News Analysis India

Tag: Gujarat HC

  • SC castigates Gujarat HC for adjourning rape survivor’s abortion plea

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI:   The Supreme Court in a special Saturday hearing castigated the Gujarat High Court over its delay in deciding a rape victim’s plea for medical termination of her 27-week pregnancy. The woman had approached the Gujarat High Court on August 7 seeking permission to abort her 26-week-old fetus. The court on August 8 constituted a medical board to ascertain her health.

    The board submitted its report the next day. Although it was taken on record on August 11, the matter was posted for hearing on August 23 —12 days later.

    The court also rejected the listing of the case on August 17. A bench of justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that there should be some sense of urgency in such cases, adding valuable time was lost due to the high court adjourning the case by 12 days despite the medical report supporting her plea for safe abortion.

    “In such cases, there must be a sense of urgency and not a lackadaisical attitude…adjourning it like a normal case, we’re sorry to make these remarks,” the bench said. The bench directed the medical board to submit a fresh medical report by Sunday evening. “The same shall be put up before this court on Monday. List this case on Monday as the first item,” it said.

    NEW DELHI:   The Supreme Court in a special Saturday hearing castigated the Gujarat High Court over its delay in deciding a rape victim’s plea for medical termination of her 27-week pregnancy. The woman had approached the Gujarat High Court on August 7 seeking permission to abort her 26-week-old fetus. The court on August 8 constituted a medical board to ascertain her health.

    The board submitted its report the next day. Although it was taken on record on August 11, the matter was posted for hearing on August 23 —12 days later.

    The court also rejected the listing of the case on August 17. A bench of justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that there should be some sense of urgency in such cases, adding valuable time was lost due to the high court adjourning the case by 12 days despite the medical report supporting her plea for safe abortion.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    “In such cases, there must be a sense of urgency and not a lackadaisical attitude…adjourning it like a normal case, we’re sorry to make these remarks,” the bench said. The bench directed the medical board to submit a fresh medical report by Sunday evening. “The same shall be put up before this court on Monday. List this case on Monday as the first item,” it said.

  • 2002 Gujarat riots: SC grants interim bail to Teesta Setalvad

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: After almost two months of incarceration, the Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail to Teesta Setalvad who has been accused of allegedly fabricating false evidence to implicate high state officials in the 2002 Gujarat riots.

    The bench of CJI UU Lalit, Justices SR Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia has also directed for producing her tomorrow before the Magistrate and releasing her on conditions which the trial court deems appropriate. She has been asked to surrender her passport till the matter is heard by the Gujarat HC and ensure complete cooperation.

    Considering Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal’s contention that it would be difficult for her to get surety, the court has also asked the trial court to consider granting her bail on submission of cash surety rather than local surety.

    “Entire matter on merits shall be considered by the HC independently and uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. It is further made clear that relief has been granted in a peculiar case and that she happens to be a lady. This shall not be used by other accused as and when the occasion arises,” the court has also noted in its order.

    Appearing for Teesta, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had submitted that the facts in the FIR were nothing but recitation of the proceedings which ended with judgement and order dated June 24, 2022. It was also Sibal’s contention that the offence against the Teesta was not even made out and as such there was prima facie case in favour of the appellant. He had also stressed the fact that she was in custody for more than 2 months and was thus entitled to the relief of interim bail during the pendency of application before the Gujarat High Court.

    “I have not alleged the judge, judiciary. I’m not doing anything. I don’t expect this from a law officer. This is all motivated. Even if they are typed, how can forgery come into this? If forgery comes then the person who complains of forgery must come to court. But the state is coming here and saying. This is malicious and motivated and what I did was in the larger interest of the public. This has led to my incarceration. These affidavits have been filed in some other cases,” Sibal further asserted.

    Opposing Teesta’s bail, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State of Gujarat submitted that since her plea challenging the rejection of bail was pending before the Gujarat High Court, the matter must be allowed to be considered by the High Court. He further contended that apart from the FIR, there was additional evidence that pointed towards the involvement of Teesta.

    Stressing on the allegations of falsification of evidence, cooking up witnesses which were levelled against her, SG said, “Allegations is a falsification of evidence, cooking up witnesses, that’s precise which we are investigating. Your lordship has seen the nature of the conspiracy. It’s not ending with the petitioner. It’s starting with the petitioner. These are powerful people involved. This has been going on since 2002. Maligning campaigns has to be stopped.” To further substantiate his contention, Mehta also referred to some statements recorded by the Magistrate under section 164 of CrPC which prima facie pointed towards the fact that there was not some misunderstanding but a calculated conspiracy to achieve a particular goal.

