Sajjan Kumar surrenders in court in 1984 Sikh riots case

Sajjan Kumar surrenders in court in 1984 anti-Sikh riots case

Former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar surrendered before a Delhi court on Monday to serve the life sentence awarded to him by the Delhi High Court in connection with a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.

He surrendered before Metropolitan Magistrate Aditi Garg. The HC had set a deadline of December 31 for Mr. Kumar to surrender and on December 21 declined his plea to extend the time by a month.

Mr. Kumar (73) has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the conviction and life sentence awarded to him by the high court on December 17. After his conviction, Mr. Kumar resigned from the Congress party.

Image result for Sajjan Kumar in jailThe case in which Kumar was convicted and sentenced relates to the killing of five Sikhs in Raj Nagar Part-I area in Palam Colony of southwest Delhi on November 1-2, 1984 and burning down of a Gurudwara in Raj Nagar Part-II.

The riots had broken out after the assassination of then prime minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984, by her two Sikh bodyguards.

Earlier in the day, former MLAs Kishan Khokhar and Mahender Yadav, who were also convicted in the same case, surrendered before the court to serve their 10-year jail term.

Media has not been allowed inside the courtroom. The Delhi High Court on December 17 convicted and sentenced Mr. Kumar to life imprisonment for the “remainder of his natural life”.

Besides Mr.Kumar, the others convicted in the case were former Congress councillor Balwan Khokhar, retired naval officer Captain Bhagmal and Girdhari Lal.

Delhi High Court on December 17 convicted and sentenced Mr. Kumar to life imprisonment for the “remainder of his natural life”.

In its judgment, the high court had noted that over 2,700 Sikhs were killed in the national capital during the 1984 riots which was indeed a “carnage of unbelievable proportions“.

It also said the riots were a “crime against humanity” perpetrated by those who enjoyed “political patronage” and aided by an “indifferent” law enforcement agency.

The high court had further said there has been a familiar pattern of mass killings since Partition, like in Mumbai in 1993, Gujarat in 2002 and Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh in 2013, and the “common” feature of each was the “targeting of minorities” with the attacks being “spearheaded by the dominant political actors, facilitated by law enforcement agencies“. The High Court had set aside the trial court’s 2010 verdict which had acquitted Mr.Kumar in the case.

-PTI, NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 31, 2018

Delhi High Court refuses any relief to AAP MLAs

Delhi High Court refuses any relief to AAP MLAs

The Delhi High Court refused to grant any relief to the 20 AAP MLAs disqualified by the Election Commission in the ‘office of profit’ case on Friday. The Court questioned AAP MLAs, asking them why they did not participate in EC’s proceedings merely because a petition was filed with the HC.

The HC further said that petition was filed on the basis of media reports so it couldn’t grant interim relief.  The HC asked AAP MLAs to wait till Monday when EC will inform the court whether media reports are true or not. Earlier, the Election Commission recommended that 20 Aam Aadmi Party MLAs embroiled in the ‘office of profit’ case be disqualified.

The EC forwarded its recommendation to the President. If the PDelhi High Courtresident accepts the recommendation, Delhi will see a mini-assembly election with 20 seats up for grabs in the 70-member House.

Initially, 21 MLAs were named in the case. The number came down to 20 after Rajouri Garden MLA Jarnail Singh resigned to contest against Parkash Singh Badal in the Punjab Assembly elections.

Noteworthy,  the Election Commission has recommended that 20 Aam Aadmi Party MLAs embroiled in the office of profit case be disqualified.  Sources said the EC has forwarded its recommendation to the President. If the President accepts the recommendation, Delhi will see a mini-assembly election with 20 seats up for grabs in the 70-member House.

Initially, 21 MLAs were named in the case. The number came down to 20 after Rajouri Garden MLA Jarnail Singh resigned to contest against Parkash Singh Badal in the Punjab Assembly elections.

In 2015, AAP had suspended Cabinet Minister Asim Ahmed Khan and the following year, it sacked another minister Sandeep Kumar who was embroiled in a sex scandal. In the AAP cabinet reshuffle, Kapil Mishra rebelled against the party after he was sacked. AAP MLA from Rajouri Garden quit his post to contest the Punjab Assembly elections but the AAP failed to win the bypoll. After this, the number dropped from 67 MLAs to 63. After the disqualification of 20 MLAs, the AAP’s strength will reduce to 42.

