The petitioner, a retired police officer, has filed a public interest litigation petition challenging the State of Gujarat's failure to make the full report of the Nanavati-Shah-Mehta Commission of Inquiry public, as required by law. The Commission was appointed in 2002 to investigate the Godhra train burning and subsequent riots. While part of the report was tabled in the state assembly in 2008, the second part has not been disclosed. The petitioner argues this violates section 3(4) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and seeks a court order directing the state to produce the full report in the assembly.
The Supreme Court of India heard appeals challenging a High Court order granting bail to two individuals accused of terrorist activities. The individuals were accused of being members of a terrorist organization and charged with offenses under India's anti-terrorism laws. The High Court had set aside bail for one accused but confirmed it for the other. The appeals argued that the charges made out a prima facie case that the accused intended to further terrorist activities based on materials seized from them. However, the High Court found that the charge sheet did not show the accused had an intention to encourage or facilitate terrorist acts as required by law. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions and prior case law on this issue.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case regarding oral remarks made by the Madras High Court about the Election Commission of India (ECI) during an election-related hearing. The key points are:
1) The Madras High Court allegedly made oral remarks criticizing the ECI for not enforcing COVID-19 protocols during elections, saying the ECI was "singularly responsible" for the second wave and "should be put up for murder charges."
2) The ECI filed a petition challenging these oral remarks, arguing they were made without evidence and prejudiced the ECI.
3) The Supreme Court must balance judicial freedom of expression, media reporting of courts, and accountability of constitutional bodies
The document is an order from a High Court in India regarding an application for bail. It summarizes the following:
1) The applicant, Babita Sukar Kashyap, is seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered against her for offenses related to sedition, conspiracy, and causing enmity between groups.
2) She is alleged to have instigated followers of a tribal group in Gujarat to take violent action based on her interpretation of constitutional provisions. However, the prosecution has not clearly established her specific role or any actual violence.
3) The court observed that the applicant has been in custody for over a year, the key evidence is collected, and the prosecution has not shown any risk
This document discusses two bail applications that involve the same legal question regarding an accused's right to personal liberty under Article 21 if the prosecution fails to file a charge sheet within the statutory period under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It summarizes the arguments from the applicants' counsel that their right to default bail arose when the limitation period expired but was denied due to the lockdown. It also summarizes the state's arguments and examines previous court precedents on when the right to default bail arises and can be extinguished. The judge reviews reports on the remand procedures followed during the lockdown period and observes that the accused's right to personal liberty was not properly dealt with per established law.
The Supreme Court of India heard two writ petitions seeking directions to provide ex gratia compensation of Rs. 4 lacs to the families of those who died from Covid-19, in accordance with Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The petitioners argued that Covid-19 has been declared a notified disaster, therefore Section 12 mandates guidelines for relief, including ex gratia payments for loss of life. The Union of India argued that Covid-19 is a continuous disaster not originally envisioned under the Act, and fiscal constraints prevent providing compensation to all Covid-19 deceased families. The Court considered the arguments on both sides regarding the interpretation of Section 12 and the government's obligations.
This document is a judgment from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh regarding four writ petitions filed challenging the validity of an order issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The order amended rules related to leasing and licensing of shops and premises belonging to Hindu religious institutions. The petitioners argued the order discriminated against non-Hindus and violated their fundamental rights. The court examined the arguments and referred to several previous cases in its judgment.
The petitioner is seeking to quash an FIR registered against her for a tweet she posted on Twitter on April 14, 2020. In the tweet, the petitioner reposted a video from a religious gathering where one member of the crowd blamed the Prime Minister of India for the Covid-19 outbreak. The police registered an FIR against the petitioner under Section 153A of the IPC for intentionally promoting enmity between religious groups. The petitioner's counsel argued that the tweet did not promote enmity between two religious communities and was merely criticizing the views of one member of the crowd. The counsel also argued that the petitioner was not the creator of the original video and her tweet did not incite violence. The state counsel argued the
This document summarizes three connected habeas corpus petitions filed by Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah challenging their detention under the National Security Act, 1980. According to the document:
- Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah were arrested for allegedly cutting and selling beef in violation of cow slaughter laws, which disturbed public order.
- The District Magistrate of Sitapur ordered their detention under the National Security Act, citing the likelihood they would be released on bail and continue disturbing public order related to cow slaughter issues.
- The petitioners argue there was no evidence they would threaten public order and their detention violated their fundamental rights. They have petitioned for their release and to qu
The Supreme Court of India heard appeals challenging a High Court order granting bail to two individuals accused of terrorist activities. The individuals were accused of being members of a terrorist organization and charged with offenses under India's anti-terrorism laws. The High Court had set aside bail for one accused but confirmed it for the other. The appeals argued that the charges made out a prima facie case that the accused intended to further terrorist activities based on materials seized from them. However, the High Court found that the charge sheet did not show the accused had an intention to encourage or facilitate terrorist acts as required by law. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions and prior case law on this issue.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case regarding oral remarks made by the Madras High Court about the Election Commission of India (ECI) during an election-related hearing. The key points are:
1) The Madras High Court allegedly made oral remarks criticizing the ECI for not enforcing COVID-19 protocols during elections, saying the ECI was "singularly responsible" for the second wave and "should be put up for murder charges."
2) The ECI filed a petition challenging these oral remarks, arguing they were made without evidence and prejudiced the ECI.
3) The Supreme Court must balance judicial freedom of expression, media reporting of courts, and accountability of constitutional bodies
The document is an order from a High Court in India regarding an application for bail. It summarizes the following:
1) The applicant, Babita Sukar Kashyap, is seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered against her for offenses related to sedition, conspiracy, and causing enmity between groups.
2) She is alleged to have instigated followers of a tribal group in Gujarat to take violent action based on her interpretation of constitutional provisions. However, the prosecution has not clearly established her specific role or any actual violence.
