News Analysis India

Tag: SC

  • SC denies interim relief to policyholders seeking stay on LIC IPO shares allotment

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Thursday refused to grant any interim relief and stay the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) IPO share allotment on a batch of pleas filed by some policyholders.

    A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and PS Narasimha said that the court should be reluctant to grant any interim relief in matters of commercial investments and IPO.

    “Having regard to the facts which have been drawn to the notice of the court, we are of the considered view that no case for the grant of interim relief is made out. We, therefore, decline interim relief,” the bench said.

    It issued notice to the Centre and LIC on a writ petition filed by some policyholders and on an appeal filed against the judgement of the Madras High Court and transferred to itself a plea pending before the Bombay High Court on the issue.

    The apex court directed that replies be filed in eight weeks and rejoinder affidavits be filed thereafter in four weeks as it tagged the present proceedings with the pending matter on the issue of money bill before the larger bench.

    The bench said, “On the aspect of whether any case is made for grant of interim relief, the court must be guided by the well-settled parameters namely -the existence of prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable harm and injury.”

    It said that on the aspect of constitutional issue pertaining to the passage of money bill and on the construction of section 28 of LIC Act, it is inclined to issue the notice as it would be necessary to observe that the submission which has been made on behalf of petitioners would warrant further deliberation.

    The LIC IPO opened on May 4 for retail and other investors and is set to be allotted on Thursday.

    The bench noted that as many as 73 lakh applicants both in India and around the world have subscribed to the LIC’s IPO and the IPO has been oversubscribed six times even in the category which has been especially reserved for the policyholders.

    The top court said that it is necessary to note the percentage dilution of the shareholding of the LIC as a result of the offer for sale is to the extent of 3.5 per cent and 22.13 crore equity shares of a face value of Rs 10 each is being offered at a premium of Rs 939.

    The bench said that the expected receipt into the consolidated fund of India is estimated to be Rs 20,500 crores and the IPO has been oversubscribed by 2.95 times by the general public.

    It noted the submission of Additional Solicitor General N Venkatraman, appearing for the Centre and LIC that section 28 of the LIC Act as originally enacted did not confer any contractual right to the participating policyholders to appropriate 95 per cent of the surplus and the distribution of surplus was in all material time dependent upon notification of the Central government.

    It noted that no statutory guarantee has been issued to the participating shareholders on the distribution of a particular quantum of the surplus and the amendment which has been brought by the Finance Act envisages allotment of shares to shareholders in the LIC.

    During the hearing, Venkatraman further opposed the grant of any interim relief and adverted to various relevant dates having a bearing on the balance of convenience and said that irreparable harm would be caused, if any interim relief is granted.

    He submitted that the bill which eventually resulted in the Finance Act, of 2021 was passed on March 28, 2021, nearly 15 months ago, and the petition under Article 32 which has been instituted before the court was filed on May 9, 2022, which is the date on which the LIC IPO stands closed. He pointed out that the appeal has been filed against the Madras HC verdict dated March 21 on May 2 and similarly is the appeal filed against the Bombay HC order of April 11.

    At the outset, senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioner policyholders, said that the process which has led to the enactment of the amendment to the LIC Act was on the basis that the Finance Act was the money bill and the issue has been referred to the larger bench in 2020. She said as a result of the amendment to section 28 of the LIC Act, 1956, the character of the LIC which is in the nature of a mutual benefit society is sought to be converted to a joint-stock company.

    She added this amounts to an expropriation of the surplus and its distribution in the participating policyholders to the shareholders to whom the shares will be allotted as the result of the IPO.

    Jaising said earlier 95 per cent of surplus went to participating policyholders while five per cent was retained by the Central government, which was just a trustee of the LIC.

    She added the entitlement of the participating policyholders would be altered by the amendment which has been brought about by the Finance Act, 2021 to the provisions of the LIC Act and would be in violation of the provisions of the Constitution.

    The top court noted that by the Finance Act of 2021, an amendment was brought to the LIC Act and on February 13, 2022, a draft red herring prospectus was filed with SEBI for the Initial Public Offering (IPO) of LIC.

