News Analysis India

Tag: Delhi High Court

  • You have put personal interest over national: Delhi high court to AAP government

    (This story originally appeared in on Apr 27, 2024)NEW DELHI: A furious Delhi High Court on Friday lashed out at AAP govt over its failure to provide textbooks, stationery and other items to 2 lakh students in MCD schools, saying it had put personal interest above national interest.“You are arrogant to the core, this is arrogance of power at the highest,” the court said after govt blamed the MCD commissioner for not seeking funds.In scathing remarks, HC said Delhi govt was only “interested in appropriation of power” even as the govt counsel accused the lieutenant governor of failing to form the standing committee.A bench of acting chief justice Manmohan and justice Manmeet PS Arora also slammed Delhi govt for its submission that approvals of chief minister Arvind Kejriwal can’t be taken in this matter as he is in jail.AllUttar PradeshMaharashtraTamil NaduWest BengalBiharKarnatakaAndhra PradeshTelanganaKeralaMadhya PradeshRajasthanDelhiOther States “It is your choice that the CM wants to continue despite being in jail, it is your administration’s call. Now your minister says since the CM is inside, he can’t take a decision. National interest comes supreme, but you have placed your personal interest above it. You are forcing us to say it. We can’t allow children not to have textbooks,” the bench told govt counsel Shadan Farasat.It is the personal call of the chief minister if he wants the administration to be “paralysed”, the court remarked as it noted that from the start of April, students have not got textbooks, notepads or uniforms and are studying under tin roofs in some schools.HC said till now it had “politely” emphasised that national interest is “supreme” but “your client has placed personal interest on the highest pedestal, above the interest of the students, the children that are studying. We are going to give that finding.”

    HC was dealing with a PIL by NGO Social Jurist, represented by advocate Ashok Agarwal, and had earlier summoned the MCD commissioner who blamed the absence of a standing committee, which has the power to award contracts worth more than Rs 5 crore, for the delay.

    “Your client is just a person looking for more and more power.….I don’t know how much power you want. The problem is because you are trying to appropriate power…you are not getting it,” the bench said. It said people who lead must “carry everyone along” as it cannot be a case of “one-man upmanship.”

    The court took a dim view of the submissions by Farasat, made on instructions from urban development minister Saurabh Bharadwaj. “We will record your statement that it is because the chief minister is in custody that the minister cannot do anything. If that’s his personal call, good luck to him….You are asking us to go down that track and we will come with full vigour. Don’t think we don’t have the guts to pass an order,” said justice Manmohan.

    HC had prima facie said there could not be a vacuum in the absence of a standing committee, and in such a situation, the financial power has to be delegated by Delhi govt to another authority.

    Highlighting the “admitted facts”, HC remarked that several projects concerning distribution of books and medicines were stalled and asked, “Don’t you have a heart? Don’t you feel for them? I don’t think you are seeing any of this. I think you are just shedding crocodile tears.”

    It said Delhi government does not feel for the common man. “Desks and chairs are broken. Will the mayor like her children to study in a place where tables are broken?” asked the court, posting the PIL for directions on April 29.

  • Will Your WhatsApp Stop Working? Meta Threatens To Stop Chat App Services In India Over Privacy Row |

    By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device and the processing of information obtained via those cookies (including about your preferences, device and online activity) by us and our commercial partners to enhance site navigation, personalise ads, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. More information can be found in our Cookies and Privacy Policy. You can amend your cookie settings to reject non-essential cookies by clicking Cookie Settings below.

    Accept All Cookies

    Manage Consent Preferences

  • ‘ED has enough material against Kejriwal’: Delhi High Court after denying CM’s bail plea – The Economic Times Video

    Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal had contested his arrest and ED remand granted by the trial court before a Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. CM Kejriwal was represented by high-profile lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and ED counsel was ASG SV Raju. The court had reserved it’s order which was pronounced today. Here’s what the court said…

  • ‘AAP’s Arrogance Has Been Shattered’: BJP After Delhi HC Rejects Arvind Kejriwal’s Plea In Liquor Policy Case |

    NEW DELHI: The Bhartiya Janata Party on Tuesday came down heavily on the Aam Admi Party after the Delhi High Court dismissed Chief Minister Arvind Kjriwal’s bail challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the liquor policy money laundering case. Addressing a press conference, BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi said the Delhi High Court’s verdict has shattered the AAP’a arrogance today. “Aam Aadmi Party’s arrogance has been shattered. The self-proclaimed honest character (of Arvind Kejriwal) has also been shattered by facts and proofs,” BJP’s spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi said.