3) The court observed that the applicant has been in custody for over a year, the key evidence is collected, and the prosecution has not shown any risk
This document discusses two bail applications that involve the same legal question regarding an accused's right to personal liberty under Article 21 if the prosecution fails to file a charge sheet within the statutory period under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It summarizes the arguments from the applicants' counsel that their right to default bail arose when the limitation period expired but was denied due to the lockdown. It also summarizes the state's arguments and examines previous court precedents on when the right to default bail arises and can be extinguished. The judge reviews reports on the remand procedures followed during the lockdown period and observes that the accused's right to personal liberty was not properly dealt with per established law.
The Supreme Court of India heard two writ petitions seeking directions to provide ex gratia compensation of Rs. 4 lacs to the families of those who died from Covid-19, in accordance with Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The petitioners argued that Covid-19 has been declared a notified disaster, therefore Section 12 mandates guidelines for relief, including ex gratia payments for loss of life. The Union of India argued that Covid-19 is a continuous disaster not originally envisioned under the Act, and fiscal constraints prevent providing compensation to all Covid-19 deceased families. The Court considered the arguments on both sides regarding the interpretation of Section 12 and the government's obligations.
This document is a judgment from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh regarding four writ petitions filed challenging the validity of an order issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The order amended rules related to leasing and licensing of shops and premises belonging to Hindu religious institutions. The petitioners argued the order discriminated against non-Hindus and violated their fundamental rights. The court examined the arguments and referred to several previous cases in its judgment.
The petitioner is seeking to quash an FIR registered against her for a tweet she posted on Twitter on April 14, 2020. In the tweet, the petitioner reposted a video from a religious gathering where one member of the crowd blamed the Prime Minister of India for the Covid-19 outbreak. The police registered an FIR against the petitioner under Section 153A of the IPC for intentionally promoting enmity between religious groups. The petitioner's counsel argued that the tweet did not promote enmity between two religious communities and was merely criticizing the views of one member of the crowd. The counsel also argued that the petitioner was not the creator of the original video and her tweet did not incite violence. The state counsel argued the
This document summarizes three connected habeas corpus petitions filed by Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah challenging their detention under the National Security Act, 1980. According to the document:
- Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah were arrested for allegedly cutting and selling beef in violation of cow slaughter laws, which disturbed public order.
- The District Magistrate of Sitapur ordered their detention under the National Security Act, citing the likelihood they would be released on bail and continue disturbing public order related to cow slaughter issues.
- The petitioners argue there was no evidence they would threaten public order and their detention violated their fundamental rights. They have petitioned for their release and to qu
M.A.D.No.15192 dated 20.07.2020 before Supreme Court of IndiaOm Prakash Poddar
Last Posthumous Petition filed along with Petitioner no.02 Srmt. Asha Rani Devi against in-built corruption in Law Enforcement agencies which explains as to how Custodian of Law became the killer of Petitioner no.02 Srmt. Asha Rani Devi and remained unpunished till date.
1. The document summarizes a court case involving a petition filed by Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri challenging his detention under the National Security Act by the District Magistrate of Lakhimpur Kheri.
2. The grounds for detention included posting provocative content on Facebook aimed at provoking Hindu sentiments and disturbing public order. An FIR was registered and the petitioner was arrested.
3. The detention order was approved, confirmed, and extended on multiple occasions by various authorities. The petitioner argued the charges in the FIR did not warrant detention under the National Security Act.
1) The petitioner had been declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal in Jorhat and has been in detention since May 2019, nearing completion of two years in detention.
2) In light of Supreme Court orders on releasing detainees who have completed two years to avoid COVID spread, the court directs the petitioner's release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,000 and one surety of the same amount.
3) The court reiterates an earlier order directing authorities to release all detainees who have completed two years, on a personal bond and one surety to address the pandemic, while complying with other directions.
The document is a writ petition filed by Rana Ayyub in the High Court of Delhi challenging the decision of immigration authorities at the airport to prevent her from traveling abroad based on instructions from the Enforcement Directorate. The petition states that Rana Ayyub is an investigative journalist who was scheduled to travel to London and Italy to attend journalism events but was detained at the airport and not allowed to travel. The petition alleges that the action of preventing her travel is arbitrary, illegal and violates her fundamental rights. It seeks orders allowing her to travel abroad and quashing any look out notice or instruction barring her travel.
1) The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police externig him from several districts for one year.
2) The High Court stayed the execution of the externment order citing issues with it.
3) In its final order, the High Court quashed the externment order, finding that the order relied on two FIRs not mentioned in the notice given to the petitioner and that one of the FIRs mentioned in the notice was for demonstrating against a government policy wherein citizens have a right to raise grievances. The Court also noted inconsistencies in the responses by the authorities.
- The document is an affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3 (State of Uttar Pradesh) in response to a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court of India regarding the arrest of Siddique Kappan.
- It summarizes the key facts of Kappan's arrest for allegedly attempting to disturb law and order in Hathras under the guise of journalism, and asserts that due process was followed.
- The affidavit denies allegations made in the writ petition, provides details on informing Kappan's family and access to lawyers, and argues the petition is not maintainable.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case regarding a writ petition filed by Vinod Dua against the registration of an FIR against him. The FIR was filed pursuant to a complaint alleging that statements made by Dua in a YouTube talk show on March 30th spread false information and violated sections of the Indian Penal Code. In the writ petition, Dua argues that the contents of the video were critical analysis of the government and not unlawful. He seeks quashing of the FIR and guidelines for registering FIRs against members of the media with over 10 years of experience. The state's affidavit in reply refers to sections of the Disaster Management Act regarding punishment for false claims or warnings leading to panic during a pandemic.
The document discusses a court order modifying an earlier order regarding the release of certain petitioners on bail. Specifically, it changes the wording of the earlier order to indicate that petitioners no.2, 6, 7 and 8 should be released on bail rather than petitioners no.1, 6, 7 and 8. The rest of the earlier order is to remain unchanged. The modification order was issued to correct discrepancies pointed out in the note for speaking to minutes.
