#Justice B R Gavai

[life-and-health-insurance]

Supreme Court Slam Private Hospitals Loots

Big news! Supreme Court wants to regulate prices for heart surgery (and potentially more) in India! Does this mean the same cost in private and government hospitals?

The video dives into the Clinical Establishment Act of 2010 and the recent Supreme Court ruling. ⚖️ Will it impact quality in private hospitals? Share your thoughts in the comments!

[disruptiveempathy]

Supreme Court (SC) Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan issued the judgement after hearing pleas seeking framing of guidelines on demolition of properties. The apex court noted that an executive cannot become a judge, declare an accused as guilty and demolish their house. Calling such actions ‘high-handed and arbitrary,’ the court declared them unconstitutional and amounting to “collective punishment”

A bit skeptical that anything will actually change but still, overall good news.

[seemabhatnagar]

Supreme Court will not interfere in matters where call is to be taken by the Executive

Balwant Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

The Supreme Court (SC) of India dismissed the Criminal Petition of the Accused Balwant Singh one of the accused in the #CriminalConspiracy which had resulted in the #assassination of the then #ChiefMinister of #Punjab, Prakash Singh Badal. Further the Apex Court also didn’t find it appropriate to give #access to the #file of #Ministry of #HomeAffairs to the Petitioner.

This verdict was pronounced on 03.05.2023 by the Division Bench of the Apex Court comprising Hon’ble Justice B R Gavai J, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol J.

The present Criminal petition was filed for calling the record of #mercypetition submitted on 25.03.2012 seeking clemency from the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution of India (COI). And to commute the death sentence into life imprisonment because of inordinate delay in deciding the mercy petition.

Fact: Balwant Singh, the petitioner in this case, is one of the accused who had hatched  criminal conspiracy along with 8 others (Jagtar Singh Hawara, Gurmeet Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Shamsher Singh and Nasib Singh.) and had executed bomb blast on 31.08.95 in which Chief Minister of Punjab Prakash Singh Badal along with 16 others lost their lives and many were injured.

The Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence pertaining to Sections 120-B, 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860and u/s.3(b), 4(b) and 5(b) r/w 6 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and awarded death sentence.  

In reference High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused (Petitioner Balwant Singh) but commuted the death sentence of Jagtar Singh into life imprisonment. However Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed Appeal before the Supreme Court against the commuting of death sentence into life imprisonment in the case of Jagtar Singh which is pending for consideration.

Other co-accused preferred appeal against the judgement of the High Court (HC) before the Apex Court but the present petitioner didn’t preferred any appeal or any Mercy Petition before the President of India.

The mercy petition pending before the President of India is filed by Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee (SGPC) on behalf of the Petitioner Balwant Singh.

Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on 27.09.2019 initiated a proposal on the occasion of commemoration of 550th Birth Anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev Ji proposing special remission and release of prisoners.

Submission of the Petitioner Counsel:

Communication dt.27.09.2019 of Ministry pf Home Affairs, Government of India provided that 8 Sikh persons be given special remission under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and be released from prison and a further proposal for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment of one prisoner (petitioner) is to be processed under Article 72 of the Constitution of India.

Till date no decision has been taken.

As the State and the Union of India have not been able to decide the Mercy Petition which is pending for more than 10 years, this Court itself may grant that commutation.

Submission of the Additional Solicitor General of India (ASG)

Petitioner having expressed in specific terms that he has no faith in the judiciary of this country and that he did not regret at all being part of the crime and further has used contemptuous terms before the High Court which have been duly recorded, wherefore he does not deserve any mercy in view of his conduct.

Till date the petitioner himself has not submitted any Mercy Petition. The Mercy Petition dated 25.03.2012 was submitted by the SGPC. When the petitioner has not filed any Mercy Petition himself, there is no question of granting any relief as claimed.

Ministry of Home Affairs, upon material consideration of various reports from its different branches, has come to the conclusion that the consideration may be deferred as it could have an impact of compromising the security of the nation & creating law and order situation

Criminal Appeals filed by the co-accused Lakhwinder Singh & Jagtar Singh are still pending before this Court, as such consideration of any Mercy Petition would arise only after disposal of those appeals.

