The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine BJP leader Dr Subramanian Swamy's plea seeking a probe into the alleged role of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) officials in various banking scams. A bench of Justices B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna issued notices to the Central Bureau of Investigation and Reserve Bank of India and sought their replies on Swamy's plea. "We'll consider. Issue notice," the bench said. Swamy has alleged that the involvement of RBI officials in scams involving various entities such as Kingfisher, Bank of Maharashtra and Yes Bank had not been probed. The plea also alleged that RBI officials had acted in demonstrable active connivance in direct violation of statutes, including the Reserve Bank of India Act, Banking Regulation Act and State Bank of India Act.
In a special hearing on Saturday, the Supreme Court suspended the October 14 order of the Bombay High Court which discharged former Delhi University professor GN Saibaba and others
Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Saturday welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court to suspend the Bombay High Court's order of acquitting former Delhi University professor G N Saibaba and others in a Maoist links case. The top court on Saturday rejected Saibaba's request to order his release from jail due to his disability and health conditions and put him under house arrest after the Maharashtra government opposed the prayer, saying that nowadays, there is a new tendency of "urban naxals" to seek house arrest. The high court had acquitted Saibaba and others in the case on Friday. Speaking to reporters at the Nagpur airport, Fadnavis said, "I am satisfied with the apex court's decision to suspend the high court order on professor G N Saibaba. Yesterday, I had said that the high court decision was surprising and shocking for us, because releasing a person on technical grounds, against whom there was ample evidence of directly helping Maoists, was wrong. Hence,
The apex court cleared the decks for the regulator to further probe and reach finality in the case it initiated in March 2021 against WhatsApp for alleged abuse of dominance
The Centre on Friday told the Supreme Court that the electoral bonds scheme is an absolutely transparent mode of political funding
The Supreme Court said on Friday 15 home buyers of the now razed twin-towers of real estate firm Supertech in Noida will be refunded on pro-rata basis from the Rs 1 crore deposited by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli directed that Rs 1 crore more be deposited by the IRP by December 8 and be disbursed to the 15 home buyers. The top court listed the matter for December 13 for resumed hearing. The top court was hearing a batch of contempt petitions filed by home buyers seeking a refund as per the last year's order of court. On August 26, the top court had assured the home buyers of the razed 40-storey twin-towers they will be refunded the full amount they had deposited with the builder. The apex court had asked the IRP of the firm, facing insolvency proceedings, to deposit Rs 1 crore with the apex court registry. The twin-towers at Emerald Court Project in Sector 93A of Noida were pulled down using explosives on August 28.
The Supreme Court on Friday said an accused in a murder case can be convicted even in the absence of recovery of the crime weapon, if there is direct evidence in the form of an eyewitness. The apex court set aside the June 2018 verdict of the Madras High Court which had acquitted three accused in a murder case. A bench of Justices M R Shah and Krishna Murari said the submission by the counsel for the accused that the original informant and other independent witnesses have not been examined and recovery of weapon not been proved, and so the accused should be acquitted cannot be accepted. "Similarly, assuming that the recovery of the weapon used is not established or proved also cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when there is a direct evidence of the eyewitness," the bench said. "Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused. If there is a direct evidence in the form of eyewitness, even in the absence of recovery of .
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the Bombay High Court order acquitting Delhi University Professor G N Saibaba in a case relating to his alleged Maoist links. Hours after the Bombay High Court order, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) moved the Supreme Court for stay which was declined. The apex court, however, allowed the NIA to move an application before the registry requesting for urgent listing. A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who mentioned the matter for urgent listing and stay of the verdict, that the court cannot stay the acquittal order as the parties are not before it. The bench said it has also not gone through the case file or the verdict of the High Court. "You move an application before the registry for taking administrative decision on urgent listing of the matter from the Chief Justice of India, the bench said. Earlier in the day, more than eight years after his arrest, the Bombay High Court ...
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Uday Umesh Lalit on Friday said Supreme Court judge Justice Hemant Gupta, who is set to retire on October 16, has always been a "great asset" to the institution. The CJI, who was heading the bench which also comprised Justice Gupta, said the latter has always tried to contribute to whatever he was called upon to decide to the best of his ability. "He is always a great asset to the institution and we wish him all good health, good luck and everything what he deserves and aspires for," Justice Lalit said. Justice Gupta, who was elevated as an apex court judge on November 2, 2018, said it was a "personally enriching experience" to be in the top court and he always got assistance from all lawyers. "Personally speaking, I enjoyed my innings of judgeship of about 20 years. Each day was learning experience and all of you have helped me in my learning process. Thank you very much," Justice Gupta told the advocates, who were present in the court to bid him ...