The High Court of Kerala recalled three previous orders granting petitions to quash criminal cases relating to offenses of rape and under the POCSO Act. In recalling the orders, the Court noted it had failed to consider binding Supreme Court precedents holding that cases involving offenses like rape cannot be quashed solely due to settlements between the parties. While the petitioners argued the Court could not recall signed orders, the Court held this was not a review but rather pointing out a legal omission. The cases will be reheard in detail after the summer vacation.
The applicant challenged two orders - one extending his detention for 90 days under the UAPA and the other rejecting his application for default bail. The court analyzed whether the requirements for seeking extension of detention under the UAPA were satisfied. It found that the public prosecutor had submitted a detailed report outlining the progress of the investigation and reasons for seeking an extension. It also found that a joint application for the applicant and another accused was justified as the allegations against them were identical. Therefore, the mandatory requirements for extending detention under the UAPA were satisfied and the applicant was not entitled to default bail.
This document summarizes three petitions heard by the Patna High Court regarding the right to healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic in Bihar, India. It discusses the constitutional right to health and life under Article 21 and the state's duty to provide medical infrastructure and treatment. It notes the massive surge in COVID cases in Bihar in 2021 and orders the state to take steps to improve oxygen supply and healthcare infrastructure to treat patients.
The petitioner, a social worker dealing with child abuse cases, has filed a public interest litigation arguing that Section 40 of the POCSO Act and Rule 4 of the POCSO Rules, which provide for participation of victims in legal proceedings, are not being properly implemented. The petitioner contends that victims and their families are often not informed about bail applications and other matters in criminal cases under the POCSO Act. The petitioner seeks guidelines to ensure strict compliance of the victim participation provisions, and for Section 439(1-A) of the CrPC relating to informing victims about bail hearings to also apply to POCSO Act cases.
The document is an order from the Gauhati High Court regarding a writ petition filed by Asor Uddin challenging a ex-parte order from the Foreigners' Tribunal declaring him to be a foreigner. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the ex-parte order, and remanded the matter back to the Foreigners' Tribunal for fresh proceedings. However, the petitioner was ordered to remain on bail, appear before the Superintendent of Police, and the Foreigners' Tribunal by certain dates or the ex-parte order would be revived.
This document summarizes an order from the Supreme Court of India regarding its suo motu writ petition on the distribution of essential supplies and services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The order provides context on the case, outlines relevant sections of the Disaster Management Act of 2005, and discusses the Court's directions to the central and state governments to submit additional affidavits on issues like oxygen availability, medical infrastructure, vaccines, and essential drugs. The Court aims to facilitate dialogue between stakeholders within a human rights framework, while clarifying it does not intend to usurp executive/legislative roles.
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supr...Om Prakash Poddar
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supreme Court of India for refusal to register Writ (Criminal) D.NO.2188 of 2017
The High Court of Tripura registered a suo motu public interest litigation based on press reports of violence that occurred on October 26th in North Tripura, Unakoti, and Sipahijala districts. The Advocate General provided details of cases registered, peace meetings held, and steps taken to maintain law and order. The Court appreciated the state's efforts but directed forming peace committees at sub-divisional and panchayat levels. It also directed the state to provide details of the investigation and compensation to victims. The Court commended the media's role in restoring peace but warned against spread of fake news on social media.
1) The court is hearing a writ petition regarding alleged corruption in the procurement of paddy from farmers in Tamil Nadu.
2) The court notes contradictions between the report and counter-affidavit filed by respondents on the procurement process.
3) The court directs additional affidavits to address the contradictions and provide details on actions taken against negligent officials.
The court quashed criminal proceedings against two petitioners who were accused of protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019. The court found that while the petitioners' protest was unlawful for lacking proper permission, it was a peaceful protest and no criminal acts occurred. Further, witness statements did not properly identify the petitioners as being involved. Prior court rulings established the right to peaceful protest. Thus, the court concluded there was no prima facie evidence against the petitioners and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process.
This document is a court order regarding the bail application of Salim Malik, who has been charged under various sections related to rioting and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution argues that Salim was part of a large riotous mob that vandalized and burned down a car showroom, causing significant property damage. While the defense argues Salim was falsely implicated, the prosecution provides witness testimony identifying Salim as being present and participating in the rioting, and says his phone location places him at the crime scene. The court considers both arguments but notes issues with the timing of the witness statement against Salim in denying his bail application.
The court order denies the application of accused Gulfisha Fatima for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It notes that Gulfisha was arrested on April 11, 2020 in the present case. While over 183 days had passed since her arrest, the charge sheet was filed within the extended period of investigation on September 16, 2020. It also finds that the court has jurisdiction in this matter as per notifications and orders issued by the Delhi government and High Court designating the court to try cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Therefore, the court dismisses Gulfisha's application for statutory bail as no case for relief under Section 167(2) is made out.
1. The document discusses a fire incident that occurred at Shrey Hospital in Ahmedabad, Gujarat on August 6, 2020, which killed 8 COVID patients and injured several others.
2. The State Government appointed a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 to investigate the incident and ascertain its causes.
3. The petitioners have filed this appeal challenging the single judge's order granting interim relief by restraining the Commission of Inquiry from submitting its report until the petition is disposed of.
The petition challenges certain provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, as amended, on the grounds that they violate fundamental rights under the Constitution. Specifically, the petition challenges the 2019 amendment which arbitrarily classifies "terrorists" without basis in law. It also challenges the near-impossibility of obtaining bail under Section 43D(5) as inserted in 2008, which denies bail if a prima facie case is established. The petition argues these provisions allow arbitrary exercise of power, prevent individuals from challenging bad faith prosecutions, and violate rights to life and liberty. The petition seeks to strike down or read down these provisions.
M.A.D.No.15192 dated 20.07.2020 before Supreme Court of IndiaOm Prakash Poddar
Last Posthumous Petition filed along with Petitioner no.02 Srmt. Asha Rani Devi against in-built corruption in Law Enforcement agencies which explains as to how Custodian of Law became the killer of Petitioner no.02 Srmt. Asha Rani Devi and remained unpunished till date.