The EC decision comes days before Achal Kumar Joti retires as the Chief Election Commissioner. Interestingly, the OP Rawat, the next Chief Election Commissioner, had decided to recuse himself from hearing all AAP related issues. This came after Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal questioned his impartiality in a media interview in April, 2017.

The option before AAP is to challenge the Election Commission ruling in the higher court. In August 2017, the Delhi High Court had refused to entertain AAP MLAs’ plea for staying the Commission’s order upholding maintainability of the petition.

The ground on which the High Court had quashed was that since EC’s proceedings on hearing the central issue of whether the MLAs had indeed held ‘office of profit’ were yet to begin, there was no scope for a stay.

The issue in front of the Election Commission was whether the office of Parliamentary Secretary in the GNCTD, 1991 constitutes an ‘office of profit’. Article 191 of the Constitution has not defined what is an ‘office of profit’ which has paved the way to the Courts to lay down the law

The entire issue came into existence when on March 13, 2015, the Arvind Kejriwal government passed an order appointing 21 MLAs as Parliamentary Secretaries. This was challenged by Advocate Prashant Patel who petitioned President Pranab Mukherjee on June 19, 2015, that these MLAs were now holding ‘office of profit’ and should be disqualified.

-January 19, 2018

Kejriwal & 5 AAP leaders put on trial in defamation case

Kejriwal & 5 AAP leaders put on trial in Jaitley defamation case

Kejriwal

 

A Delhi court on Saturday asked Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and five other senior AAP leaders to face trial in a defamation case filed by Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley.

The Patiala House court here has fixed May 20th as the next date of hearing after Kejriwal and the other accused pleaded not guilty.

In December 2015, Jaitley had filed civil and criminal defamation cases against them for accusing him of corruption linked to Delhi District Cricket Association (DDCA), which he had headed for 13 years till 2013.

On Saturday, the court framed notices against Kejriwal and the other accused in the case, the ANI news agency reported.

Earlier on January 20, while hearing the case, the court observed that Kejriwal exhibited “dilatory tactics to delay trial” and must be present in court on March 25 when charges will be framed against him and others.

Other AAP leaders named in the case are Ashutosh, Kumar Vishwas, Sanjay Singh, Raghav Chaddha and Deepak Bajpai.

Jaitley alleged that Kejriwal made false allegations for “political mileage, causing irreversible damage to him.” He also sought Rs.10 crore in damages.

In a separate case, ex-crickter Chetan Chuahan has also filed defamation charges against Kejriwal and suspended BJP lawmaker Kirti Azad for alleging a sex racket in DDCA when he was its vice president.

Last year, both the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court dismissed Kejriwal’s request to suspend the defamation case against him.

-March 25, 2017, New Delhi

 

Kejriwal moves to HC on Defamation case

DEFAMATION CASE: KEJRIWAL MOVES HC SEEKING JAITLEY’S FINANCIAL RECORDS

Kejriwal supremo in his application contended that he is seeking such financial records of Jaitley and his family members

 

 

kejriwal

 

Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal today moved the Delhi High Court seeking details of bank accounts, tax returns and other financial records of Finance Minister Arun Jaitley who has filed a defamation suit against him.

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) supremo in his application contended that he is seeking such financial records of Jaitley and his family members from 1999-2000 to 2014-15, “to disprove” the claims made by the senior BJP leader against him and five other party leaders who were named in the defamation case.

Jaitley had filed the suit in 2015 seeking Rs 10 crore damages from Kejriwal, Raghav Chadha, Kumar Vishwas, Ashutosh, Sanjay Singh and Deepak Bajpai.

The AAP leaders had allegedly attacked Jaitley and his family members in various fora, including social media, over alleged irregularities and financial bungling in the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) of which he was the president for about 13 years till 2013.

Jaitley has already denied all the allegations of financial bungling in the DDCA during his tenure.

