Arvind Kejriwal’s Judicial Custody in ED Case Extended Until May 7th

by News

In recent news, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s time in judicial custody has been extended until May 7. This decision was made by Special Judge Kaveri Baweja of the Rouse Avenue Court. Kejriwal was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 21 in connection with a money laundering case related to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.

The arrest came shortly after his plea for protection from arrest was denied by the Delhi High Court. Since then, he has been in custody, with his time extended multiple times. Initially, he was remanded to ED custody till March 28, then further extended, and eventually put into judicial custody till April 15, which has now been extended till May 7.

The case revolves around allegations of irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22. It’s said that a criminal conspiracy was orchestrated by AAP leaders, including former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, along with some unnamed private individuals or entities, during the formulation of the policy. The alleged conspiracy aimed to benefit certain licensees and conspirators after the tender process, exploiting intentional loopholes in the policy.

Kejriwal’s arrest is significant as it’s the first time a sitting Chief Minister in India has been imprisoned while in office. Several other AAP leaders, including Sisodia and Member of Parliament Sanjay Singh, have also been arrested in connection with the case. Singh, however, obtained bail from the Supreme Court on April 2.

This legal saga has involved numerous rounds of litigation before both the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, in addition to hearings at the trial court in the Rouse Avenue Court complex in Delhi. Recently, the Delhi High Court dismissed Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the ED and upheld the various remand orders, including the one that sent him to judicial custody.

Overall, the case has drawn considerable attention due to its political implications and the involvement of high-profile figures. As it continues to unfold, it sheds light on the complexities of governance and the legal system in India.

Supreme Court: ‘We Need Mature People Coming Into the Profession’ – Rejects Proposal for Three-Year LL.B. After High School

by News

The Supreme Court recently declined to consider a plea asking for students to be allowed to pursue a three-year law degree right after finishing high school. This means that students would go directly from school to studying law without needing to complete another degree first. The court, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, disagreed with the idea that three years of legal education after high school was sufficient. They believe that five years of studying law is better because it produces more mature and capable professionals.

In the current system, students can choose to pursue a five-year law program after high school, which combines a Bachelor’s degree in subjects like Arts, Commerce, or Business Administration with a law degree. Alternatively, they can opt for a three-year law program after completing a Bachelor’s degree in another field.

The petition to allow three-year law programs right after high school was brought forward by Bharatiya Janata Party leader and Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay. He argued that the five-year program is influenced by expensive colleges and that allowing three-year programs could benefit students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, especially girls. He also suggested that civil servants can begin their careers immediately after completing their undergraduate studies, so why not law students?

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing Upadhyay, highlighted how a shorter law program could encourage more girls and economically disadvantaged students to join the legal profession. However, the Chief Justice pointed out that there are already a significant number of women in the judiciary, indicating that the legal profession is not inaccessible to them.

Ultimately, the court decided not to entertain the plea and allowed Upadhyay to withdraw it. Instead, they suggested making a representation to the Bar Council of India, which regulates legal education in the country. This means that Upadhyay can still bring his concerns to the attention of the appropriate authority but through a different avenue.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court believes that a five-year law program is beneficial for producing skilled and mature legal professionals. While there are concerns about accessibility for economically disadvantaged students and girls, the court feels that these issues can be addressed through other means, such as making representations to the Bar Council of India.

Delhi High Court Inquires About Why Arvind Kejriwal Receive Mangoes and Sweets from Family

by News

In a recent development, a Delhi Court has expressed confusion over why Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, received mangoes, sweets, and aloo puri from his family while in jail, despite his medical condition. Kejriwal, who is diabetic, has a prescribed diet that doesn’t include such foods.

The court had previously allowed Kejriwal to have home-cooked meals in prison due to his health condition. However, it was discovered that these meals sometimes didn’t follow the prescribed diet. The court questioned both Kejriwal’s family for sending inappropriate food and the jail authorities for allowing it.

