12, 2017 in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India. On the issue of pro bono work, the High Court held that paragraph 14 of the guidelines that provides only pro bono services done by those empanelled with the State Legal Services is unnecessary.
After a brief exchange with petitioner M L Sharma, CJI proceeded to pass the order dismissing the PIL and noted: “Multiple causes of action have been combined, one having no connection with the other. While some of the reliefs sought may lie, if at all within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, the other reliefs sought are not appropriate for being dealt with in the manner in which they have been projected. We, therefore, decline to entertain this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The same is accordingly dismissed.”
This is a first exercise being undertaken by the Bombay High Court for conferring the distinction of senior advocate after the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment dated October 12, 2017 in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, that ruled that the process of designation would be dealt with by a Permanent Committee, comprising the Chief Justice of India (or the respective Chief Justice of High Court), two senior judges, Attorney General (or the respective Advocate General) and an eminent jurist based on a “100 Points Index” to ensure non-discrimination and transparency.
Gadchiroli police in the late hours of January 30, 2019, took custody of noted human rights lawyer and Nagpur-based Dalit rights activist Surendra Gadling and activist-poet-writer P Varvara Rao from Pune’s Yerwada Jail authorities. The Police made the arrests in connection with another alleged case of involvement of Gadling and Rao in so-called “unlawful activity” related to the Surjagadh case of 2016. With these arrests, the apprehensions of “ever-greening” of charges on the civil rights activities becoming a reality.
In a series of recusals from hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by NGO Common Cause and RTI activist Anjali Bharadwaj challenging the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim director CBI, Justice N V Ramana has become third judge in a row after CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justice A K Sikri, who recused himself from hearing the said PIL. The PIL was listed before a three-judge bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee.
The process of selecting Senior Advocates ultimately turned out to be an exercise in choosing junior advocates, claim the Petitioners. Further, the foremost criterion governing the designation — namely, the standing at the Bar — was given a complete go-by and was totally ignored, according to the Petitioners. Many of the senior members of the Bar who had applied for designation and who enjoy very good reputation and command extensive and varied practice were left out, while many advocates of much higher standing and much better credentials were not recommended and were not designated as Senior Advocates and their claims were totally overlooked, write the Petitioners.
The Union of India has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking permission of the Court to allow it to handover the excess/superfluous lands around disputed site in Ayodhya to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and other owners the land adjacent to the disputed site in Ayodhya. The Centre has sought a direction from the Supreme Court to release 67 acres of land, out of which 0.313 acres are disputed. Centre has also sought modification of the Supreme Court’s order wherein the court had ordered to maintain the status quo.