1. The document summarizes a court case involving a petition filed by Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri challenging his detention under the National Security Act by the District Magistrate of Lakhimpur Kheri.
2. The grounds for detention included posting provocative content on Facebook aimed at provoking Hindu sentiments and disturbing public order. An FIR was registered and the petitioner was arrested.
3. The detention order was approved, confirmed, and extended on multiple occasions by various authorities. The petitioner argued the charges in the FIR did not warrant detention under the National Security Act.
1) The petitioner had been declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal in Jorhat and has been in detention since May 2019, nearing completion of two years in detention.
2) In light of Supreme Court orders on releasing detainees who have completed two years to avoid COVID spread, the court directs the petitioner's release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,000 and one surety of the same amount.
3) The court reiterates an earlier order directing authorities to release all detainees who have completed two years, on a personal bond and one surety to address the pandemic, while complying with other directions.
The document is a writ petition filed by Rana Ayyub in the High Court of Delhi challenging the decision of immigration authorities at the airport to prevent her from traveling abroad based on instructions from the Enforcement Directorate. The petition states that Rana Ayyub is an investigative journalist who was scheduled to travel to London and Italy to attend journalism events but was detained at the airport and not allowed to travel. The petition alleges that the action of preventing her travel is arbitrary, illegal and violates her fundamental rights. It seeks orders allowing her to travel abroad and quashing any look out notice or instruction barring her travel.
1) The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police externig him from several districts for one year.
2) The High Court stayed the execution of the externment order citing issues with it.
3) In its final order, the High Court quashed the externment order, finding that the order relied on two FIRs not mentioned in the notice given to the petitioner and that one of the FIRs mentioned in the notice was for demonstrating against a government policy wherein citizens have a right to raise grievances. The Court also noted inconsistencies in the responses by the authorities.
- The document is an affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3 (State of Uttar Pradesh) in response to a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court of India regarding the arrest of Siddique Kappan.
- It summarizes the key facts of Kappan's arrest for allegedly attempting to disturb law and order in Hathras under the guise of journalism, and asserts that due process was followed.
- The affidavit denies allegations made in the writ petition, provides details on informing Kappan's family and access to lawyers, and argues the petition is not maintainable.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case regarding a writ petition filed by Vinod Dua against the registration of an FIR against him. The FIR was filed pursuant to a complaint alleging that statements made by Dua in a YouTube talk show on March 30th spread false information and violated sections of the Indian Penal Code. In the writ petition, Dua argues that the contents of the video were critical analysis of the government and not unlawful. He seeks quashing of the FIR and guidelines for registering FIRs against members of the media with over 10 years of experience. The state's affidavit in reply refers to sections of the Disaster Management Act regarding punishment for false claims or warnings leading to panic during a pandemic.
The document discusses a court order modifying an earlier order regarding the release of certain petitioners on bail. Specifically, it changes the wording of the earlier order to indicate that petitioners no.2, 6, 7 and 8 should be released on bail rather than petitioners no.1, 6, 7 and 8. The rest of the earlier order is to remain unchanged. The modification order was issued to correct discrepancies pointed out in the note for speaking to minutes.
The High Court of Kerala recalled three previous orders granting petitions to quash criminal cases relating to offenses of rape and under the POCSO Act. In recalling the orders, the Court noted it had failed to consider binding Supreme Court precedents holding that cases involving offenses like rape cannot be quashed solely due to settlements between the parties. While the petitioners argued the Court could not recall signed orders, the Court held this was not a review but rather pointing out a legal omission. The cases will be reheard in detail after the summer vacation.
The applicant challenged two orders - one extending his detention for 90 days under the UAPA and the other rejecting his application for default bail. The court analyzed whether the requirements for seeking extension of detention under the UAPA were satisfied. It found that the public prosecutor had submitted a detailed report outlining the progress of the investigation and reasons for seeking an extension. It also found that a joint application for the applicant and another accused was justified as the allegations against them were identical. Therefore, the mandatory requirements for extending detention under the UAPA were satisfied and the applicant was not entitled to default bail.
This document summarizes three petitions heard by the Patna High Court regarding the right to healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic in Bihar, India. It discusses the constitutional right to health and life under Article 21 and the state's duty to provide medical infrastructure and treatment. It notes the massive surge in COVID cases in Bihar in 2021 and orders the state to take steps to improve oxygen supply and healthcare infrastructure to treat patients.
The petitioner, a social worker dealing with child abuse cases, has filed a public interest litigation arguing that Section 40 of the POCSO Act and Rule 4 of the POCSO Rules, which provide for participation of victims in legal proceedings, are not being properly implemented. The petitioner contends that victims and their families are often not informed about bail applications and other matters in criminal cases under the POCSO Act. The petitioner seeks guidelines to ensure strict compliance of the victim participation provisions, and for Section 439(1-A) of the CrPC relating to informing victims about bail hearings to also apply to POCSO Act cases.
The document is an order from the Gauhati High Court regarding a writ petition filed by Asor Uddin challenging a ex-parte order from the Foreigners' Tribunal declaring him to be a foreigner. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the ex-parte order, and remanded the matter back to the Foreigners' Tribunal for fresh proceedings. However, the petitioner was ordered to remain on bail, appear before the Superintendent of Police, and the Foreigners' Tribunal by certain dates or the ex-parte order would be revived.
This document summarizes an order from the Supreme Court of India regarding its suo motu writ petition on the distribution of essential supplies and services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The order provides context on the case, outlines relevant sections of the Disaster Management Act of 2005, and discusses the Court's directions to the central and state governments to submit additional affidavits on issues like oxygen availability, medical infrastructure, vaccines, and essential drugs. The Court aims to facilitate dialogue between stakeholders within a human rights framework, while clarifying it does not intend to usurp executive/legislative roles.