    Yesterday, the bench asked the State of Gujarat what kind of additional material could the state gather by keeping Teesta Setalvad in custody for two months.

    “Has there been some additional material apart from the SC judgment? In the last 2 months, have you filed any charge sheet or something? We want to know what kind of material you have gathered within 2 months. Lady has completed more than 2 months of custody, is there anything which has been elicited out of custodial interrogation and today as the thing stands, FIR is nothing more than what has emerged in court,” CJI UU Lalit said.

    Frowning upon the Gujarat HC’s August 3rd order of fixing a long date in her plea assailing the lower court’s order rejecting her bail, the bench also comprising Justices SR Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia said, “Give us instances, where a lady was accused in similar situations & HC, has issued notice returnable within six weeks. Is this standard practice in the State of Gujarat?”

    The top judge was of the opinion that the FIR registered by Anti-Terrorism Squad, Gujarat was nothing but what the top court had said in Zakia Jafri’s judgment.

    Within 24 hours of the SC dismissing the petition preferred by Zakia Jafri for a probe into a larger conspiracy case behind the riots, Gujarat ATS had arrested Teesta in FIR registered u/s 468, 471, 194, 211 and 120 B of IPC against her, Mr Sanjiv Bhatt and Mr RB Sreekumar.

    Before the SC, Teesta had challenged order(s) dated July 30 passed by the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad of rejecting her bail and August 3, 2022, passed by Gujarat HC of fixing a long date in plea assailing lower court’s order.

    She had argued in the petition that she strongly believed that she had been targeted by the State for raising critical issues before the Apex Court challenging the administration and providing support to the victims of riots.

    NEW DELHI: After almost two months of incarceration, the Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail to Teesta Setalvad who has been accused of allegedly fabricating false evidence to implicate high state officials in the 2002 Gujarat riots.

    The bench of CJI UU Lalit, Justices SR Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia has also directed for producing her tomorrow before the Magistrate and releasing her on conditions which the trial court deems appropriate. She has been asked to surrender her passport till the matter is heard by the Gujarat HC and ensure complete cooperation.

    Considering Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal’s contention that it would be difficult for her to get surety, the court has also asked the trial court to consider granting her bail on submission of cash surety rather than local surety.

    “Entire matter on merits shall be considered by the HC independently and uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. It is further made clear that relief has been granted in a peculiar case and that she happens to be a lady. This shall not be used by other accused as and when the occasion arises,” the court has also noted in its order.

    Appearing for Teesta, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had submitted that the facts in the FIR were nothing but recitation of the proceedings which ended with judgement and order dated June 24, 2022. It was also Sibal’s contention that the offence against the Teesta was not even made out and as such there was prima facie case in favour of the appellant. He had also stressed the fact that she was in custody for more than 2 months and was thus entitled to the relief of interim bail during the pendency of application before the Gujarat High Court.

    “I have not alleged the judge, judiciary. I’m not doing anything. I don’t expect this from a law officer. This is all motivated. Even if they are typed, how can forgery come into this? If forgery comes then the person who complains of forgery must come to court. But the state is coming here and saying. This is malicious and motivated and what I did was in the larger interest of the public. This has led to my incarceration. These affidavits have been filed in some other cases,” Sibal further asserted.

    Opposing Teesta’s bail, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State of Gujarat submitted that since her plea challenging the rejection of bail was pending before the Gujarat High Court, the matter must be allowed to be considered by the High Court. He further contended that apart from the FIR, there was additional evidence that pointed towards the involvement of Teesta.

    Stressing on the allegations of falsification of evidence, cooking up witnesses which were levelled against her, SG said, “Allegations is a falsification of evidence, cooking up witnesses, that’s precise which we are investigating. Your lordship has seen the nature of the conspiracy. It’s not ending with the petitioner. It’s starting with the petitioner. These are powerful people involved. This has been going on since 2002. Maligning campaigns has to be stopped.” To further substantiate his contention, Mehta also referred to some statements recorded by the Magistrate under section 164 of CrPC which prima facie pointed towards the fact that there was not some misunderstanding but a calculated conspiracy to achieve a particular goal.

    Yesterday, the bench asked the State of Gujarat what kind of additional material could the state gather by keeping Teesta Setalvad in custody for two months.