Criminal Appeal filed by CBI is also pending against the commuting of death sentence into lfe imprisonment in case of Jagtar Singh.

The decision in these appeals pending before this Court would be a relevant material and while considering the Mercy Petition the same could have a bearing. As such it would be appropriate to await the decision of the pending appeals.

There is no delay in consideration of the Mercy Petition. It is only after 27.09.2019 that the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, required the State Government to send the proposal for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment under Article 72 of the COI.

Considering the prevailing situation, a decision has been taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs that it would be appropriate to defer taking any decision on the Mercy Petition as it could have serious potential of compromising the security of the nation or creating a law and order situation.

Observation of the Apex Court:

Delay in decision on Mercy Petition can’t be sustained.

Petitioner himself never submitted Mercy Petition. Mercy Petition on behalf of petitioner Balwant Singh was submitted by the SGPC.

The Ministry of Home Affairs communication dated 27.09.2019, is the proposal for considering the commutation of the death sentence of the petitioner was started and a decision was taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs to keep the same pending till disposal of the pending appeals before this Court, filed by the co-accused as well as by the CBI.

Deferring the decision by Ministry of Home Affairs amounts to a decision declining to grant the same for the present.

Since Ministry of Home Affairs, upon material consideration of various reports from its different branches, has come to the conclusion that the consideration may be deferred as it could have an impact of compromising the security of the nation or creating law and order situation.

It is within the domain of the executive to take a call on such sensitive issues.

This Court does not deem it appropriate to issue any further directions.

Seema Bhatnagar

[odnewsin]

Excise policy cases: SC agrees to hear Sisodia’s pleas seeking relaxation of bail conditions

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday agreed to hear AAP leader Manish Sisodia’s pleas seeking relaxation of bail conditions which require him to report to the investigating officer on every Monday and Thursday in the corruption and money laundering cases related to Delhi excise policy. A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan issued notices to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and…

[hindustanmorning]

Supreme Court rules on mercy plea of former CM's assassin

The Supreme Court has instructed the President’s Secretary to present Balwant Singh’s mercy petition, who was found guilty of killing former Punjab Chief Minister Beant, to the President and ask for a decision within two weeks. In 1995, the Chief Minister at the time, Beant Singh, was killed in a brutal manner. A panel consisting of Justices B R Gavai, P K Mishra and K V Vishwanathan urged the…

[tfgadgets]

Supreme Court On Rs 15,000 Pension For Ex-High Court Judge

The Supreme Court thereafter posted the hearing on November 27. New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed “shock” over some retired high court judges getting a meagre pension ranging between Rs 6,000 and Rs 15,000. A bench of Justices B R Gavai, P K Mishra and K V Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by a retired high court judge who said he was receiving a mere Rs 15,000…

[todayworldnews2k21]

SC acquits death row convict who spent 12 years in jail - Times of India

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Thursday acquitted a death row convict who spent 12 years in jail out of which eight years were under the shadow of death for allegedly killing his wife, mother and two-year-old daughter in 2012 in Pune. It found that there was no conclusive evidence to prove his guilt and directed his release from jail.A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K V…

[news365timesindia]