     

    #WATCH | Delhi: After Delhi High Court dismisses CM Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest ED in the Excise Policy money laundering case, Rajya Sabha MP and BJP’s spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi says, “Aam Aadmi Party’s arrogance has been shattered. The self-proclaimed… pic.twitter.com/4koWnR3347
    — ANI (@ANI) April 9, 2024

     

    The BJP leader further stated, “For the so-called Aam Aadmi chief minister, the court has clearly said that the law cannot be different for the common man and AAP’s chief minister…The ‘Aam Aadmi’ cape has been pulled off as he (Arvind Kejriwal) wanted the treatment of a ‘Khas Aadmi’.”

    The reaction from the BJP came after the Delhi High Court dismissed Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Excise policy case and said that Kejriwal’s arrest is not in contravention of Law and remand can’t be termed “illegal”.

    The bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma said ED was in possession of enough material which had led them to arrest Kejriwal. Non-joining of the investigation by Kejriwal, the delay caused by him also impacting those in judicial custody.

    The material collected by the Enforcement Directorate reveals that Arvind Kejriwal conspired and was actively involved in the use and concealment of proceeds of crime. The ED case also reveals that he was involved in his personal capacity as well as the convenor of Aam Aadmi Party.

    The court further stated that this court is of the opinion that the accused has been arrested and his arrest and remand have to be examined as per law and not as per the timing of elections. Kejriwal’s challenge to the timing of arrest before General elections in the absence of any mala fide on part of ED not sustainable, said the court.

    Arvind Kejriwal through the plea alleged that the ED has at the time of arrest “failed to establish” that the petitioner is guilty of committing activities stipulated under Section 3, i.e., be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so.

    Kejriwal was arrested on March 21 by the Enforcement Directorate in relation to the excise policy case. The trial court on April 1, sent Arvind Kejriwal to judicial custody till April 15, 2024. ED alleged that the Aam Adami Party (AAP) is the major beneficiary of the proceeds of crime generated in the alleged liquor scam. The agency also claimed that Kejriwal was directly involved in the formation of the excise policy.

    Delhi Liquor Policy Case: A Background 

    The case pertains to alleged irregularities and money laundering in framing and implementing the Delhi Excise Policy 2022, which was later scrapped.

    While Kejriwal was not named in the FIRs registered by the ED or the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Delhi excise policy case, his name first found a mention in the ED’s chargesheet, wherein the agency claimed that he allegedly spoke to one of the main accused, Sameer Mahendru, in a video call and asked him to continue working with co-accused and AAP communications-in-charge Vijay Nair.

    Nair was among the first people to be arrested by the CBI in the case, in 2022. Subsequently, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh were arrested in connection with the case. The latter, however, was granted bail by the Supreme Court last week.

  • Atishi declares order of appointing Delhi govt standing counsel on interim basis ‘invalid’

    NEW DELHI: Delhi Law Minister Atishi has declared as “invalid” an order issued by the principal secretary (Law) appointing another lawyer as standing counsel to represent Delhi government before the Delhi High Court on interim basis instead of standing counsel (civil) Santosh Kumar Tripathi.

    The minister, in an order issued on February 15, said “Tripathi will continue to handle the responsibilities of standing counsel (civil), Delhi High Court, GNCTD”.

    A copy of the order has also been sent to the registrar general of the high court.Earlier this month, Delhi Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena had said that government counsel have made “misleading” statements before the high court related to a report on the opening of liquor vends in conforming and non-conforming wards while implementing the now-rescinded excise policy in the national capital, officials had said.

    Later on February 14, the principal secretary (Law) issued an order stating, “As an interim arrangement and to ensure proper representation of GNCTD of Delhi before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Shri Anupam Srivastava, Additional Standing Counsel (Civil) is hereby appointed Standing Counsel (Civil), Delhi High Court NCT of Delhi till further orders. He will perform all the duties of Standing Counsel (Civil), Delhi High Court, GNCT of Delhi and conduct the cases presently handled by Shri Santosh Kumar Tripathi.”