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supr...Om Prakash Poddar
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supreme Court of India for refusal to register Writ (Criminal) D.NO.2188 of 2017
The High Court of Tripura registered a suo motu public interest litigation based on press reports of violence that occurred on October 26th in North Tripura, Unakoti, and Sipahijala districts. The Advocate General provided details of cases registered, peace meetings held, and steps taken to maintain law and order. The Court appreciated the state's efforts but directed forming peace committees at sub-divisional and panchayat levels. It also directed the state to provide details of the investigation and compensation to victims. The Court commended the media's role in restoring peace but warned against spread of fake news on social media.
1) The court is hearing a writ petition regarding alleged corruption in the procurement of paddy from farmers in Tamil Nadu.
2) The court notes contradictions between the report and counter-affidavit filed by respondents on the procurement process.
3) The court directs additional affidavits to address the contradictions and provide details on actions taken against negligent officials.
The court quashed criminal proceedings against two petitioners who were accused of protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019. The court found that while the petitioners' protest was unlawful for lacking proper permission, it was a peaceful protest and no criminal acts occurred. Further, witness statements did not properly identify the petitioners as being involved. Prior court rulings established the right to peaceful protest. Thus, the court concluded there was no prima facie evidence against the petitioners and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process.
This document is a court order regarding the bail application of Salim Malik, who has been charged under various sections related to rioting and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution argues that Salim was part of a large riotous mob that vandalized and burned down a car showroom, causing significant property damage. While the defense argues Salim was falsely implicated, the prosecution provides witness testimony identifying Salim as being present and participating in the rioting, and says his phone location places him at the crime scene. The court considers both arguments but notes issues with the timing of the witness statement against Salim in denying his bail application.
The court order denies the application of accused Gulfisha Fatima for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It notes that Gulfisha was arrested on April 11, 2020 in the present case. While over 183 days had passed since her arrest, the charge sheet was filed within the extended period of investigation on September 16, 2020. It also finds that the court has jurisdiction in this matter as per notifications and orders issued by the Delhi government and High Court designating the court to try cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Therefore, the court dismisses Gulfisha's application for statutory bail as no case for relief under Section 167(2) is made out.
1. The document discusses a fire incident that occurred at Shrey Hospital in Ahmedabad, Gujarat on August 6, 2020, which killed 8 COVID patients and injured several others.
2. The State Government appointed a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 to investigate the incident and ascertain its causes.
3. The petitioners have filed this appeal challenging the single judge's order granting interim relief by restraining the Commission of Inquiry from submitting its report until the petition is disposed of.
The petition challenges certain provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, as amended, on the grounds that they violate fundamental rights under the Constitution. Specifically, the petition challenges the 2019 amendment which arbitrarily classifies "terrorists" without basis in law. It also challenges the near-impossibility of obtaining bail under Section 43D(5) as inserted in 2008, which denies bail if a prima facie case is established. The petition argues these provisions allow arbitrary exercise of power, prevent individuals from challenging bad faith prosecutions, and violate rights to life and liberty. The petition seeks to strike down or read down these provisions.
The court order denies the application of accused Gulfisha Fatima for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It notes that Gulfisha was arrested on April 11, 2020 in the present case. While over 183 days had passed since her arrest, the charge sheet was filed within the extended period of investigation on September 16, 2020. It also finds that the court has jurisdiction in this matter based on notifications and orders issued by the Delhi government and Delhi High Court designating the court to try cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Therefore, the court dismisses Gulfisha's application for statutory bail as no grounds for it exist.
- The petitioner was detained in prison for over 14 years after being acquitted by a court. He filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution seeking release and compensation for his illegal detention.
- The Supreme Court of India noted that the petitioner's detention after acquittal was unjustified and that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees right to life and liberty, would be meaningless if the court could not order compensation for violations of fundamental rights.
- The court ordered the state government of Bihar to pay interim compensation of Rs. 30,000 to the petitioner for his unlawful incarceration of over 14 years, in addition to the Rs. 5,000 already paid. However, the petitioner could still
Madras Hgh Court RSS rally order Nov 4.pdfsabrangsabrang
The document summarizes contempt petitions filed against respondents for disobeying a court order directing permission be granted for processions and public meetings. It discusses arguments from petitioners and respondents. The court found intelligence reports referenced old cases and was not sufficient grounds for rejection. However, 6 sensitive areas were recently impacted so permission was rightly rejected there for now. For other areas, the court found no reason to reject requests so contempt petitions will proceed. The court upheld the importance of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly in a democracy.
Minister hate speech SC_Judgement_03-Jan-2023.pdfsabrangsabrang
1. The Supreme Court of India heard questions regarding restrictions on free speech and the scope of fundamental rights under the Constitution.
2. The questions arose from cases involving irresponsible statements made by two state ministers - one regarding a gang rape case, and the other regarding derogatory comments against women.
3. The Attorney General of India in his preliminary submissions argued that: a) restrictions on fundamental rights like free speech can only be imposed via legislation and the existing reasonable restrictions under Article 19 are exhaustive, and b) fundamental rights can only be claimed against the state or its instrumentalities as per the Constitution, and not against private individuals.
The Additional Sessions Judge of Shahdara District Court in Delhi dismissed the application of accused Saleem Khan for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. Khan argued he was entitled to bail as the police had not filed a charge sheet within 90 days of his arrest on June 25, 2020. However, the court noted the charge sheet was in fact filed on September 16, 2020, within the 90 day period. The court also affirmed it had jurisdiction to hear the case as it had been designated as a Special Court for trial of cases relating to 2020 Delhi riots by orders of the Delhi High Court and Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
1. The petitioners challenge an order granting a 90-day extension for further investigation in a case involving offenses under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
2. The petitioners argue that the extension was invalid because the report required under Section 43-D of the Act from the Public Prosecutor indicating progress and reasons for further detention was not submitted.
3. The State argues that while the application was not formally labeled a "report", it contained the necessary information and should be treated as satisfying the statutory requirement. The judge was therefore justified in granting the 90-day extension based on being satisfied with the reasons given for needing more time.