The judge remarked that the jail authorities were aware of the food Kejriwal was receiving but didn’t take any action to ensure compliance with the court’s order and medical prescriptions. The court rejected Kejriwal’s request to consult his doctor daily via video conference, noting that the jail authorities should take care of his health.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that Kejriwal might be intentionally consuming foods like mangoes and sweets to spike his sugar levels and use it as a basis for bail. The court examined this claim and found that mangoes were not specifically prescribed by Kejriwal’s doctor, unlike mushrooms, which were medically recommended.

Regarding Kejriwal’s request for insulin administration, the court noted discrepancies between his medical report and the jail doctor’s report. The jail authorities stated that Kejriwal couldn’t decide on insulin administration himself and hadn’t been taking it since February 2024.

The court emphasized that Kejriwal should not receive special treatment compared to other inmates, as the jail authorities are equipped to manage his health, including monitoring his blood sugar levels and blood pressure.

Kejriwal is currently in judicial custody due to the Delhi liquor policy case and has appealed his arrest to the Supreme Court.

Overall, the court highlighted the importance of adhering to medical prescriptions and ensuring that inmates, including public figures like Kejriwal, receive proper care while in custody.

Lawyer vs. Lawyer: The Battle for New Delhi’s Lok Sabha Seat

by News

In the bustling political arena of New Delhi, two lawyers are vying for the Lok Sabha seat: Bansuri Swaraj from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Somnath Bharti from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). As they compete for victory, they represent a rare group in parliament—only 4% of MPs have a legal background.

Swaraj, aged 40, comes from a prominent political family as the daughter of the late Union Minister Sushma Swaraj. Before entering politics, she practiced law, including serving as Additional Advocate General of Haryana. She’s handled high-profile cases, even appearing in the Supreme Court.

In contrast, Bharti, aged 49, took an academic route, earning degrees in MSc and LLB before pursuing law. He gained prominence in AAP, winning assembly elections and serving in ministerial roles, despite facing legal issues, including a conviction later suspended by the Delhi High Court.

The battleground for this political showdown is the New Delhi constituency, comprising ten assembly segments, all currently held by AAP. Despite its historical significance, with past luminaries like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and LK Advani representing it, some pundits question its impact on national politics.

Professor Tanvir Aeijaz, an expert in politics and public policy, believes the seat holds symbolic value but may not sway the larger political landscape. With AAP facing challenges due to legal issues involving its leadership, including Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, the dynamics of the race are intriguing, potentially stirring sympathy among AAP supporters.

The debate over whether lawyers make effective lawmakers is nuanced. While legal expertise can be an asset, Aeijaz emphasizes the importance of representing people’s interests over legal acumen alone. Politicians, he notes, may sometimes prioritize self-interest over public service, regardless of their professional background.

Indeed, lawyers have played pivotal roles in politics, offering their expertise both in crafting legislation and navigating legal challenges. In the courtroom of democracy, every vote cast carries immense weight, symbolizing the trust citizens place in their chosen representatives.

As Swaraj and Bharti vie for victory, their campaigns resonate with the hopes and aspirations of the electorate. In this clash of legal titans, the outcome will not only shape the future of New Delhi but also serve as a testament to the power of democracy.

Allahabad High Court Summons Judge Over Treating Muslim Lawyers Unfairly

by News

In a recent incident at the Allahabad High Court, a senior judicial officer faced allegations of religious discrimination against Muslim lawyers during a criminal trial involving forced religious conversion accusations. The officer, Additional District & Sessions Judge Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi, declined a request from Muslim lawyers for a brief adjournment to attend Friday prayers, opting instead to appoint additional counsel, termed amici curiae, to represent the accused during prayer times. This decision was met with objections, leading to the intervention of Justice Shamim Ahmed of the High Court.

In his order dated April 3, Justice Ahmed criticized the trial court’s conduct, highlighting its failure to acknowledge the gravity of the High Court’s stay order and its arbitrary continuation of proceedings. The High Court also took issue with the trial judge’s discriminatory remarks about the absence of counsel from a specific religious community, which led to the appointment of amici.

