Historic apex court verdict on bilkis case

The granting of remission by the Gujarat government in August 2022 to 11 convicted persons for life on the proven charges of murder, gang rape was challenged in the apex court on several grounds. The court in its strongly-worded judgment indicted the government and ordered the freed prisoners to go back to jail. Indeed, the verdict will go into the annals of legal history of the country as a very bold and balanced judgment

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices B V Nagrathna and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered a bold and indeed historic verdict in the case of Bilkis Bano on January 8. The long-drawn legal battle which divided political parties into two groups, namely those with the Bilkis Bano and those against her, had generated enough heat and sparks.

The granting of remission by the Gujarat government in August 2022 to 11 convicted persons for life on the proven charges of murder, gang rape was challenged in the apex court on several grounds. The court in its strongly-worded judgment indicted the government and ordered the freed prisoners to go back to jail. Indeed, the verdict will go into the annals of legal history of the country as a very bold and balanced judgment.

However, the apex court would have to keep the consistency in approaching similar situations at all the times. The butchers of Ankit Sharma during the communal violence in Delhi in the last leg of the prolonged CAA-NRC agitation and of Sadhus in Palghar too, should be dealt with the same measuring rod. In fact, a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) should be devised by the apex court to deal with such gruesome crimes effectively, uniformly and in a time bound manner. Though this seems to be a difficult preposition because of peculiarities of facts in different cases, still an attempt to harmonise a judicial approach to such situations needs to be given a trial. Let people not get an impression that courts are adopting different yardsticks to deal with similar situations in different cases. It is rightly said that justice should not only be done, but it should also seem to have been done. Towards this end, a sort of uniform transparent approach should be devised.

SC ire at Gujarat cops & magistrate

The apex court on January 10 came down heavily on the Gujarat police and an additional chief magistrate of Surat for taking a man into custody and keeping him in police custody for four days ignoring the anticipatory bail granted to him by it.

A division bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta took suo motu cognisance of such contemptuous behaviour of the State police and the additional chief magistrate and issued contempt notices to the additional chief secretary of Home department, government of Gujarat, commissioner and deputy commissioner, Surat, inspector of police, Vesu police station and additional chief magistrate, Surat, who remanded the petitioner to police custody.

The petitioner, Tusharbhai Rajanikantbhai Shah is an accused in a cheating case. The high court dismissed his petition for anticipatory bail following which he approached the Supreme Court, which granted him bail. However, the police and additional chief magistrate remanded him to police custody and the lower court insisted for a fresh bail petition from the accuse d.

Shinde group is real Shiv Sena

The much-awaited decision of the enquiry by Speaker Rahul Narvekar came on January 10 declaring the Eknath Shinde group of the Shiv Sena as true Shiv Sena and Shinde as the chief minister of Maharashtra.

In his 2,000-page Supreme Court enquiry report, the Speaker categorically stated that as the majority of Shiv Sena legislators are with the Shinde group, the true Shiv Sena is the group headed by Shinde. The whip issued by the Eknath Shinde group will have to be followed by the legislators of the Uddhav group legislators also, the speaker added.

After the division in the party last year in which Eknath Shinde group with 37 MLAs formed the coalition government with the help of BJP in Maharashtra, both groups had approached the apex court for justice. The court directed the Speaker to enquire and decide the matter.

The Shinde group has termed the Speaker’s verdict as victory of truth and democracy, while Uddhav group has branded it as partisan and insult to Shiv Sena founder, the late Balasaheb Thackeray. The Uddhav group has the option to knock doors of the Supreme Court as last resort.

Registration of power of attorney

Justice Jyoti Mulimani of the Karnataka High Court in a case involving second appeal recently held that if a power of attorney authorises its holder to sell the concerned immovable property, then it has to be registered compulsorily because such a document creates an interest in the immovable property.

In a judgment allowing the appeal delivered on December 8, last year in the second appeal titled to Channegowda and another Vs. N S Vishwanath and another, the high court termed the judgments of lower court as well as the first appellate court “erroneous” and explained the scope of Section 17 of the Registration Act.

Bombay HC on Section 397 CrPC

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justices Mangesh S. Patil and S G Chapalgaonkar has held that in a revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Cr P.C the court has the discretion to decide the matter without insisting on presence of the accused in the court.

In a case titled, Ikba and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, wherein the judgment was delivered on January 5, the bench also held that even in the absence of the rules framed under a particular section of the CrPC, the high court can entertain and decide the revision petition.

HC judge moves SC for his salary

In a rare case, a sitting judge of the high court has been constrained to approach the apex court for getting his salary. Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra, a sitting judge of the Patna High Court. filed a plea in the Supreme Court praying that since his elevation in November 2023, from the higher judicial services to the high court, he is yet to be allotted a GPF account despite having completed all the required documentation; this situation has led to immense mental and financial instability. A three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardivala and Manoj Misra issued notice on January 12 to the Union of India, State of Bihar and the Registrar-General of the Patna High Court.