    It noted that on April 26, 2022, the red herring prospectus was made available on SEBI’s website, indicating a price band of Rs 902 to Rs 949 per equity share with a discount of Rs 60 for the policyholder.

    On April 27, a price band advertisement was published and the government announced that LIC’s IPO will be opened on May 2for anchor investors and from May 4 to May 9, 2022, for the general public.

  • Tablighi matter: SC asks authorities to examine future visa applications of blacklisted foreigners

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Thursday directed the authorities to examine future applications for a grant of visa to be filed by those foreigners, who were blacklisted from travelling to India for 10 years for alleged involvement in Tablighi Jamaat activities, on a case-to-case basis in accordance with the law.

    The apex court was hearing the pleas, including those challenging the orders blacklisting several citizens of 35 countries from travelling to India for 10 years for alleged involvement in Tablighi Jamaat activities.

    A bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar noted that solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, has in “all fairness” submitted that separate blacklisting order has not been served on the petitioners or similarly placed persons.

    “In that view of the matter, we direct the concerned authorities to examine the future applications for grant of visa to be made by the petitioners or similarly placed persons on a case-to-case basis in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by the stand taken by the respondents in the reply affidavit filed before this court,” the bench, which also comprised Justices A S Oka and J B Pardiwala, said.

    The top court said that while considering such applications, it would be open to the authorities to take into account all aspects of the matter as may be permissible in law.

    The bench observed that though several questions of law were raised before it by both sides, “we do not wish to dilate on those matters in the peculiar facts of the present case inasmuch as the petitioners before us have already left India consequent to cancellation of visa”.

    It said the only issue which remains is about the blacklisting order passed by the concerned authorities, as stated in the reply affidavit filed earlier before the court on behalf of the Union of India.

    The bench observed that the petitioners’ have said that no blacklisting order has been served on them or other similarly placed persons.

    It noted that the reply affidavit refers to the factum of issuance of blacklisting order, but such order has not been produced on record before the court.

    “The affidavit filed by the respondents does indicate that individual orders of blacklisting have been passed and would be served on the concerned persons at the time of their exit from India,” it noted.

    The bench said the case of the petitioners is that the order has not been served on them at the time of exit or otherwise.

    In its order, the bench made it clear that it is not dilating on the questions agitated before the court by both sides, including on the maintainability of the petitions.

    The Centre had on Wednesday argued that the petitions per se are “not maintainable” and entry into any sovereign country can never be an enforceable fundamental right.

    Mehta had said that the right to enter a sovereign country, contrary to the law of that nation, can never be traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution.

    He had suggested that petitioners can make a representation to the authority.

    Mehta had argued that Tablighi activity is prohibited by several countries in various parts of the world and since 2003, India has also prohibited this.

    The Centre had earlier told the apex court that the right to deny or grant a visa is the executive decision and the government is trying to find a solution so that the national interest and the interest of the foreigners are protected.

    The petitioners’ counsel had argued that they have no dispute over India’s right to reject or grant a visa and the problem was that of blacklisting which has been done for 10 years and applies to those also who have been discharged or acquitted by the courts in Tablighi Jamaat congregation case during COVID-19 in 2020.

    Earlier, the Centre had requested the bench to examine the question regarding the scope of the rights of a foreign national to approach the local courts in a matter of violation of visa conditions.

    In January this year, the solicitor general had told the bench that a very important “constitutional question” arises for consideration which relates to the rights of a foreigner concerning visa restrictions.

    The apex court was hearing pleas filed by several foreigners who have challenged the Centre’s orders blacklisting more than 2,700 citizens of 35 countries from travelling to India for 10 years for alleged involvement in Tablighi Jamaat activities.

    The Centre had earlier sought dismissal of the pleas and informed the top court in July 2020 that it had issued individual orders on a case-to-case basis for cancellation of visas and blacklisting of 2,765 foreign nationals.