When contacted, the lawyers for Jaitley said that they are yet to examine the application and “in any case, it is extremely mischievous for defendant to circulate the application in the media before it is listed before the court. They are only further adding to their defamatory remarks”.

The application was filed through advocate Anupam Srivastava.

Jaitley, in December last year, had appeared before the high court to record his evidence in connection with the defamation case.

Apart from the civil defamation case, Kejriwal and the five AAP leaders are also facing a criminal defamation case proceedings in which they had attempted to get stayed, till the civil suit is decided, but were unsuccessful in the endeavour.

The high court had on July 12 framed issues against Kejriwal and others in the matter, notwithstanding their claim that they had not made any defamatory statement against him in the DDCA case.

In a civil suit, when one party affirms and other party denies a material proposition of fact or law, then only the issues arise.

Some of the issues framed by the court include whether Jaitley was entitled for any damage for the alleged defamatory statements made by AAP leaders and what should be the amount.

“Whether the statements which are in public domain are actionable or not,” the high court had said in one of its issues.

-25 February 2017 | PTI | New Delhi

 

HC says Delhi govt can’t challenge LG’s powers

HC says Delhi govt can’t challenge LG’s powers

Huge setback for Kejriwal: HC says Delhi govt can't challenge LG's powers

 

 In a big setback to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is engaged in a bitter power struggle with the Centre, the Delhi High Court on Thursday ruled that the Lieutenant Governor is not bound to act as per the advise of the state cabinet.

Ruling in favour of the central government, the high court made it very clear that policing, law and order will remain with the Centre.

The high court passed the order in connection with the ongoing legal wrangling between the Delhi Government and the Centre over control of administrative issues and distribution of power in the national capital.

Delhi High Court further said that the ”Council of Ministers cannot take decision without referring to Lt Governor first.”

Article 239 continues to remain applicable and that makes Delhi a Union territory, the High Court said in its order.

High Court held that no action can be taken by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) against central government officials.

We will approach the apex court, the Delhi government said minutes after the devastating high court ruling.

The High Court pronounces the verdict on a set of 11 petitions challenging various decisions of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) led-Delhi Government and Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung, and the interpretation of Article 239 AA of the Constitution.

It has been alleged by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal-led Government that it has been unable to function as most of its decisions are either annulled or changed by the Centre at the behest of the Lieutenant Governor on the ground that Delhi is not a complete state.

On May 24, the High Court had reserved its verdict on the plea of the Delhi Government seeking a stay on the proceedings on the petitions arising out of its standoff with the Lieutenant Governor over powers to appoint bureaucrats in the national capital and other issues.

-August 4, 2016,New Delhi

 

Delhi HC refuses to stay rustication of Umar Khalid, Anirban Bhattacharya, seeks JNU response

Delhi HC refuses to stay rustication of Umar Khalid, Anirban Bhattacharya, seeks JNU response

 

Delhi HC refuses to stay rustication of Umar Khalid, Anirban Bhattacharya, seeks JNU response

 

Denying interim relief to JNU students Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, theDelhi High Court on Tuesday refused to stay the rustication order passed by the university against them over a controversial event on Kashmir in the campus.

Justice Manmohan said he will “not stay the order” and issued notice to the Jawaharlal Nehru University, asking it to file its response along with all relevant documents, including the enquiry report.

“I have to ask for records. I have to see whether fair procedure was followed. I have to look into the facts. The matter requires consideration and decision can`t be taken overnight,” said the judge posting the matter for May 30.

Khalid and Bhattacharya approached the court against the rustication order and Rs.20,000 fine imposed against Khalid. The university took the action on April 25 after a probe panel set up by the varsity administration found them guilty of “misconduct” and “indiscipline”.

The two students were found guilty of staging a protest demonstration under the pretext of holding a poetry reading, the chief proctor had said.

Counsel, appearing for both, told the court that they were rusticated without proper hearing and notices, arguing both were hiding for 10 days and thereafter surrendered and were sent to jail and how can an enquiry committee be set up behind their back.

On the other hand, counsel for JNU said that notices were served to them at their residential addresses and jail. After the counsel for Khalid raised objection on Rs.20,000 fine imposed on him, the university said it will extend the date of its payment till the next date of hearing.