    Taking note of this, the next day Atishi issued an order saying that the principal secretary (Law) had issued the order on the directions of the LG and the Chief Secretary and the appointment of the standing counsel is a transferred subject and is a decision taken by the Council of Ministers of the Delhi government.”Removal or appointment of a standing counsel (whether in a permanent or interim manner) is outside the, purview of the Hon’ble LG. Neither is this covered under the GNCTD Amendment Act 2023,” she said in the order.”The impugned order has been issued by principal secretary (Law) without the approval of the minister in-charge and is therefore without basis in law, and is in violation of Allocation of Business Rules, Transaction of Business Rules, GNCTD Act and Article 239AA of the Constitution. Therefore, the impugned order is ab initio null and void, and therefore declared invalid,” she said.

    The principal secretary (Law) on the instructions of LG, had also asked Tripathi not to appear on behalf of Delhi government before any court of law till further orders and till the decision is taken in the matter by the competent authority.

    A similar order was also issued to advocate Arun Panwar, who is also a panel counsel of Delhi government.

    Earlier, Raj Niwas officials had said the proposal of the Excise Commissioner to submit the report of the committee — set up on the orders of the Delhi High Court regarding conforming and non-conforming wards — to the court was moved for LG’s approval on August 18, 2022.

    However, it was stalled by the then minister twice, officials had said.

    “All this while the government kept telling on record in HC, that the report was pending with LG. It prompted the court to request the LG thrice to clear the file for submission of the report expeditiously, despite the fact that the file was not with LG.

    “The proposal was cleared by Atishi (Delhi minister) who sent it for further recommendation to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who cleared it on January 16 this year and sent it to LG,” an official had said.

    In a file noting to Kejriwal, Saxena noted that the file relating to the approval of the report was received at the LG Secretariat on January 16 this year — after a lapse of one year and five months since it was first moved for LG’s approval on August 18, 2022, the official had said.

    Saxena had noted in the file that the case is a “sad reflection on the manner in which the state government counsels made false and misleading statements” before the court, showing the Lieutenant Governor and his office in poor light in the eyes of the court.

    (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel)

  • Maternity rights integral part of woman’s identity, can’t deny benefits to contractual employee: Delhi HC

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: While observing maternity rights as an integral part of the identity of a woman, the Delhi High Court said maternity benefits cannot be denied to a female employee merely because the nature of such employment is contractual.

    In a recent order, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said, “Denial of such rights is in fact standing in the way of a woman choosing to bring life into the world, thereby violating her fundamental right to life. Such denial is indeed against the principle of social justice.”

    The high court order said, “Denial of the said benefits is inhumane and in violation of Fundamental Rights. Maternity rights are not something that is based on a statute but stands to be an integral part of the identity of a woman.”

    The observations of the single-bench judge came while it was dealing with a plea moved by a female attendant at a hostel of Delhi University who was appointed on an ad-hoc basis.

    As per the plea, her contractual term got renewed for a period of six months– July 2 to December 31 last year. In the meantime, she applied for maternity leave with effect from May 5 to November 4 which was approved by the authorities.

    However, the woman did not receive the salary during this time of her maternity leave. Later she was informed that her services had been terminated and she had been permanently replaced from the job.

    She was approaching the high court as there was no action on behalf of the authorities despite her several representations to them. Advocates Chandrika Mishra, Prashasti Singh, and Richa Rajesh appeared for the petitioner woman.

    Going through the submissions and records of the case, the high court noted that the respondent institution had wrongly terminated the petitioner (woman), as there was no notice issued to the petitioner before her services were concluded.

    “Moreover, the petitioner was apprised of the sudden conclusion of her services only when she rejoined the respondent institution upon the lapse of her maternity period,” the high court said.

    Accordingly, allowing the petition, the high court directed the authorities to reinstate the woman on her previous post or any other post as per her eligibility and directed her to pay the maternity benefits as per the Act, 1961 within four weeks. The court also allowed a compensation of Rs.50,000 to the petitioner. Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp

    NEW DELHI: While observing maternity rights as an integral part of the identity of a woman, the Delhi High Court said maternity benefits cannot be denied to a female employee merely because the nature of such employment is contractual.

    In a recent order, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said, “Denial of such rights is in fact standing in the way of a woman choosing to bring life into the world, thereby violating her fundamental right to life. Such denial is indeed against the principle of social justice.”

    The high court order said, “Denial of the said benefits is inhumane and in violation of Fundamental Rights. Maternity rights are not something that is based on a statute but stands to be an integral part of the identity of a woman.”googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    The observations of the single-bench judge came while it was dealing with a plea moved by a female attendant at a hostel of Delhi University who was appointed on an ad-hoc basis.