    “Has there been some additional material apart from the SC judgment? In the last 2 months, have you filed any charge sheet or something? We want to know what kind of material you have gathered within 2 months. Lady has completed more than 2 months of custody, is there anything which has been elicited out of custodial interrogation and today as the thing stands, FIR is nothing more than what has emerged in court,” CJI UU Lalit said.

    Frowning upon the Gujarat HC’s August 3rd order of fixing a long date in her plea assailing the lower court’s order rejecting her bail, the bench also comprising Justices SR Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia said, “Give us instances, where a lady was accused in similar situations & HC, has issued notice returnable within six weeks. Is this standard practice in the State of Gujarat?”

    The top judge was of the opinion that the FIR registered by Anti-Terrorism Squad, Gujarat was nothing but what the top court had said in Zakia Jafri’s judgment.

    Within 24 hours of the SC dismissing the petition preferred by Zakia Jafri for a probe into a larger conspiracy case behind the riots, Gujarat ATS had arrested Teesta in FIR registered u/s 468, 471, 194, 211 and 120 B of IPC against her, Mr Sanjiv Bhatt and Mr RB Sreekumar.

    Before the SC, Teesta had challenged order(s) dated July 30 passed by the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad of rejecting her bail and August 3, 2022, passed by Gujarat HC of fixing a long date in plea assailing lower court’s order.

    She had argued in the petition that she strongly believed that she had been targeted by the State for raising critical issues before the Apex Court challenging the administration and providing support to the victims of riots.

  • PM Narendra Modi’s hometown residents move Gujarat HC against land acquisition for project

    By PTI

    AHMEDABAD: Residents of Vadnagar in Gujarat’s Mehsana district have challenged in the high court the state government’s move to acquire their land for a buffer zone for preservation of some of the architectural structures found in the town where a massive excavation project is being carried out.

    Eleven families from Vadnagar, the hometown of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have sought the Gujarat high court’s direction to cancel the government’s notification allowing acquisition of land without carrying out a social impact assessment (SEA) study for the buffer zone to be created for maintenance of architectural structures.

    The residents filed a plea against the notification last week and the matter was taken up by a division bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri on Monday.

    The bench later adjourned the hearing to March 11.

    The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the archaeological department is looking to acquire land parcels with around 30 houses built on them to create a buffer zone for preservation of architectural structures discovered in the town by classifying it as a “special project”.

    This is being done without the SEA study as the government considers it a special project.

    Section 10 (a) of the state’s amendment to the Land Acquisition Act allows the government to acquire land for such a special project without the need for an SEA, according to the plea.

    The affected families have lived there for the last 50 years and the proposed buffer zone is not such a project that will require land acquisition without an SIA, the counsel maintained.

    The petitioners suggested the government should consider creating the buffer zone on a vacant space on the left side of the excavation site to spare the existing houses of the affected families.

    Massive excavation works are being carried out at Vadnagar and several architectural sites have been discovered so far by the Archaeological Survey of India.

  • Man moves Gujarat HC after police ‘refuse’ to register case under anti-conversion law

    By PTI

    AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court has sought more information from the authorities after a man filed a petition claiming that police did not register FIR on his complaint under the recently amended Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act.

    Mohammad Saiyed, the petitioner, alleged that police in Anand district have not yet registered a case on his three-month-old complaint that his daughter was abducted and forcibly converted to Hinduism after marriage.

    Justice Ilesh J Vora on Friday directed the Assistant Public Prosecutor to get instructions from the police regarding the complaint dated June 24, 2021, filed by the petitioner with the Superintendent of Police, Anand.

    The HC kept the matter for further hearing on October 27.

    The petitioner said his daughter went missing on June 16, 2021, and he later learnt that a man had lured her into marriage and “forcibly converted her religion”.

    He approached Khambhat police station with a criminal complaint seeking registration of FIR against the person under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act that had come into force on June 15.

    But the police only made entry in the station diary and no FIR was registered, Saiyed alleged, seeking that police be directed to register a case.

    The petition has made both the Superintendent of Police and collector of Anand district respondents.

    The Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2021, which penalises forcible or fraudulent religious conversion through marriage, was notified by the BJP government in the state on June 15.

    Notably, the high court has stayed some of its provisions.

  • Gujarat High Court calls GPSC decision on Scheduled Caste woman’s appointment ‘illegal, perverse’

    By PTI

    AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court on Monday called “illegal and perverse” the decision of the state public service commission to deny a Scheduled Caste woman candidate appointment as per her first preference despite not availing the benefits of reservation and securing 43rd rank in a 2019 competitive exam after appearing in the general category.