The February 9 event led to the arrests of JNU Students Union president Kanhaiya Kumar, Khalid and Bhattacharya on sedition charges after it was alleged that participants at the event shouted anti-national slogans. Delhi Police repeatedly claimed they had evidence against Kanhaiya Kumar and the other students but failed to produce it in court, leading to their release from jail on bail.

IANS

-May 10, 2016,New Delhi

 

After Army and Air Force, seven women officers of SSC granted permanent commission by Indian Navy

After Army and Air Force, seven women officers of SSC granted permanent commission by Indian Navy

After Army and Air Force, seven women officers of SSC granted permanent commission by Indian Navy

 

Indian Navy has granted permanent commission (PC) to seven woman officers who were inducted as short-service commission (SSC) officers in 2008-2009.

Navy is the last of the three wings of the armed forces in the country to allow permanent commission for women.

While the Army and Air Force allow permanent commission for them, the Navy had limited women officers only to short service commission of 14 years.

As per reports, there are about 340 woman officers who have been granted permanent commission in select branches of the Army and IAF at the moment.

Overall, women number is said to be just 1,436 in the Army, 1,331 in IAF and 532 in Navy.

The Navy will also allow woman officers to join as pilots of maritime patrol aircraft like P-8Is, IL-38s and Dorniers from next year onwards.

“Recognising the importance of providing equal opportunities to women officers, seven women officers from the batch of Short Service Commission officers of the Education branch and Naval Constructor cadre, who joined in 2008-09, have been granted permanent commission,” a statement issued by the Navy said.

It added that the Navy is also finalising a policy for women officers to serve on select warships that have appropriate facilities for women.

Defence sources said the women officers will have to meet four main conditions for permanent commission including being medically fit and having a good annual confidential report, besides the vacancy available for the post, as per PTI.

The women officers will have to also opt for permanent commission as this will not be an automatic route.

Based on a government order in 2008, the Navy had decided to grant such commission only to women who joined after that year and that too only in the education, law and naval architecture branches.

A separate case is on in the Supreme Court, filed by a group of women who had retired after their Short Service Commission ended in 2006.

The navy had in October filed a Special Leave Petition in the apex court challenging an order of the Delhi High Court asking it to grant permanent commission to 17 women officers.

– April 20, 2016,New Delhi

 

HC seeks Delhi govt reply on plea against odd-even scheme

HC seeks Delhi govt reply on plea against odd-even scheme

The Delhi High Court today sought AAP government’s response on a plea seeking quashing of the notification restricting movement of vehicles on the basis of odd-even registration numbers.

A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath also issued notice to Delhi government and asked it to file a status report on another plea seeking exemption for advocates from the ongoing odd-even scheme.

The court was of the view that in its earlier order it had asked the Delhi government to consider the issues raised by a group of lawyers in their petition filed during the first phase of the odd-even scheme.

“Please get instructions and file a status report on whether you have considered this aspect (exempting the lawyers or not). Tell us with regard to the steps you have taken before issuance of this present notification,” the bench said and listed the matter for further hearing on April 25.

The court was hearing two petitions – one challenging the April 11 notification restricting movement of vehicles on the basis of odd-even registration numbers and another seeking exemption for lawyers from the scheme.

The plea seeking exemption for lawyers, which was filed by advocate Rajiv Khosla, had contended that they are entitled to be exempted as they assist the courts in guarding the personal liberty and civil rights of citizens.

It had also opposed the imposition of Rs 2000 as fine for violation claiming that, without proper amendments in the Motor Vehicles Act, Delhi Government “cannot arbitrarily” fix a fine.

Another plea, filed by Delhi resident Rohini Jolly through advocate Sachit Jolly, sought quashing of the April 11 notification restricting movement of vehicles on the basis of odd-even registration numbers.

The petition contended that Section 115 of Motor Vehicles Act does not empower the state government to prohibit or restrict vehicles on the basis of registration numbers.