    As per the information available, 205 FIRs have been lodged against the foreign Tablighi Jamaat members by 11 states and 2,765 such foreigners have been blacklisted so far, the Centre had said in its affidavit filed earlier in the top court.

    Some of the petitions have contended that en-masse blacklisting of foreigners without any opportunity to defend themselves is a blatant violation of Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

  • SC to hear on May 13 plea for postponement of NEET-PG 2022 examination

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear on May 13 a plea of doctors seeking postponement of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2022 which is scheduled to be held on May 21 on the ground that it will clash with the ongoing counselling for NEET-PG 2021.

    A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha said that it will hear the matter which is already listed for hearing on Friday after senior advocate Rakesh Khanna mentioned for urgent listing of the petition.

    The bench asked Khanna whether the petitioners want postponement of the examination to which he replied in affirmative.

    Justice Chandrachud said, “How can we postpone a national examination? Anyway we will hear it next week”.

    Khanna said that the matter is already listed for Friday to which the bench said then it will hear it on May 13.

    The plea filed through advocates Ashutosh Dubey and Abhishek Chauhan said, “The petitioners are the doctors who are doing their requisite internship with different hospitals across the country.

    The petitioners aspire to appear in NEET-PG examination 2022 scheduled to be held on May 21 for the purpose of choosing their career option as per their ranking, choice, and available options to them under different branches of medical science for Post-Graduation Courses”.

    The plea sought direction to quash the notification dated February 4 issued by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences for holding the NEET PG-2022 examination on May 21 and or defer the scheduled date of the examination.

    It said that some of the petitioners and aspirants are the candidates who have appeared in NEET-PG 2021 and are participants in the ongoing counselling process which is unlikely to get concluded by May 9, 2022, considering the roller-coaster ride which they have been subjected to since July 2021.

    “The petitioners and other thousands of aspirants are becoming victims of the system and are made to suffer for no fault of their own”, the plea said, which has been filed by 15 doctors who have done their MBBS courses.

    The plea said it raises substantial and important questions of law like as to why should NEET-PG 2022 aspirants/candidates be made to suffer and not be given a fair opportunity for participation in the NEET-PG examination 2022 when the counselling of last academic year NEET-PG 2021 is still undergoing and likely to be over by May 9.

    It further raised the question of whether the petitioners can be deprived of even filling up forms for the NEET-PG examination 2022, as the last date for it was closed on March 25 and the petitioners being participants in AIQ Mop-UP counselling did not fill out a form than in the hope of getting the seat and now after the cancellation of AIQ Mop-UP on March 31 because of the fault of the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) and others.

    It said that the petitioners are now not even allowed to fill forms for the NEET-PG examination and thus the candidates neither got the seat in 2021 examination counselling nor could register for NEET-PG 2022 examination and would be wasting a full year without their fault.

    The plea raised several other substantial questions of law.

    It said, “Thus it is stated that the present petition is filed with an intention to secure the future of the petitioners allowing them to excel in the educational sphere of their life.

    It is submitted that NEET-PG 2022 aspirants/candidates should not be made to suffer and be given a fair opportunity to participate in the NEET-PG examination 2022 when the counselling of last year’s NEET-PG 2021 is still undergoing and likely to be over by May 9”.

    The plea further said that there was a delay in conducting the NEET-PG 2021 examination to ensure the availability of a larger number of qualified doctors for COVID duties and the examination was finally conducted in September 2021, five months after the scheduled date, resultantly because of this delay, the candidates have practically lost a year of their careers.

    “That the respondents have erred in not considering that the NEET-PG 2022 examination was rescheduled from March 12, 2022, to that of May 21, 2022, as the counselling of NEET-PG 2021 was not over and overlapping with the examination date”, it said.

    The plea sought MCC to notify a fresh date of examination for NEET-PG 2022 after eight weeks so that the issue of counselling for the NEET-PG 2021 examination gets settled and there is no overlap with NEET-PG 2022 examination.

    It also sought direction to MCC and Centre to permit the students/aspirants to register themselves for the NEET-PG 2022 examination as they were participating in counselling for NEET-PG 2021 examination and the last date of filling the form was of March 25.