The High Court of Karnataka heard a case regarding compliance with the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. The Court found that the State Government had not complied with most of the directions in the Court's previous order. The Court directed the State Government to file a detailed affidavit by April 20th regarding compliance with all directions. It also directed the State to ensure local authorities use modern technology to clean sewers and septic tanks as required by the Act.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh heard a writ petition challenging the conduct of elections in various states including Damoh, Madhya Pradesh during the second wave of COVID-19. The court noted that the election in Damoh had already taken place and the counting will take place on May 2. The court held that it does not have jurisdiction over elections conducted in other states. However, it directed that COVID protocols must be strictly followed during counting in Damoh and no victory celebrations shall be allowed. It also noted that it is already monitoring the COVID situation in the state through another petition. The writ petition was disposed of with the above directions.
This document is a court judgement regarding a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of Gulfisha Fatima, who had been arrested. The key details are:
1) Gulfisha Fatima was arrested on April 9, 2020 in connection with two FIRs - one for various IPC offenses and the other for offenses under the UAPA.
2) She was granted bail in the first FIR but remained in custody due to the second FIR.
3) The petition argued her continued detention was illegal as special courts empowered to extend remand in UAPA cases had not been sitting due to the COVID-19 lockdown.
4) However, the court notes she has been
The court ordered the State Government to reconstitute the committee established to examine the problems faced by the Van Gujjar tribal community. The original committee was found to be inadequate as it did not include key authorities like the District Magistrate and Principal Secretary of Social Welfare Department as members. The reconstituted committee must include these authorities and consult the petitioner organization. It must meet monthly and submit a report within 3 months with recommendations on providing legal rights and addressing difficulties for the Van Gujjar community.
The court ordered the State Government to reconstitute the committee established to examine the problems faced by the Van Gujjar tribal community. The original committee was found to be inadequate as it did not include key authorities like the District Magistrate and Principal Secretary of Social Welfare Department as members. The reconstituted committee must include these authorities and consult the petitioner organization. It must meet monthly and submit a report within 3 months on the six points mandated for examination, including potential legal rights and rehabilitation of the Van Gujjar community.
This document contains the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition on the issue of whether the Parliament or State Legislatures have the power to legislate on minority communities.
The Court notes conflicting statements have been made regarding these powers. It orders the Central Government to undertake necessary consultations with State Governments and stakeholders to finalize the issues raised.
Two applications seeking intervention in the case from organizations related to minorities in Meghalaya were dismissed, but with liberty granted for the organizations to make representations to authorities for consideration. The matter is listed for further directions on August 30th.
The court denied the application of accused Tasleem Ahmed for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. Tasleem Ahmed had argued that he was entitled to bail as the police had not filed a charge sheet within 90 days of his arrest on June 24, 2020. However, the court noted that the charge sheet was in fact filed on September 16, 2020, within the 90 day period. The court also ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, citing notifications and orders from the Delhi government and High Court designating it as a special court to try cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots.
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition challenging the Governor of Maharashtra's decision to invite the BJP to form a government in the state. The petitioners (Shiv Sena, NCP, INC) argued that the Governor's decision was unconstitutional and arbitrary. They requested an immediate floor test to prove the majority. The court noted the arguments from both sides. It observed that a floor test is necessary to prove majority support, but cannot dictate the date. It directed the video recording of floor test proceedings for transparency.
Abha singh v. state of maharashtra, january 29, 2020.sabrangsabrang
1. The petitioner filed a PIL seeking orders to compel the respondents to comply with the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (PEMSR Act), including constituting required committees and authorities.
2. The state government respondent filed an affidavit stating the directions sought have been complied with, but the petitioner disputed this, providing details of an FIR where the act was not properly applied.
3. The court allowed the petitioner to file additional affidavits and gave respondents time to file reply affidavits, adjourning further hearing to a later date.
Complaint Document of Widow Asha Rani Devi to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of In...Om Prakash Poddar
The document is a complaint filed with the Chief Justice of India alleging planned judicial murder by the Supreme Court of India. It summarizes a long-running legal dispute involving two states and multiple cases related to property and domestic issues. It alleges bias and impropriety and requests intervention into reversing judicial orders and allowing a pending petition to be heard regarding cancellation of legal notices and relief from ongoing criminal cases.
This judgment involves a petition filed by Swati Rajiv Goswami seeking publication of rules framed by the police under Section 33 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 as well as publication and online access to all rules, regulations, instructions, manuals, and records used by the police. The petitioner's request for permission to hold a peaceful protest was denied by the police. When the petitioner sought information about the rules under which the request was processed, the information was refused. The court examines whether the petitioner has a right to know the rules under which police regulate public assemblies and processions.
This document is a Supreme Court of India judgment regarding a writ petition filed by the Indian Social Action Forum challenging certain provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition. The Supreme Court discusses the arguments made by both parties regarding whether the challenged provisions relating to declaring organizations as being of a political nature violate constitutional rights. It also discusses the statutory framework and objectives of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act.
Similar to Rb sreekumar pil guj hc nanavati comm report (20)
UN WOD 2024 will take us on a journey of discovery through the ocean's vastness, tapping into the wisdom and expertise of global policy-makers, scientists, managers, thought leaders, and artists to awaken new depths of understanding, compassion, collaboration and commitment for the ocean and all it sustains. The program will expand our perspectives and appreciation for our blue planet, build new foundations for our relationship to the ocean, and ignite a wave of action toward necessary change.
Combined Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) Vessel List.Christina Parmionova
The best available, up-to-date information on all fishing and related vessels that appear on the illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing vessel lists published by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) and related organisations. The aim of the site is to improve the effectiveness of the original IUU lists as a tool for a wide variety of stakeholders to better understand and combat illegal fishing and broader fisheries crime.