“Therefore, the restrictions on plying of vehicles imposed under Section 115 of the MV Act must naturally be towards control of movement of traffic and therefore, the words ‘in the interest of public safety or convenience’ must be read in a manner to mean inconvenience from movement of vehicles and not pollution for vehicles which can happen even from stationary vehicles,” the plea said.

The petition also referred to a January 11, 2016 order of the high court in which it had directed the government to take into consideration the contents of the petitions, which had challenged the government’s scheme, before proceeding further with the scheme in future.

The plea also claimed that the notification discriminates between driving and non-driving women as it exempts vehicles driven by them on the grounds of safety.

It sought that cars in which women are being driven have not been exempted which does not serve the purpose.

-19 April 2016 | PTI | New Delhi

Sexual harassment: Delhi HC dismisses RK Pachauri’s bail cancellation plea

Sexual harassment: Delhi HC dismisses RK Pachauri’s bail cancellation plea

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by a former woman research analyst who has accused environmentalist RK Pachauri of sexual harassment to cancel the bail granted to him.

Sexual harassment case: Delhi HC grants bail to Pachauri

Justice SP Garg, dismissing the plea of 29-year-old analyst, said that the trial court`s March 21, 2015 order granting anticipatory bail to Pachauri was “based upon fair appraisal of the material and all the relevant aspect of the matter have been considered minutely”.

“Petitioner`s counsel has failed to impress as far as what purpose custodial interrogation of Pachauri is required. While granting anticipatory bail to Pachauri, safeguarding the petitioner`s interest and that of the investigating agency, stringent conditions have already been imposed upon the accused,” said the court.

Delhi Police recently charge sheeted Pachauri under various sections of the Indian Penal Code dealing with assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, sexual harassment, stalking, criminal intimidation and word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.

They have cited 23 prosecution witnesses and several SMS texts, e-mails and WhatsApp messages exchanged between the accused and victim as evidence to support their case.

Advocate Prashant Mediratta, appearing for the complainant, seeking cancellation of Pachauri`s anticipatory bail, had accused him of “influencing” the witnesses in the case. The complainant had also contended that Pachauri is an “influential man” who has been the top boss of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) for last 34 years and was in active touch with its officials.

The lawyer had also told the court that a TERI employee, who has now resigned, had filed a police complaint on January 11, saying senior officials of TERI were pressurising him to have the matter settled by the woman with Pachauri. Delhi Police had said that it has been interrogating TERI officials after the woman`s colleague filed a complaint.

Pachauri, however, told the court that TERI officials did not talk to the man on his behalf, adding that he “never exercised any pressure upon TERI and its officials”.

On the complaint filed by woman`s colleague, the court said: “Its authenticity and genuineness is to be ascertained during the investigation/trial. At this stage, the complaint lodged by him can`t be considered to be an attempt by the accused (Pachauri) to scuttle the investigation or to interfere with the due course of administration or any abuse of the indulgence granted to him (Pachauri).”

After the woman employee filed a sexual harassment complaint, Pachauri denied the charge but stepped down as chairperson of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in February last year and proceeded on leave from TERI where he was the director general.

Later, Pachauri was removed as TERI head in July and Ajay Mathur appointed in his place.

In November, the woman researcher who accused him of sexual harassment quit her job at TERI, alleging she was treated badly. TERI denied the charge.

On February 8, Pachauri was appointed as the executive vice chairman of the organisation despite the ongoing inquiry but after severe criticism, TERI on February 12 asked him to proceed on indefinite leave.

-March 4, 2016,New Delh

 

SC refuses to stay TRAI’s decision on call-drop compensation

SC refuses to stay TRAI’s decision on call-drop compensation

In the latest, Supreme Court refused to stay Delhi High Court order upholding TRAI’s decision making it mandatory for telecos to compensate subscribers for call drop.

The apex court shifted hearing for March 10 asking Centre and TRAI to respondto Telecos appeal.

The plea filed by two cellular operator associations was mentioned before a bench of Chief Justice TS Thakur demanding urgent hearing, as per media reports.

Now after Supreme Court refusing to stay the High Court’s order, telecom companies will have to confirm to the TRAI’s order which requires them to submit the compliance report by Monday.

-March 4, 2016,New Delhi