  • Place on record that no untoward statement will be made: SC to Uttarakhand chief secy on Dharam Sansad

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Uttarakhand chief secretary to place on record that no untoward statement will be made at the ‘Dharam Sansad’ scheduled in Roorkee.

    The event is scheduled for Wednesday.

    A three-judge bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar took note of the assurance given by the Uttarakhand government that authorities are confident that no untoward statement will be made during the event and all steps as per decisions of this court will be taken.

    “We direct the chief secretary of Uttarakhand to place the above position on record and apprise us about the corrective measures,” the bench also comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and C T Ravikumar said.

    FIRS were earlier registered in connection with the three-day Dharam Sansad that was held in Haridwar last December where hate speeches were made targeting members of a community.

  • Lakhimpur case: SC sets aside Allahabad HC order granting bail to Ashish Mishra

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday cancelled the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to Ashish Mishra, son of Union minister Ajay Mishra, in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case.

    A special bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli also asked the accused to surrender in a week’s time.

    The top court on April 4 had reserved its order on a plea of farmers seeking cancellation of bail to Mishra. Earlier, the high court had granted bail to him.

    On October 3 last year, eight people were killed in Lakhimpur Kheri during violence that erupted when farmers were protesting against Uttar Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya’s visit to the area.

    Four farmers were mowed down by an SUV, in which Ashish Mishra was seated, according to the Uttar Pradesh Police FIR.

    Following the incident, the driver and two BJP workers were allegedly lynched by angry farmers. A journalist also died in the violence that triggered outrage among opposition parties and farmer groups agitating over the Centre’s now-repealed agricultural reform laws.

  • SC strikes down 10.5 per cent reservation for Vanniyars in Tamil Nadu 

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the 10.5 per cent reservation provided to Vanniyars, a Most Backward Community (MBC) in Tamil Nadu, in government jobs and admission to educational institutions.

    A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai upheld the Madras High Court order which had quashed the reservation.

    “We are of the opinion that there is no substantial basis for classifying Vanniakula Kshatriyas into one group to be treated differently from the remaining 115 communities within the MBC groups and, therefore, the 2021 Act is in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, we uphold the decision of the high court,” the bench said.

    The Tamil Nadu Assembly had in February last year passed the then ruling AIADMK-piloted bill providing internal reservation of 10.5 per cent for Vanniyars, with the incumbent DMK government issuing an order in July 2021 for its implementation.

    It had split the aggregate 20 per cent reservation for MBCs and denotified communities into three separate categories by regrouping castes and provided a 10 per cent plus sub-quota for Vanniyars, formerly known as Vanniakula Kshatriyas.

  • Hijab ban in classroom: Plea in SC challenges Karnataka HC verdict

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: A plea was filed in the Supreme Court on Tuesday challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict which dismissed the petitions seeking permission to wear Hijab inside the classroom saying Hijab is not a part of the essential religious practice in Islamic faith.

    The petition has been filed in the apex court by a Muslim student who was one of the petitioners before the high court.

    Earlier in the day, the high court dismissed the petitions filed by a section of Muslim students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, seeking permission to wear Hijab inside the classroom.

    The prescription of school uniform is only a reasonable restriction, constitutionally permissible which the students cannot object to, the high court said.

    In the plea filed in the top court, the petitioner has said the high court has “erred in creating a dichotomy of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience wherein the court has inferred that those who follow a religion cannot have the right to conscience.”

    “The high court has failed to note that the right to wear a Hijab comes under the ambit of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the freedom of conscience forms a part of the right to privacy,” it said.

    The plea said the petitioner had approached the high court seeking redressal for the alleged violation of their fundamental rights against the state government order of February 5, 2022 issued under Sections 7 and 133 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.

    “The impugned government order directed the college development committees all over the state of Karnataka to prescribe a ‘student uniform’ that mandated the students to wear the official uniform and in absence of any designated uniform the students were mandated to wear an uniform that was in the essence of unity, equality and public order,” it said.