    As per the plea, her contractual term got renewed for a period of six months– July 2 to December 31 last year. In the meantime, she applied for maternity leave with effect from May 5 to November 4 which was approved by the authorities.

    However, the woman did not receive the salary during this time of her maternity leave. Later she was informed that her services had been terminated and she had been permanently replaced from the job.

    She was approaching the high court as there was no action on behalf of the authorities despite her several representations to them. Advocates Chandrika Mishra, Prashasti Singh, and Richa Rajesh appeared for the petitioner woman.

    Going through the submissions and records of the case, the high court noted that the respondent institution had wrongly terminated the petitioner (woman), as there was no notice issued to the petitioner before her services were concluded.

    “Moreover, the petitioner was apprised of the sudden conclusion of her services only when she rejoined the respondent institution upon the lapse of her maternity period,” the high court said.

    Accordingly, allowing the petition, the high court directed the authorities to reinstate the woman on her previous post or any other post as per her eligibility and directed her to pay the maternity benefits as per the Act, 1961 within four weeks. The court also allowed a compensation of Rs.50,000 to the petitioner. Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp

  • Delhi HC upholds man’s acquittal in case of raping 15-year-old wife

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain the State’s appeal against a man’s acquittal in a case of raping his 15-year-old wife, saying his physical relationship with her cannot be termed as rape.

    The high court upheld a trial court’s judgement which had declared the Muslim man not guilty of raping his second wife, saying he has been rightly acquitted.

    “The additional sessions judge had rightly observed that in view of the testimony of the child that she got married to the respondent (man) in the month of December 2014 and only thereafter did they have a physical relationship, no offence under Section 6 read with Section 5(1) of POCSO Act was made out and the respondent was rightly acquitted,” a bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna said.

    The high court said there was no ground for grant of leave to appeal against the trial court’s verdict and dismissed an application filed by the police.

    “We find that since the child victim was the wife who was almost fifteen years of age, the physical relationship of the respondent with the victim, cannot be termed as rape. The respondent has been rightly acquitted,” the bench said.

    Under the exception given in Section 375 (rape) of the IPC, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his wife, the wife not being under 15 years, is not rape.

    According to the prosecution, a rape case was lodged against the man in 2015 on the complaint of the girl’s mother after finding out that her minor daughter was pregnant.

    The girl, in her testimony before the trial court, submitted that the man who was her brother-in-law had married her in December 2014 after which he established physical relations with her with her consent and she became pregnant.

    She said the fact that she had got married to the man was not known to her mother, who lodged a complaint with the police upon discovering that she was pregnant.

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain the State’s appeal against a man’s acquittal in a case of raping his 15-year-old wife, saying his physical relationship with her cannot be termed as rape.

    The high court upheld a trial court’s judgement which had declared the Muslim man not guilty of raping his second wife, saying he has been rightly acquitted.

    “The additional sessions judge had rightly observed that in view of the testimony of the child that she got married to the respondent (man) in the month of December 2014 and only thereafter did they have a physical relationship, no offence under Section 6 read with Section 5(1) of POCSO Act was made out and the respondent was rightly acquitted,” a bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna said.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    The high court said there was no ground for grant of leave to appeal against the trial court’s verdict and dismissed an application filed by the police.

    “We find that since the child victim was the wife who was almost fifteen years of age, the physical relationship of the respondent with the victim, cannot be termed as rape. The respondent has been rightly acquitted,” the bench said.

    Under the exception given in Section 375 (rape) of the IPC, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his wife, the wife not being under 15 years, is not rape.

    According to the prosecution, a rape case was lodged against the man in 2015 on the complaint of the girl’s mother after finding out that her minor daughter was pregnant.

    The girl, in her testimony before the trial court, submitted that the man who was her brother-in-law had married her in December 2014 after which he established physical relations with her with her consent and she became pregnant.

    She said the fact that she had got married to the man was not known to her mother, who lodged a complaint with the police upon discovering that she was pregnant.

  • Justice Muralidhar, the Judge who never made it to SC and a vanguard committed to the rule of law

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI:  Justice S Muralidhar, whose elevation to the Supreme Court was overlooked despite being one of the senior-most High Court (HC) judges in the country and is acknowledged for passing crucial judgments in many sensitive matters, demitted office as the chief justice of Orissa HC on August 7, 2023, after a 17-year illustrious career as a judge. 