    The petitioner moved the High Court after Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) recommended her for the post of assistant commissioner of sales tax, which was her 3rd preference, while recommending a woman from the general category, who got 110th rank, to the post of deputy superintendent of police, which was the first preference of the petitioner.

    Justice AS Supehia directed GPSC to issue an appointment order to the petitioner for the post of DySP, while relying on a recent HC order which stated that all women, irrespective of which category they belong, are entitled to compete for posts reserved for women under the general category.

    The GPSC said petitioner Roshni Solanki was not granted her first choice on the ground that she had availed the benefit of relaxation in age/cut-off marks in preliminary or main written exam as per a government resolution dated July 23, 2004.

    The court, in its order, however, said, “The aforesaid reason is absolutely ill-conceived, since there was no need for the petitioner to claim reservation since she was already satisfying the criteria of general category women candidate. The respondents have not produced any material on record to show the petitioner had sought reservation. Hence, the reason for which she was denied the appointment as per her first preference is illegal and perverse.”

    Solanki’s petitioner Chetan Pandya said she was 33 years old and, hence, did not avail of any age relaxation under the reservation for SC candidates.

    Further, she secured 477.75 marks in the main written exam, whereas the cut-off for general female candidate was 442.50, so there was no question of availing relaxation in cut-off marks either, he added.

    The HC said the government resolution (GR), dated July 23, 2004, does not apply to the petitioner as she did not avail any relaxation being a member of a Scheduled Caste or women candidate of reserved category.

  • Gujarat HC notice to IAF on plea of its employee unwilling to take COVID-19 vaccine

    By PTI
    AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court has issued a notice to the Indian Air Force on a petition filed by one of its personnel posted in Jamnagar, challenging the show cause notice issued to him for termination of service after he expressed his unwillingness to get vaccinated against COVID-19.

    In an order passed on Tuesday, a division bench of Justices A J Desai and A P Thaker issued the notice to the IAF and central government and also directed the IAF not to take any coercive action against the petitioner till July 1.

    Petitioner Yogender Kumar, an IAF corporal, had moved the HC seeking a direction to quash the show cause notice dated May 10, 2021, in which the IAF stated that his stand against vaccination “verges to gross indiscipline”, and his continuation in the service is likely to adversely impact the health of other “air warriors and AF civilians”.

    “The IAF is of the opinion that your continuation in the disciplined force like Indian Air Force is undesirable and you need to be separated from the service,” the petitioner said quoting the notice issued to him.

    The plea said the decision of respondent no.1 (IAF) to dismiss the petitioner for refusing to take vaccine is not only contrary to the guidelines of the Union of India, but also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

    “The termination from job due to unwillingness to take COVID-19 vaccine is completely illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary on part of respondent no.1,” Kumar said in his plea while seeking the court’s direction to quash the notice and direct the IAF not to force him to get vaccinated.

    The petitioner on February 26, 2021 wrote to the Commanding Officer of their squadron, expressing his unwillingness to take vaccination against COVID-19.

    While refusing to get vaccinated, the petitioner in his application had told the IAF that he was using ayurvedic medicines to increase his immunity against COVID-19.

    He had also told that he uses allopathic medicines only in emergency, or when a solution is not possible in the Ayurveda.

    “I have some hesitation and my inner consciousness does not allow me to get vaccinated,” he had stated in his application, as quoted in the plea moved before the HC.

    Kumar had said that he may be excused from vaccination against COVID-19.

    “The petitioner has the right to receive treatment of his choice and vaccination cannot be forced upon him. As per the central government, the vaccine is voluntary and not mandatory for individuals in the country,” he said in his plea.

    Kumar also said he was unwilling to get vaccinated as it is not fully approved by the administration and has been given emergency use authorisation, hence it should not be considered the only option for prevention against COVID-19.

    He also cited newspaper reports related to deaths and adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines.

    The petitioner also cited a Supreme Court judgment of 2018 to buttress his claim and said “he has the right to receive treatment of his choice and vaccination cannot be forced upon him.”

    Kumar in his plea said he is taking ayurvedic medicines and products suggested by the AYUSH ministry, and is also strictly following the guidelines of wearing mask, avoiding crowded places, using sanitiser and washing hands at regular intervals.

    He does yoga and takes sufficient amount of vitamin C through fruits and vegetables, the petitioner said, adding that while these measures do not give 100 per cent protection from the infection, they have worked in his case so far.