[ad_1] GG News Bureau New Delhi, 16th Oct. The Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, has recommended the appointment of three advocates as judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. This decision was made during a meeting held on October 15, 2024, which also saw the collegium recommend four senior judicial officers for judgeships in the Kerala High Court. The collegium, which included Justices Sanjiv Khanna and B R Gavai, resolved to recommend the following advocates for the Andhra Pradesh High Court: Maheswara Rao Kuncheam @ Kuncham, Thoota Chandra Dhana Sekar @ T C D Sekhar, and Challa Gunaranjan. Their seniority will be determined according to existing practices. All three are currently practicing as lawyers in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. These names were initially recommended on May 15, 2024, by the High Court’s collegium, which consists of the Chief Justice and the two senior-most judges. Additionally, the collegium recommended four judicial officers for the Kerala High Court: K V Jayakumar, Muralee Krishna S, Jobin Sebastian, and P V Balakrishnan. The Supreme Court also noted that, in a prior recommendation dated October 10, 2023, it had put forth five names for judicial elevation, including P Krishna Kumar. While four of those judicial officers have been appointed, there has been no update from the government regarding Kumar’s status. The collegium stated that the new appointees will rank below P Krishna Kumar and that their seniority will be established accordingly. Furthermore, the collegium requested the Centre to expedite the appointment of Justice Siddaiah Rachaiah as a permanent judge of the Karnataka High Court, as his term as an additional judge is set to expire on November 7, 2024. The collegium said that these recommendations be processed swiftly to ensure a smooth transition in the judicial system. The post SC Collegium Recommends Judges for Andhra and Kerala High Courts appeared first on Global Governance News- Asia's First Bilingual News portal for Global News and Updates. [ad_2] Source link

[news365times]

[ad_1] GG News Bureau New Delhi, 16th Oct. The Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, has recommended the appointment of three advocates as judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. This decision was made during a meeting held on October 15, 2024, which also saw the collegium recommend four senior judicial officers for judgeships in the Kerala High Court. The collegium, which included Justices Sanjiv Khanna and B R Gavai, resolved to recommend the following advocates for the Andhra Pradesh High Court: Maheswara Rao Kuncheam @ Kuncham, Thoota Chandra Dhana Sekar @ T C D Sekhar, and Challa Gunaranjan. Their seniority will be determined according to existing practices. All three are currently practicing as lawyers in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. These names were initially recommended on May 15, 2024, by the High Court’s collegium, which consists of the Chief Justice and the two senior-most judges. Additionally, the collegium recommended four judicial officers for the Kerala High Court: K V Jayakumar, Muralee Krishna S, Jobin Sebastian, and P V Balakrishnan. The Supreme Court also noted that, in a prior recommendation dated October 10, 2023, it had put forth five names for judicial elevation, including P Krishna Kumar. While four of those judicial officers have been appointed, there has been no update from the government regarding Kumar’s status. The collegium stated that the new appointees will rank below P Krishna Kumar and that their seniority will be established accordingly. Furthermore, the collegium requested the Centre to expedite the appointment of Justice Siddaiah Rachaiah as a permanent judge of the Karnataka High Court, as his term as an additional judge is set to expire on November 7, 2024. The collegium said that these recommendations be processed swiftly to ensure a smooth transition in the judicial system. The post SC Collegium Recommends Judges for Andhra and Kerala High Courts appeared first on Global Governance News- Asia's First Bilingual News portal for Global News and Updates. [ad_2] Source link

[uniqueeval]

Excise policy case: Supreme Court to hear Kavitha's bail plea on August 27

Supreme Court to hear BRS leader K. Kavitha’s bail plea in a money laundering case linked to the Delhi excise policy scam. File | Photo Credit: The Hindu The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Tuesday (August 27, 2024) the bail plea by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K. Kavitha in a money laundering case linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam. A bench of justices B. R. Gavai and…

[12blogmk]

Journalists: Supreme Court shields 2 journalists in Adani case | India News

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim protection to two journalists who were summoned by Gujarat police for their article alleging stock manipulation by the Adani group and directed the police not to take any coercive action against them.Granting relief to the scribes, a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishraissued notice to Gujarat government seeking its response…

[blogynews]

"Unveiling the Unexpected: Supreme Court Shocks Nation by Granting Bail in Shiv Sena Leader's Murder Case | India News"

The Supreme Court has granted bail to an individual who was accused of conspiring to murder a local Shiv Sena leader in Maharashtra in 2020. The decision was made by a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, C T Ravikumar, and Sanjay Kumar. The court took into consideration the fact that other co-accused in the case had already been granted bail. Rahul Umesh Shetty, the former Lonavala unit chief of…

[seemabhatnagar]

Circumstantial Evidence and Conviction

Indrajit Das(Appellant) v. State of Tripura

Background of the case:

This is a case related to circumstantial evidence leading to conviction by the Trial Court u/s 302 IPC/34 IPC & 201 IPC and on Appeal the same was upheld by the Tripura High Court. However, on appeal the Supreme Court set aside the order of High Court as well as Trial Court.