    Justice Muralidhar had a 14-year tenure in the Delhi HC, before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana HC through a midnight order, a development that was widely panned by lawyers, former judges, civil society members and the media. 

    In December 2020, he was elevated to the Chief Justice of the Orissa HC. In September 2022, the Supreme Court collegium recommended his transfer to Madras HC, but the Centre did not notify the same.

    The judge who was widely known for his blue Maruti Omni van that used to be parked at the SC’s parking lot — that he used as his ‘chamber’ — delivered many bold and progressive verdicts during his tenure in the Delhi HC. 

    Taking note of the serious condition of those wounded in the northeast Delhi riots which broke out in 2020, a bench headed by Justice Muralidhar in an emergency midnight hearing conducted on February 26, 2020, directed Delhi police to ensure their safe passage to GTB hospital for treatment. His stern orders in the riots cases reportedly earned him the ire of the powers that be. 

    While hearing the case related to CAA-linked violence, Justice Muralidhar had pulled up the Delhi police for failing to take action against three BJP leaders for hate speech and had asserted that the court “would not let another 1984 happen” in India under its watch. 

    Apart from being a part of the bench that first decriminalized homosexuality in the Naz Foundation case in 2009 and allowing RTI pleas on the disclosure of assets of SC judges in 2010, Justice Muralidhar also granted relief to Gautam Navalkha in the Bhima Koregaon case.

    He also convicted 16 members of the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary for their role in the 1986 Hashimpura massacre — which witnessed the killing of 50 Muslim men by police on or around 22 May 1987 near Meerut. Another major verdict delivered by Justice Muralidhar was the conviction of Congress leader Sajjan Kumar for his role in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.

    “The most moving moment as a judge was in this very court sitting where I am today when on July 2, 2009, Chief Justice A.P. Shah and I delivered our judgment in Naz Foundation. Even as we held that consensual same-sex between adults in private was not a crime, the relief that swept through the courtroom amongst those waiting to hear the verdict was palpable. Many broke down right here in front of us. At that moment, we knew that something irreversible had happened,” he later remarked, in his farewell speech in Delhi HC.

    In his farewell speech delivered in Delhi HC in 2020, Justice Muralidhar said, “Over the years, I have realised that it is not enough for lawyers and judges to speak about constitutional values. It is essential to imbibe them,” and added: “The constitutional values of equality, non-discrimination, dignity, prohibition of untouchability, inclusivity, and plurality have to be practised continuously at both a personal and professional level.”

    Justice Muralidhar’s tenure on the bench was marked by his unwavering commitment to justice, fairness, and the rule of law. Even after his retirement, his legacy continues to inspire both legal practitioners and the general public. 

    NEW DELHI:  Justice S Muralidhar, whose elevation to the Supreme Court was overlooked despite being one of the senior-most High Court (HC) judges in the country and is acknowledged for passing crucial judgments in many sensitive matters, demitted office as the chief justice of Orissa HC on August 7, 2023, after a 17-year illustrious career as a judge. 

    Justice Muralidhar had a 14-year tenure in the Delhi HC, before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana HC through a midnight order, a development that was widely panned by lawyers, former judges, civil society members and the media. 

    In December 2020, he was elevated to the Chief Justice of the Orissa HC. In September 2022, the Supreme Court collegium recommended his transfer to Madras HC, but the Centre did not notify the same.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    The judge who was widely known for his blue Maruti Omni van that used to be parked at the SC’s parking lot — that he used as his ‘chamber’ — delivered many bold and progressive verdicts during his tenure in the Delhi HC. 

    Taking note of the serious condition of those wounded in the northeast Delhi riots which broke out in 2020, a bench headed by Justice Muralidhar in an emergency midnight hearing conducted on February 26, 2020, directed Delhi police to ensure their safe passage to GTB hospital for treatment. His stern orders in the riots cases reportedly earned him the ire of the powers that be. 

    While hearing the case related to CAA-linked violence, Justice Muralidhar had pulled up the Delhi police for failing to take action against three BJP leaders for hate speech and had asserted that the court “would not let another 1984 happen” in India under its watch. 

    Apart from being a part of the bench that first decriminalized homosexuality in the Naz Foundation case in 2009 and allowing RTI pleas on the disclosure of assets of SC judges in 2010, Justice Muralidhar also granted relief to Gautam Navalkha in the Bhima Koregaon case.