To date, the following regional organisations maintain or share lists of vessels that have been found to carry out or support IUU fishing within their own or adjacent convention areas and/or species of competence:
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)
Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT)
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO)
North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC)
North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC)
South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO)
South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO)
Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA)
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)
The Combined IUU Fishing Vessel List merges all these sources into one list that provides a single reference point to identify whether a vessel is currently IUU listed. Vessels that have been IUU listed in the past and subsequently delisted (for example because of a change in ownership, or because the vessel is no longer in service) are also retained on the site, so that the site contains a full historic record of IUU listed fishing vessels.
Unlike the IUU lists published on individual RFMO websites, which may update vessel details infrequently or not at all, the Combined IUU Fishing Vessel List is kept up to date with the best available information regarding changes to vessel identity, flag state, ownership, location, and operations.
Jennifer Schaus and Associates hosts a complimentary webinar series on The FAR in 2024. Join the webinars on Wednesdays and Fridays at noon, eastern.
Recordings are on YouTube and the company website.
https://www.youtube.com/@jenniferschaus/videos
Indira awas yojana housing scheme renamed as PMAYnarinav14
Indira Awas Yojana (IAY) played a significant role in addressing rural housing needs in India. It emerged as a comprehensive program for affordable housing solutions in rural areas, predating the government’s broader focus on mass housing initiatives.
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DISTRICT: GANDHINAGAR
EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2019 (PIL)
In the matter of S. 3(4) of ‘The
Commissions of Inquiry Act,
1952,
And
In the matter of Art 14, 21, 226,
227 of the Constitution of India,
And
In the matter of sec. 3 of ‘The
Commissions of Inquiry Act,
1952’
And
In the matter of public interest
litigation,
And
In the matter between
R. B. Sreekumar, ( IPS) (retd),
Age: 72
Former DGP, Gujarat,
Plot No. 193,
“Sreelekshmideepam”,
Sector -8, Gandhinagar – 382008. …Petitioner
2. V E R S U S
The State of Gujarat
Notice to be served through the
Chief Secretary, Gujarat State,
Block No. 1, 5th Floor,
New Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar …Respondent
TO
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND OTHER HON’BLE JUDGES OF
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF
THEPETITIONERS
ABOVENAMED
MOST RESPECTULLY SHEWETH: -
1. The Present petition is being filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India by way of Public Interest Litigation
and the Petitioner herein has no personal interest in the
said matter. The said public interest litigation is being filed
in the interest of the citizen and the people living in and
outside Gujarat. The said petition is also filed in the
interest of proper implementation of rule of law and to see
3. that the law is implemented and after perusing the
recommendations and findings of the commission
appropriate steps be initiated in accordance with law.
2. The petitioner is the citizen of India and is a retired
Director General of Police, State of Gujarat and draws
monthly pension.
3. That the petitioner is filing the present petition purely in
Public Interest on their own and not at the instance of any
other person or organization. The petitioner states that
the present petition is filed purely in public interest
against the inaction on the part of the State of Gujarat
especially the chief secretary, the state of Gujarat in not
making the full report of the Nanavati- Shah – Mehta
Commission public by placing it in the Gujarat State
Assembly. The ‘Commission’ has already been disbanded
as it has served its purpose and therefore it is the sole
responsibility of the respondent herein to put the entire
report before the State’s Assembly. Petitioner states that
he has not faced any contempt in any other court
including the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The
litigation cost, including the advocate’s fees and the
traveling expenses are being borne by the petitioner
himself.
4. That the facts of the case in brief are as follows:-
4.1 Following large scale destruction and damage,
attacks on the minority community in 2002, where
4. the role of the State was very clear, the State
Government had appointed a “One-Man” commission
of enquiry to enquire into the cause and fallout of the
incident of train burning at Godhra on 27-2-2002
and the wide scale violence against the minority
community that followed until 31-5-2002.
4.2 The incident in question took place on 27th February,
2002. On 28th February, 2002, an announcement was
made by the Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat, in the
assembly for the appointment of a Commission under the
Act of 1952. On 6th March, 2002, the Commission of
Inquiry was appointed by the State of Gujarat under the
Act,1952. It was one man Commission. Since the terms of
reference was inadequate and did not allow the
Commission to enquire into the role played by Senior
Ministers and other political leaders including the Chief
Minister, petitions were filed before this Hon’ble Court
challenging the terms of the reference and the manner in
which the commission was appointed.
4.3 The Act empowers the State legislature to constitute and
appoint a Commission of Inquiry to conduct investigation
on any issue that is of public importance and to perform
certain responsibilities entrusted to the Commission under
the Act. The State legislature shall appoint the
Commission only after a resolution has been passed in the
Parliament and the appropriate Government desires to
5. appoint a Commission. That, the legal department issued
notification no. GK/08/2002 – COI/102002/797 –D Dtd.
6.3.2002 on appointment of a commission. The state
government under its notification dtd. 21.5.2002 re-
constituted the aforesaid Commission in public interest by
converting the single member Commission into two –
member Commission headed by Mr. Justice G. T.
Nanavati, former judge of the Supreme Court of India as
Chairperson and Mr. Justice K.G. Shah, former High
Court Judge as a member and after demise of one of its
members namely Justice K. G. Shah, the state government
appointed Justice Akshay H. Mehta, former judge, Gujarat
High Court. The terms of reference vide notifications dtd.
6.3.2002 and 20.7.2004 are annexed as ANNEXURE – A
to this petition.
4.4 While the Petition before the Hon’ble Court was pending,
on 21st May, 2002, there was a reconstitution of the
Commission. A retired Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court was appointed in the Commission in addition to the
retired judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. On 20th
July, 2004, further terms of Reference were expanded, so
as to include into the inquiry the role and conduct of the
Chief Minister, other ministers, police officers, individuals
etc. On 3rd June, 2002, there was an expansion of terms of
Reference of the Commission appointed under the Act of
6. 1952. The terms of reference vide notifications dtd.
6.3.2002 and 20.7.2004 are annexed as ANNEXURE – B
to this petition.