Emphasizing the violation of the fundamental right against religious discrimination as enshrined in Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court expressed concerns about the trial judge’s impartiality and integrity. It reiterated its earlier stay order, halting further proceedings in the trial against the petitioner, and summoned the judicial officer to explain the controversial orders. The court stressed the importance of judicial accountability and the need to maintain public trust and confidence in the judiciary.

Judge Tripathi appeared before the High Court, offering an unconditional apology and admitting to passing the orders under a misconception. He assured the court of exercising caution in the future. The court granted him two days to file a personal affidavit and scheduled the matter for further hearing on April 18.

Legal representatives involved in the case included advocates representing the petitioner, the accused judge, and the state.

This incident highlights the importance of upholding fairness, impartiality, and integrity within the judiciary. Judicial misconduct, particularly involving religious discrimination, undermines public confidence in the legal system. Therefore, it is imperative for judges to adhere strictly to legal and ethical standards, ensuring that their decisions are free from bias or prejudice.

In conclusion, the intervention of the Allahabad High Court in addressing allegations of religious discrimination within the judiciary reaffirms the commitment to uphold constitutional values and ensure justice for all. By holding judges accountable for their conduct, the court reinforces the importance of maintaining public trust in the judiciary and safeguarding the principles of equality and fairness before the law.

Calcutta High Court Grants Permission for Ram Navami Processions Amidst Safety Measures

by News

The Calcutta High Court has granted permission for the annual Ram Navami Shobha Yatra in Howrah district, West Bengal, allowing two Hindu organizations, Anjani Putra Sena and Vishwa Hindu Parishad, to conduct their processions on April 17. Despite last year’s violence between Hindus and Muslims along the traditional route, the court ruled in favor of the organizations using the same paths they have utilized for the past 15 years. This decision comes after the West Bengal government proposed an alternative route this year to prevent clashes, but the organizations insisted on sticking to their customary path.

However, the court’s permission is not without conditions. It stipulates that the procession must not exceed 200 participants and prohibits the chanting of provocative slogans against any community. Additionally, the court advised the state government to seek support from Central Forces to ensure law and order during the event. Last year’s violence prompted a National Investigation Agency (NIA) investigation, leading to the arrest of over 11 individuals from the Howrah area. While the court’s decision settles the matter for now, a detailed copy of the order is still awaited, offering further insights into the court’s reasoning and directives.

Justice BR Gavai: I am a Supreme Court Judge only because of Dr. BR Ambedkar

by News

Supreme Court Judge, Justice BR Gavai, poised to become the 52nd Chief Justice of India, paid tribute to the pivotal role played by Dr. BR Ambedkar in empowering marginalized communities. Speaking alongside Justice AS Oka at the Ambedkar Memorial Lecture, Justice Gavai shared his personal journey, highlighting how Dr. Ambedkar’s vision enabled individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to rise to prominent positions in society.

“Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions to the country meant that even a person studying in schools in slum areas could rise to become a judge of the Supreme Court,” Justice Gavai remarked, emphasizing the transformative impact of Dr. Ambedkar’s advocacy for social justice.

In his address, Justice Gavai reflected on the profound influence of Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, describing it as a powerful tool for transformative justice. “Article 32 has been used as a tool for transformative justice,” he remarked, echoing Dr. Ambedkar’s view that the Constitution embodies not just legal principles, but a way of life.

Justice AS Oka echoed Justice Gavai’s sentiments, calling for a critical examination of the judiciary’s role in upholding fundamental rights. He raised concerns about the increasing backlog of cases in the Supreme Court, urging for a balanced approach to addressing the mounting caseload while ensuring equitable access to justice.

“Some may argue that the Supreme Court should entertain all Article 32 pleas without sending them to the High Courts. But we are not living in an ideal world,” Justice Oka remarked, acknowledging the practical challenges faced by the judiciary.