Order of the Supreme Court:

 The Bench of Hon’ble Justice B R Gavai & Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath held that the major links of the chain of circumstances have not been proved by the prosecution evidence and as such it would be unjust to uphold the conviction of the appellant.

The appellant (Indrajit Das) would be entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges.

Principle Governing Circumstantial Evidence

Leading case: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1984 (4) SCC 116

The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.

Issue before the Supreme Court: Whether each link of the chain of circumstances is fully established by the prosecution or not.

Basic link in the chain of circumstances: Motive, then move on to last seen theory, recovery, medical evidence, expert opinions if any and any other additional link which may be part of the chain of circumstances.

Observation of the Apex Court:

Prosecution has not come forward with the motive of murder. The trial Court as well as High Court in the absence of any evidence failed to record any finding on the motive for the commission of crime by the appellant and co-accused Juvenile ‘K’.

Motive has an important role to play in the case of circumstantial evidence.

Dead body was not recovered only limb was found andno DNA test was carried out to establish that the limb was of deceased Kaushik Sarkar.

Principle of corpus delicti has judgments on both sides stating that conviction can be recorded in the absence of the recovery of the corpus and the other view that no conviction could be recorded in the absence of recovery of the corpus. The later view is for the reason that if corpus appears as alive, than someone may have been convicted and sentenced for no crime committed by him.

Last seen theory- The first information was given by one Arjun Das one of the prosecution witness  to the police station in the morning that his nephew Kaushik left the house in the evening on his motorbike and had not returned. He did not mentioned about either of appellant or the juvenile ‘K’.

The   main witness mother however stated that when she returned from the office she saw his son going on his fathers motorbike, she enquired where he was going. Kaushik told her he was going to Fatikroy Bazar with the appellant and ‘K’ and her mother followed Kaushik up to the gate and saw appellant and ‘K’. But in cross examination she denied of making such statement.

The conviction is based upon, apart from the prosecution witnesses, on the extra-judicial confession of the appellant as also ‘juvenile K’.

If the extra-judicial confession is to be accepted, the statement of last seen theory given by the mother becomes difficult to be given any credibility.

Extra judicial confession requires strong evidence to corroborate it and also it must be established that it was completely voluntary and truthful.

Evidence led by the prosecution is inconsistent and no corroborating evidence is found to support extra judicial confession.

Recovery of knife was made from the open place. It was not a place which could be said to be in the exclusive knowledge of the Appellant.

[odnewsin]

SC comes down heavily on 'bulldozer justice', lays down pan-India guidelines on demolition of houses

Coming down hard on instant ‘bulldozer justice’, the Supreme Court on Wednesday laid down pan-India guidelines on demolition of properties and said the Executive cannot become a judge, declare an accused as guilty and demolish his house. A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan said it will be “totally unconstitutional” if houses of people are demolished merely because they are accused…

[blogynewz]

"Unveiling the Unexpected: Supreme Court Shocks Nation by Granting Bail in Shiv Sena Leader's Murder Case | India News"

The Supreme Court has granted bail to an individual who was accused of conspiring to murder a local Shiv Sena leader in Maharashtra in 2020. The decision was made by a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, C T Ravikumar, and Sanjay Kumar. The court took into consideration the fact that other co-accused in the case had already been granted bail. Rahul Umesh Shetty, the former Lonavala unit chief of…

[blogynewsz]

"Unveiling the Unexpected: Supreme Court Shocks Nation by Granting Bail in Shiv Sena Leader's Murder Case | India News"

The Supreme Court has granted bail to an individual who was accused of conspiring to murder a local Shiv Sena leader in Maharashtra in 2020. The decision was made by a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, C T Ravikumar, and Sanjay Kumar. The court took into consideration the fact that other co-accused in the case had already been granted bail. Rahul Umesh Shetty, the former Lonavala unit chief of…