4.5 The question that even today requires consideration is
whether the State Government, having been accused of its
dubious role during 2002 Gujarat riots be permitted to
persist with tabling an incomplete report by splitting the
first part of the reference in the Legislative Assembly
during the monsoon session that began on September 25,
2008 and withholding the second part of the report, which
it has done since 2008.
4.6 The petitioners state, that a perusal of the terms of
reference appointing the Commission (2002) and second,
revised (2004) irrevocably club the tragic incidents of 27-2-
2002 and thereafter and hence should be looked at in toto.
Tabling one part of the report and making it public is not
merely detrimental to the public interest as outlined in the
Commission of Inquiry’s Act but in actual fact also
amounts to splitting the terms of reference of the state
government, into two.
4.7 The petitioner states that huge amount of public money
was spent by the state government for this commission
and therefore the findings and recommendations of the
‘Commission’ is required to be made public. The State
7. Government has no legal right to sit over the report and
suppress the truth.
4.8 The petitioner states that the respondent is deliberately
not making the report of the ‘Commission’ public in
violation of sec. 3 (4) of “ The Commissions of Inquiry Act,
1952.The petitioner craves leave to reproduce the said
provision as under:-
Sec. 3 (4) The appropriate Government shall
cause to be laid before the House of the people
or, as State, the report, if any, of the
Commission on the inquiry made by the
Commission under sub section (1) together with
a memorandum of the action taken thereon,
within a period of six months of the submission
of the report by the Commission to the
appropriate Government.
4.9 The petitioner made a representation dtd. 18.11.2015 to
the then Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat for
disclosing the report of the Commission. The petitioner
respectfully submits that the representation of the
petitioner has not yet been heeded and till this date the
respondents have neither disclosed its report nor have
produced before the legislative assembly. Annexed as
ANNEXURE – C to this petition is the copy of the
representation dtd. 18.11.2015.
8. 4.10 The object of appointing a Commission is to conduct
investigation on any issue that is of public importance and
to perform certain responsibilities entrusted to the
Commission under the Act. However, if its findings,
conclusions and suggestions are not made public then the
same would tantamount to waste of public money. It is
under these circumstances the petitioner is left with no
alternative remedy but to seek appropriate relief from this
Hon’ble Court.
4.12 While the above Commission was functioning, the then
Central Government had appointed a Committee on 4th
September, 2004 in exercise of the powers under Article
73 of the Constitution of India to look into the incident of
the burning of the Sabarmati Express. Another notification
dated 2nd December,2005 was issued under Section 11 of
the Act,1952. The Commission called as “U. C. Banerjee
Commission of Inquiry” was also given powers under the
Act of 1952. That the constitution of the ‘Commission’
was challenged before the Gujarat High Court in Special
Civil Application No.16500 of 2005. The Hon’ble High
Court was pleased to restrain the Union of India from
placing the same in the Parliament and ultimately the writ
petition was allowed by the judgment and order dated
13.10.2006.
9. 5 The petitioner states that the source of information is the
documents received by the petitioner through personal
knowledge as well as through media. The petitioner has
personally inquired and found that the second part of the
report is not yet produced in the Gujarat Assembly.
6 The petitioner has not made any representations except
what is mentioned in para 4.10 of this petition. This details
are upto the date of filing of this petition before this Hon’ble
Court.
7 The petitioner states that to the best of knowledge of the
petitioner, no public litigation has been filed by the
petitioner or anymore else on the same issue with same
parties before this Hon’ble Court or before any other court.
8. The petitioner files the present petition on following
amongst the other grounds.
a. That the provisions of the Act make it mandatory
to produce the report of the Commission before the
Legislative Assembly.
b. Huge public money is utilized for this Commission
and therefore a citizen has legal right to peruse the
report.
c. The findings of the Commission’s report would
unearth the hidden facts if any and its
recommendations can be fruitfully implemented.
d. The recommendations of the Commission can be
incorporated by amending the ‘Gujarat Police
10. Manual’ and improve the police force as well as the
law and order of the state.
e. Non production of the Commission’s report before
the legislative assembly is violation of sec. 3(4) of
the Act.
9. The petitioner is seeking interim relief on following ground.
a. For that the act of withholding the report of “The
Commission of Inquiry Act 1952” is illegal.
10.The petitioner has not filed any other litigation or any other
appeal or applicant either before this Court or Supreme
Court of India or before any other Court on the same
subject matter.
11.The petitioner has no other alternative efficacious remedy
but to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of this petition.
12.The petitioner humbly prays:
(A) Your Lordship be pleased to allow the present
writ petition ( P.I.L.);
(B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue appropriate
writ or a writ of Mandamus or writ in nature of
Mandamus, order or direction, directing the
respondent to forthwith produce the report of
the commission before the legislative assembly
11. of the State of Gujarat and to comply with sec. 3
(4) of ‘The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952’ in
its true letter and spirit;
(C) Your Lordships be pleased to order that pending
admission and or final disposal of this petition
the respondent be directed to produce the final
report of the commission before the legislative
assembly of the State of Gujarat in the interest
of justice;
(D) Your Lordships be pleased to direct initiation of
appropriate steps against the respondent and /
or responsible authorities for committing delay
in producing the final report of the Commission
before the legislative assembly of the State of
Gujarat in the interest of justice;
(E) Your Lordships be pleased to grant such other
and further reliefs as the circumstances may
require;
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE
THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND
FOREVER PRAYS
Ahmedabad (M. M. TIRMIZI)
Date: / 7/2019 Advocate for the petitioner
12. A F F I D A V I T
I, R. B. Sreekumar, 72 years, having address as mentioned
in the cause title, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath
that whatever has been stated herein above in para 1 to 11 is
true to the best of my knowledge and I believe the same to be
true and correct. Para 12 is prayer clause.
Solemnly affirmed on this Day of July, 2019 at Gandhinagar
R. B. Sreekumar
Deponent
The contents of the petition are
explained to me in Gujarati
Before me