Highlighting the indiscriminate use of Article 32 by affluent individuals and businesses, Justice Oka proposed initiating a discourse on establishing criteria for invoking Article 32. He emphasized the need to strike a balance between addressing the grievances of common citizens and preventing the misuse of judicial resources.

The event, organized by The Leaflet in collaboration with the Society for Constitution and Social Democracy, provided a platform for engaging discussions on vital constitutional issues. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising underscored the importance of interpreting Article 15 definitively, reaffirming the Constitution as a protective framework for all citizens.

In conclusion, the legacy of Dr. BR Ambedkar continues to inspire a commitment to justice and equality in India’s legal system. As the judiciary grapples with complex challenges, fostering open dialogue and critical reflection remains crucial in advancing the principles of democracy and human rights.

Karnataka High Court Rejects Ban on ’23 Ferocious Dogs’ Deemed by the Central Government

by News

In a recent landmark decision, the Karnataka High Court invalidated a circular issued by the Central government aimed at banning 23 breeds of dogs labeled as ‘ferocious.’ Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding as a single judge, delivered the verdict, emphasizing the necessity for proper consultation and adherence to legal procedures.

The circular issued by the Central government had sparked controversy by targeting specific breeds of dogs deemed hazardous to human life. However, the court found procedural flaws, noting the absence of stakeholder consultation and the committee responsible for the decision not complying with relevant laws.

Justice Nagaprasanna underscored the lack of transparency and legality in the decision-making process. He asserted that the ban imposed by the circular exceeded existing regulations’ scope and couldn’t be justified without proper recommendations from a duly constituted committee. Consequently, the court’s ruling nullified the circular, deeming it contrary to the law.

Crucially, the court clarified that its decision didn’t preclude the Central government from revisiting the issue through proper channels. It encouraged the government to engage in meaningful consultations with stakeholders, including organizations certifying dog breeds and animal rights groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

The court emphasized the importance of responsible pet ownership in any future action on this matter. It called for pet owners to be held accountable for their animals’ well-being and any harm caused to others. This emphasis on accountability reflects a broader societal concern for both human and animal safety and welfare.

The ruling stemmed from a petition filed by a professional dog handler and a Rottweiler owner, challenging the lack of consultation and transparency in the decision-making process. Their advocate, Swaroop Anand P, argued before the High Court, highlighting the arbitrary nature of the circular and its discriminatory impact on certain dog breeds.

The Central government’s circular directed all states and union territories to ban 23 specific dog breeds, labeling them as ‘ferocious’ and dangerous to human life. This directive followed assurances made to the Delhi High Court regarding concerns over licensing potentially dangerous dog breeds.

However, the petitioners contended that singling out specific breeds was unjust and failed to address the root causes of dog attacks. They argued that responsible ownership and proper training were more effective measures for preventing aggression incidents.

The court’s decision reflects a balanced approach to addressing public safety concerns while safeguarding pet owners’ rights and animal welfare. By rejecting the blanket ban on certain dog breeds, the court has opened the door for a more nuanced and inclusive dialogue on responsible pet ownership and community safety.

In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court’s ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of due process and consultation in policymaking. It underscores the need for evidence-based approaches to addressing complex issues such as pet ownership and public safety. Moving forward, it is essential for all stakeholders to collaborate in promoting responsible pet ownership and ensuring the well-being of both humans and animals alike.

Supreme Court’s Criticize Uttarakhand Government Over Inaction on Misleading Patanjali Advertisements

by News

In a recent court hearing, the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the Uttarakhand government’s failure to address misleading advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved. The Court criticized the State Licensing Authority for its inaction and apparent collusion with errant licensing officers. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah highlighted the slow response of the authority and its failure to act promptly.