    He also convicted 16 members of the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary for their role in the 1986 Hashimpura massacre — which witnessed the killing of 50 Muslim men by police on or around 22 May 1987 near Meerut. Another major verdict delivered by Justice Muralidhar was the conviction of Congress leader Sajjan Kumar for his role in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.

    “The most moving moment as a judge was in this very court sitting where I am today when on July 2, 2009, Chief Justice A.P. Shah and I delivered our judgment in Naz Foundation. Even as we held that consensual same-sex between adults in private was not a crime, the relief that swept through the courtroom amongst those waiting to hear the verdict was palpable. Many broke down right here in front of us. At that moment, we knew that something irreversible had happened,” he later remarked, in his farewell speech in Delhi HC.

    In his farewell speech delivered in Delhi HC in 2020, Justice Muralidhar said, “Over the years, I have realised that it is not enough for lawyers and judges to speak about constitutional values. It is essential to imbibe them,” and added: “The constitutional values of equality, non-discrimination, dignity, prohibition of untouchability, inclusivity, and plurality have to be practised continuously at both a personal and professional level.”

    Justice Muralidhar’s tenure on the bench was marked by his unwavering commitment to justice, fairness, and the rule of law. Even after his retirement, his legacy continues to inspire both legal practitioners and the general public. 

  • Delhi HC seeks stand of NewsClick, its editor on ED plea against protection in money laundering case

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Friday sought the stand of news portal NewsClick and its editor-in-chief on a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking vacation of an earlier order granting them protection from coercive action in a money laundering case.

    Issuing a notice to NewsClick and its editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha, Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that prima facie, the investigation agency’s submissions for vacation of interim protection have merit and require deliberation.

    The application is part of the ongoing proceedings on a petition by the portal seeking a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) lodged by the ED in the case.

    The ED counsel said new material has been unearthed, revealing the commission of the offence of money laundering.

    He also said the petition was not maintainable as the ECIR is an internal document that cannot be supplied and the petitioners cannot “piggyback” on the interim relief.

    This is a criminal conspiracy for “paid news” where crores of rupees have come in violation of laws, the ED’s counsel submitted.

    “Prima facie, in the opinion of this court, the above contention has merit and requires deliberation. In view thereof, issue notice,” Justice Banerjee said and listed the matter for further hearing on September 6.

    ALSO READ | NewsClick: ED probes Prakash Karat-billionaire Singham email exchanges, funds transfer to journalists

    Counsel for the petitioners said there was no urgency in the matter.

    In the application for vacation of the interim order, the ED said the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of “blanket no coercive action” orders and such orders during the course of investigation virtually amount to granting anticipatory bail to the accused.

    “Since ECIR can no longer be provided to the accused and as for grant of anticipatory bail the twin conditions of Section 45 (PMLA) are required to be complied (with), the continuation of interim protection to the accused petitioner virtually amounts to grant of anticipatory bail in a PMLA case without the satisfaction of the twin conditions.

    Therefore, the orders dated 21.06.2021 and 29.07.2021 granting interim protection must be vacated at the earliest in view of the settled position of law,” the ED application said.

    On June 21 last year, the High Court directed the ED not to take any coercive action against NewsClick and Purkayastha in connection with the money laundering case.

    The interim protection was further extended on July 29, 2021.

    The ED initiated its probe on the basis of a Delhi Police FIR and has conducted searches on the premises of NewsClick and several other places in connection with the money received from overseas.

    According to the FIR, the petitioner company, PPK Newsclick Studio Private Limited, received foreign direct investment (FDI) to the tune of Rs 9.59 crore from Worldwide Media Holdings LLC USA during 2018-19.

    It alleged that the investment was made by greatly overvaluing the shares of the petitioner company to avoid the 26 per cent FDI cap in a digital news website.

    It was further alleged that over 45 per cent of this investment was diverted or siphoned off for the payment of salary/consultancy, rent and other expenses.

    Therefore, it is alleged that the company has violated FDI and other laws of the country and caused a loss to the government exchequer.

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Friday sought the stand of news portal NewsClick and its editor-in-chief on a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking vacation of an earlier order granting them protection from coercive action in a money laundering case.

    Issuing a notice to NewsClick and its editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha, Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that prima facie, the investigation agency’s submissions for vacation of interim protection have merit and require deliberation.