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the Delhi High Court order, which dismissed the appeals filed by WhatsApp and Facebook (now Meta) challenging a single judge bench order refusing to stay CCI probe
The Supreme Court Friday came down heavily on producer Ekta Kapoor over "objectionable content" in her web series 'XXX', saying she was polluting the minds of the young generation of this country. The top court was hearing a plea filed by Kapoor challenging the arrest warrants issued against her for allegedly insulting soldiers and hurting the sentiments of their families in the web series aired on her OTT platform ALTBalaji. "Something has to be done. You are polluting the minds of the young generation of this country. It is available to all. OTT (Over The Top) content is available to all. What kind of choice are you providing to the people?....on the contrary you are polluting the minds of youngsters," a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and C T Ravikumar said. The court made the observation after senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Kapoor, submitted that a petition has been filed before the Patna high court but there is no hope the matter will be listed for hearing soon.
The Supreme Court Friday took strong exception to the appearance of a senior lawyer through video conference and directed him to be present in the court physically. A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and C T Ravikumar said this behaviour of not coming to the court is unacceptable. "We don't understand this business. Why are you not coming to the court? We are sitting in court from 10 am to 5 pm. This is unacceptable. Lawyers remain physically present in the court to argue the cases. You people just come on screen for five minutes and go back somewhere. You are busy lawyers for various reasons. We don't appreciate this," the bench observed. The bench refused to proceed with the matter for the hearing of which the lawyer had appeared online and sternly asked him to come to the court on Monday. The lawyer yielded. "Whatever the court says is the word of law," he said. The top court has been hearing cases through video conference since March 2020 due to the pandemic. It relaxed or tight
Even as the Karnataka government has vowed to continue the hijab ban in educational institutions till the Supreme Court gives a final verdict, Aliya Assadi, one of the girl students who started the fight for hijab at the government PU college in Udupi, says there is still hope for a fair judgement on the issue. Assadi took to Twitter to express her view on the split verdict given on the hijab issue by the Supreme Court, saying the judgement has upheld the rights of victim girls. "Hon'ble Justice Dhulia's statement has further strengthened our hope in fair judgement and continued constitutional value at least in miniscule. Thousands of hijabis students are waiting to resume their education," she tweeted. Assadi was one of the petitioners who moved the High Court seeking to protect the right of Muslim girls to wear hijabs in educational institutions. Another student Hiba Sheik, in her tweet, said: "Our plea was straightforward & simple. All we asked was our personal choice & ...
The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned to October 17 the hearing on the plea filed by Nalini Sriharan, serving life sentence in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, seeking premature release. A bench of Justices B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna could not take up the matter due to paucity of time. The Tamil Nadu government on Thursday had favoured the premature release of Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convicts Sriharan and R P Ravichandran, saying its 2018 aid and advice for remission of their life sentence is binding upon the governor. In two separate affidavits, the Tamil Nadu government told the top court that in the cabinet meeting held on September 9, 2018, it had considered mercy petitions of seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case and resolved to recommend the governor for remission of their life sentences invoking the power granted under Article 161 of the Constitution. Nalini, Santhan, Murugan, AG Perarivalan, Robert Payas, Jayakumar and Ravichandran were sentenc
Supreme Court has said that it would not use its power under Article 142 to annul a marriage, when the wife is willing to give the marriage one more try
After the Supreme Court's split verdict in the hijab case, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLA) appealed to the Karnataka government to withdraw its order on the hijab.
The Tamil Nadu government recommended the pre-mature release of convicts who are serving life imprisonment in connection with the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi
Sources said Sebi's appeal before the SC is in order to ensure that the SAT order doesn't set a precedent where promoters of listed companies convert loans into shares without triggering an open offer
SC also asked the Union government to evolve a mechanism so that its departments don't take different stands before the court. Attorney General R Venkataramani has been requested to examine the issue
The final verdict on the hijab row is very important as its impact is not restricted to Karnataka, but for the whole country, and we must wait for it, Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai said on Thursday.