The Court lambasted the officers for merely shuffling paperwork and delaying action, emphasizing the need for accountability. It demanded explanations from officials who had neglected their duties while misleading advertisements continued to spread. The Court was particularly angered by Divya Pharmacy’s dismissive responses to warnings from regulatory authorities.

During the proceedings, the Court scrutinized a letter from the State, pointing out deficiencies in its response to the misleading ads. It condemned the complacency of authorities and criticized their leniency towards Patanjali’s violations of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. The Court questioned Patanjali’s presumption that they were pioneers in Ayurveda, emphasizing the Act’s provisions against such misleading claims.

Despite admissions of mistakes and assurances of corrective measures, the Court remained skeptical. It expressed concern for consumers who might have been misled into using Patanjali products for ailments beyond their efficacy. The Court observed a lack of sincerity in Patanjali’s apologies, noting their preference for media attention over compliance with legal obligations.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Ramdev and Balkrishna, defended their actions but faced resistance from the Court. The Court questioned the authenticity of their apologies and refused to accept them as genuine expressions of remorse. It viewed their behavior as a deliberate attempt to evade accountability, despite clear instructions from the Court.

The Court emphasized the broader societal implications of Patanjali’s misconduct, stressing the importance of upholding the law and protecting consumers. It highlighted the need for accountability and transparency in advertising practices, especially in the healthcare sector. The Court warned against repeating such violations and stressed the significance of adhering to legal obligations.

The hearing stemmed from a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali’s alleged smear campaign targeting the COVID-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine. Despite earlier warnings and directives from the Court, Patanjali persisted in making false claims in its advertisements, prompting the Court to impose a temporary ban and issue contempt notices.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s rebuke of the Uttarakhand government and Patanjali underscores the importance of responsible advertising and regulatory oversight. The Court’s insistence on accountability and adherence to the law demonstrates its commitment to protecting consumer rights and upholding ethical standards in the healthcare industry.

Delhi High Court Rejects Third Petition to Remove Arvind Kejriwal as Chief Minister, Labels it a ‘Publicity Interest Petition’

by News

The Delhi High Court had some stern words for a former member of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Sandeep Kumar, who tried to get Arvind Kejriwal ousted as Chief Minister (CM) of Delhi. Kumar’s move came after Kejriwal got arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case linked to the Delhi excise policy scam.

The Court wasn’t too pleased with Kumar’s petition, especially since two similar ones had already been thrown out earlier by the High Court. Justice Subramonium Prasad, the judge overseeing the case, criticized Kumar for wasting the Court’s time with what he called a “publicity interest petition.” He even suggested that Kumar should be slapped with hefty fines for his actions.

This wasn’t the first time the Court had to deal with attempts to remove Kejriwal from his position. Just a few days before Kumar’s attempt, another person named Surjit Singh Yadav had filed a similar petition, but that too was rejected. The Court had then emphasized that such matters are usually left for the executive and the President to handle, not the Court.

Then came another attempt from Vishnu Gupta, the president of the Hindu Sena, who also tried to get Kejriwal ousted. But the Court wasn’t swayed and essentially said that it’s up to Kejriwal himself whether he wants to continue as CM or not. However, they hinted that sometimes personal interests need to take a backseat to national interests.

Now, Kumar’s petition was the third of its kind. He argued that Kejriwal, despite being unfit for the job, was still holding onto the position of CM, causing all sorts of problems, including constitutional complications and violating people’s Right to Life in Delhi.

Kumar wanted the Court to issue what’s called a “writ of quo warranto” against Kejriwal. This basically means demanding Kejriwal to prove why he should be allowed to hold the position of CM under the Constitution. Kumar then asked for Kejriwal to be removed from his office, whether it’s with or without looking back at his past actions.

In simpler terms, the Court was not amused by Kumar’s attempt to remove Kejriwal as CM, especially since similar attempts had already been shut down before. They made it clear that such matters are usually left to the executive branch, not the courts. So, for now, Kejriwal remains the CM of Delhi, and Kumar’s efforts didn’t get him very far.