    The application is part of the ongoing proceedings on a petition by the portal seeking a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) lodged by the ED in the case.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    The ED counsel said new material has been unearthed, revealing the commission of the offence of money laundering.

    He also said the petition was not maintainable as the ECIR is an internal document that cannot be supplied and the petitioners cannot “piggyback” on the interim relief.

    This is a criminal conspiracy for “paid news” where crores of rupees have come in violation of laws, the ED’s counsel submitted.

    “Prima facie, in the opinion of this court, the above contention has merit and requires deliberation. In view thereof, issue notice,” Justice Banerjee said and listed the matter for further hearing on September 6.

    ALSO READ | NewsClick: ED probes Prakash Karat-billionaire Singham email exchanges, funds transfer to journalists

    Counsel for the petitioners said there was no urgency in the matter.

    In the application for vacation of the interim order, the ED said the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of “blanket no coercive action” orders and such orders during the course of investigation virtually amount to granting anticipatory bail to the accused.

    “Since ECIR can no longer be provided to the accused and as for grant of anticipatory bail the twin conditions of Section 45 (PMLA) are required to be complied (with), the continuation of interim protection to the accused petitioner virtually amounts to grant of anticipatory bail in a PMLA case without the satisfaction of the twin conditions.

    Therefore, the orders dated 21.06.2021 and 29.07.2021 granting interim protection must be vacated at the earliest in view of the settled position of law,” the ED application said.

    On June 21 last year, the High Court directed the ED not to take any coercive action against NewsClick and Purkayastha in connection with the money laundering case.

    The interim protection was further extended on July 29, 2021.

    The ED initiated its probe on the basis of a Delhi Police FIR and has conducted searches on the premises of NewsClick and several other places in connection with the money received from overseas.

    According to the FIR, the petitioner company, PPK Newsclick Studio Private Limited, received foreign direct investment (FDI) to the tune of Rs 9.59 crore from Worldwide Media Holdings LLC USA during 2018-19.

    It alleged that the investment was made by greatly overvaluing the shares of the petitioner company to avoid the 26 per cent FDI cap in a digital news website.

    It was further alleged that over 45 per cent of this investment was diverted or siphoned off for the payment of salary/consultancy, rent and other expenses.

    Therefore, it is alleged that the company has violated FDI and other laws of the country and caused a loss to the government exchequer.

  • SC rejects plea against exchange of Rs 2,000 notes without ID proof

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain an appeal challenging the Delhi High Court verdict dismissing a PIL against the RBI notification permitting the exchange of Rs 2,000 currency notes without any requisition slip and ID proof, saying it is an executive policy decision.

    A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha dismissed the appeal filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay in his personal capacity.

    “This is the matter of executive policy decision”, the bench said while dismissing the appeal.

    On May 29, the Delhi High Court dismissed the PIL challenging the notifications enabling the exchange of Rs 2,000 denomination currency notes without any requisition slip and ID proof.

    The high court had said the decision was taken to avoid inconvenience to citizens, and that it cannot sit as an appellate authority on a policy decision.

    The high court had maintained it cannot be said that the government’s decision is perverse or arbitrary or it encourages black money, money laundering, profiteering or abets corruption.

    An appeal was filed against the decision.

    Upadhyay said the Rs 2,000 banknotes are being exchanged without any requisition slip and ID proof like Aadhaar card by criminals and terrorists also.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain an appeal challenging the Delhi High Court verdict dismissing a PIL against the RBI notification permitting the exchange of Rs 2,000 currency notes without any requisition slip and ID proof, saying it is an executive policy decision.

    A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha dismissed the appeal filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay in his personal capacity.

    “This is the matter of executive policy decision”, the bench said while dismissing the appeal.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    On May 29, the Delhi High Court dismissed the PIL challenging the notifications enabling the exchange of Rs 2,000 denomination currency notes without any requisition slip and ID proof.

    The high court had said the decision was taken to avoid inconvenience to citizens, and that it cannot sit as an appellate authority on a policy decision.

    The high court had maintained it cannot be said that the government’s decision is perverse or arbitrary or it encourages black money, money laundering, profiteering or abets corruption.

    An appeal was filed against the decision.

    Upadhyay said the Rs 2,000 banknotes are being exchanged without any requisition slip and ID proof like Aadhaar card by criminals and terrorists also.