    The plea said the high court failed to note that the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the rules made thereunder do not provide for any mandatory uniform to be worn by students.

    “The petitioner submits that the high court has failed to note that there does not exist any provision in law which prescribes any punishment for students for not wearing uniforms. Even if one were to presume that there existed a mandate to wear a particular uniform, there is no punishment prescribed in case a student does not wear the uniform,” it said.

    The petition said neither the Act nor the Rules prescribe any uniform for students or prohibit the wearing of a Hijab.

    “The high court has failed to note that the right to wear a Hijab comes under the ambit of ‘expression’ and is thus protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution,” it said.

    The plea claimed that the high court has failed to note that right to wear a Hijab is protected as a part of the right to conscience under Article 25 of the Constitution.

    It said since the right to conscience is essentially an individual right, the ‘Essential Religious Practices Test’ ought not to have been applied by the high court in the case.

    “Assuming the ‘Essential Religious Practices Test’ does apply, the high court has failed to note that wearing of Hijab or headscarf is a practice that is essential to the practice of Islam,” the petition said. It claimed that the high court has failed to note that Indian legal system explicitly recognises the wearing/carrying of religious symbols.

    The plea said Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, exempts turban wearing Sikhs from wearing a helmet and under the rules made by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Sikhs are allowed to carry kirpans onto aircraft.

    “This public order was passed with an indirect intent of attacking the religious minorities and specifically the followers of Islamic faith by ridiculing the female Muslim students wearing Hijab. This ridiculing attack was under the guise of attaining secularity and equality on the basis of uniform wherein the college development committees prohibited the students wearing Hijab from entering the premises of the educational institutions,” it said.

    “This step-motherly behaviour of government authorities has prevented students from practising their faith which has resulted in an unwanted law and order situation,” the plea said.

    Meanwhile, a caveat has also been filed in the apex court by another person, who was a party before the high court, seeking to be heard before any order is passed in the matter.

    The high court maintained that the government has power to issue impugned order dated February 5, 2022 and no case is made out for its invalidation.

    By the said order, the Karnataka government had banned wearing clothes which disturb equality, integrity and public order in schools and colleges, which the Muslim girls had challenged in the high court.

    Challenging the February 5 order of the government, the petitioners had argued before the high court that wearing the Islamic headscarf was an innocent practice of faith and an Essential Religious Practice (ERP), and not a mere display of religious jingoism.

    The petitioners had also contended that the restriction violated the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(A) and article 21 dealing with personal liberty.

  • SC notes Centre’s decision to reduce 15 percentile marks for admission to NEET-PG, disposes of plea

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court noted on Monday that a decision has been taken by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare that there shall be a reduction across all categories of 15 percentile for admission to the NEET-PG courses and disposed of a plea seeking reduction of cut-off marks.

    A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant said the petition which has been instituted by the doctors stands disposed of as they would be able to secure admissions and their grievances would be addressed.

    It noted, “By a communication of the Union government dated March 12, 2022, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has decided in consultation with the National Medical Commission that there shall be a reduction across all categories of 15 percentile for admission to the NEET PG courses. Thus, for the general category the cut-off percentile is 35, for the physically handicapped general category 30 and for the reserved SC/ST 25.”

    The bench said that in the event the petitioners still have any subsisting grievance, “we grant them liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, including by applying for revival of present proceedings. Hence, the petition is disposed of, at the present stage, reserving liberty to the petitioners, as noted above.”

    At the outset, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners who are MBBS doctors, said that the counselling is ending on March 30 and now they have reduced the cut-off marks. He submitted that last year also cut-off marks were reduced but 7000 seats went vacant.

    Bhushan said a representation is pending that there should not be no cut-off marks and court may direct for appropriate consideration of the representation.

    Advocate Gaurav Sharma said that PG seats which normally go vacant are those seats which are mostly related to academic studies.

    The bench then asked Sharma to produce the notification passed with regard to reduction of cut-off marks and passed the order.