  • Gujarat BJP MLA to HC: Remdesivir was distributed from BJP office to ‘save lives’

    By PTI
    AHMEDABAD: A BJP MLA has told the Gujarat High Court Remdesivir vials were made available to needy patients from the party office in Surat on grounds of “compassion and humanity” to “save a number of lives” as he defended himself against charges of hoarding and illegally distributing the antiviral drug at the height of the second wave of COVID-19 in April.

    The MLA, Harsh Sanghavi, told the HC on Tuesday that Remdesivir injections were made available by BJP leaders to needy patients in Surat and Navsari in south Gujarat between April 10 and 12.

    This was done with the “sole intention of compassion and humanity” as injections were “urgently required to save a number of lives”, he said in an affidavit submitted in the court.

    Remdesivir is widely used in treating serious COVID-19 patients and its shortage was reported in April and May when the second wave of the pandemic was on its peak.

    He told a division bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Biren Vaishnav that allegations made by Gujarat Congress leader Paresh Dhanani against him make his PIL on the issue look like a “political interest” litigation.

    The charges of hoarding and illegal distribution of the COVID-19 drug are “absolutely false, frivolous, baseless and made without verifying the correct facts,” the ruling party legislator said.

    Sanghavi said a total of 2,506 vials of the injection made available to needy persons in Surat and Navsari were procured from a distributor, which supplied the medicine to medical stores and a hospital in Surat.

    The injections, procured on payments made on bills, were made available to patients after proper verification of documents at the BJP office in Surat, he said.

    “There was no distribution, hoarding and dispensation of the injections by the deponent (the MLA), but the reality is that the deponent only facilitated the availability of the injections from authorized places like the hospital and medical stores,” Sanghavi said.

    Even if it is assumed to be distribution, he said, it was done in accordance with the procedure established by law, and was in no case an “illegal, irregular or unlawful” act.

    Lok Sabha MP and Gujarat BJP president CR Paatil, who was also involved in distribution of Remdesivir, is one of the respondents in the case.

    In his reply before the court, the commissioner of the state’s food and drugs control administration said a probe is underway in the case but a preliminary inquiry conducted on a representation made by the Congress shows no violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as alleged.

    Dhanani had filed the PIL in the HC seeking an independent inquiry against Sanghavi as well as Paatil, for ““illegal and unauthorised distribution of Remdesivir injections” from the BJP’s Surat office.

    The Leader of Opposition had sought the court’s direction for an expert committee of “highly distinguished and neutral persons” to inquire into the incident in the context of the Pharmacy Act, 1984, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1987.

    The distribution was made when there was an acute shortage of Remdesivir throughout the country, said the PIL.

    Paatil is yet to file his affidavit.

    The court, during the hearing on the PIL on Tuesday, gave the state BJP president one more week to file his affidavit and made it clear that “no further time will be granted.”

    The matter will come up for further hearing on July 6.

  • Bank defamation case: Gujarat High Court suspends proceedings against Rahul Gandhi till March 10

    By PTI
    AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court has suspended till March 10 the lower court’s proceedings in a criminal defamation case filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi by the Ahmedabad District Cooperative (ADC) Bank.

    Following the high court’s directive on Wednesday, Gandhi’s discharge plea, filed before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate S P Dulera and which was supposed to come up for hearing on Thursday, will now be taken up on March 15.

    ADC Bank chairman Ajay Patel, one of the complainants in the case, had approached the high court after the metropolitan court rejected his plea seeking exemption from personal appearance before the court twice.

    On February 3, when Patel’s plea seeking exemption as well as adjournment of proceedings was rejected for the second time, Rahul Gandhi’s lawyer moved an application seeking discharge of his client from the case on the ground of continuous absence of the complainant.

    Meanwhile, Patel knocked on the doors of the high court againstthe lower court’s order on the ground that he was unable to attend the proceedings as he “was suffering from COVID-19 and was advised to take rest by doctors”.

    High Court Justice B N Karia on Wednesday allowed Patel’s plea and asked the metropolitan court to suspend the proceedings till March 10, when the high court would conduct further hearing.

    Justice Karia also advised Patel to file a fresh exemption plea before the metropolitan court and remarked that “the (lower) court shall consider the prayer of the applicant”, the order stated.

    ADC Bank and Patel dragged Gandhi to court over the Congress leader’s allegation that the bank was involved in a scam as it swapped scrapped notes of Rs 750 crore with valid currency within five days of demonetisation in 2016.