  • SC asks AG to help in evacuation of medical students stranded in Ukraine near Romania border

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Thursday asked Attorney General K K Venugopal to use his office in helping evacuate some Indian medical students stranded in war-ravaged Ukraine near the Romania border.

    A bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana took note of the submissions of a lawyer that several students are stuck near the Romanian border in freezing cold and the government is not running flights from Romania.

    “Flights are being operated from Poland and Hungary and not from Romania. The students, which also included many girls, are stuck without any facility,” the lawyer told the bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli.

    “We have all sympathies with them. But what can the court do,” the bench said. It, however, asked the top law officer to consider extending help to the stranded students.

    As per reports from Kyiv, Russia has stepped up its attack on Ukraine.

  • SC asks Centre to clear its stand on legality of Cryptocurrency trade in India

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to make its stand clear on whether cryptocurrency trade involving Bitcoin or any other such currencies is legal in India or not.

    A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant, which was dealing with a case related to the quashing of multiple FIRs registered against one Ajay Bhardwaj and others for allegedly duping investors across India by inducing them to trade in Bitcoin and assuring them high returns, said that the accused were booked for their involvement in Bitcoin trade.

    The bench told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for Centre and Enforcement Directorate, “We want you to tell us on affidavit whether cryptocurrency trade involving Bitcoin or any other such currencies is legal in India or not? What is the regime for Bitcoin trade at present?” Bhati said she would file an affidavit on the legality of the cryptocurrency trade and added that the accused, who is seeking quashing of proceedings, has not been cooperating with the investigating agency after being granted bail by the court in 2019.

    She said that 47 FIRs have been registered against the accused of duping people across the country and the issue involves a trade of 87,000 Bitcoin worth Rs 20,000 crore.

    The bench ordered, “We direct the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer of Directorate of Enforcement within two days and thereafter cooperate with the investigation as and when called upon to do so. The investigating officer shall file a fresh status report before this court on or before four weeks, indicating the progress of the investigation and whether there has been any cooperation on the part of the accused. List after four weeks.”

    The bench said the ad-interim order restraining the arrest of Bhardwaj shall continue till the next date of listing of the matter.

    At the outset, Advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for one of FIR informant Vipin Kohli, said that he has filed an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to Bhardwaj on the ground that he has not disclosed true facts of the matter to this court and concealed material in his writ petition thereby misleading this court.

    The advocate said that Bhardwaj has deliberately suppressed the fact that Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Patiala House Court through court notice had issued a proclamation requiring the appearance of the accused under section 82 of Criminal Procedure Code.

    “These material facts were not disclosed to the court when the bail was granted to him. Hence, we are seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner,” Alam submitted. He said that after the grant of bail to the accused, the complainant was attacked in a hotel, which is on CCTV cameras.

    The bench asked whether the grant of bail to other accused has been challenged to which the advocate replied in affirmative.

    Bhati said that even the co-accused, who have also been granted bail are also not cooperating in the matter.

    The bench noted in its order that a status report has been filed in July 2021 by the Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate and Bhati has submitted that the accused has not cooperated in the course of the investigation.

    It noted that there is an allegation of collection of 87,000 Bitcoins (valued at approximately Rs 20,000 crores) and prayer is being made that the ad-interim order granting an interim stay of arrest be vacated.

    The bench made it clear that it is testing the petitioner Bhardwaj and asked him to cooperate in the investigation and for now, it is not vacating the protection from arrest.

    The allegation against Bhardwaj is that he along with other co-accused, who are mostly his family members, had induced investors to invest in Bitcoin through a “multi-level marketing scheme” on false promises of securing to the investors a 10 per cent assured monthly returns for 18 months that is total of 180 percent profit.

    It was alleged that due to the dishonest inducement, the customers invested their Bitcoins in the said business, but after making an investment they did not get the assured returns.

    The FIRs also said that to escape from inevitable punishment under the law, Bhardwaj and other co-accused persons collectively, in a dishonest manner and with the deliberate intention of destroying all the evidence shut down the fake ‘gainbitcoin’ website through which investors made the investment.