Law – The Wire

Allahabad HC Judge’s Speech ‘Serious Issue’, Take Cognisance: 13 Senior Advocates Write to CJI

Indira Jaising and Chander Uday Singh are among those who have written to CJI Sanjiv Khanna to direct the CBI to lodge an FIR to prosecute Justice Yadav.

New Delhi: Thirteen senior advocates have written to the Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna on Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad high court, who on the back of severe criticism against his anti-Muslim remarks, has said that he stands by them.

Yadav was earlier called by the CJI over his speech at an event organised by the Hindutva group Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

While endorsing a uniform civil code, the judge used the derogatory term “kathmulla” and said that Muslim children could not be expected to be “tolerant” and “generous” as they are exposed to violence – “the slaughter of animals” – from an early stage.

“Justice Yadav’s comments raise serious concerns about the role of the court as the guardian of the Constitutional values of Equality and Fraternity for all Indians regardless of community or creed,” the lawyers note.

The full letter is being produced below.

Justice Sanjiv Khanna

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

Supreme Court of India

Tilak Marg, New Delhi – 110001

[Through Secretary General]

Respected Sir,

We wish to raise an issue that strikes at the heart of judicial impartiality and the constitutional values that all judges are sworn to uphold.

It has been brought to public notice and is widely reported that a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, namely Justice Shekhar Yadav, addressed a gathering on December 8, 2024. The said gathering was organized by the Vishva Hindu Parishad’s (VHP) legal cell within the library premises of the Allahabad High Court. The contents of his speech, recorded and widely disseminated, have been characterized as hate speech, containing remarks that appear unconstitutional and contrary to the oath of office taken by a judge.

As reported in The Leaflet, the proposal to appoint Justice Yadav to the Allahabad High Court was strongly opposed[1]by the former Chief Justice of India, Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, who had written a letter to the then Chief Justice of India , in his capacity as the consultee judge, citing Yadav’s inadequate work experience, his links with the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), the ideological parent of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and, most importantly, his closeness to a (then) BJP Rajya Sabha member of Parliament, who is currently a minister in the Union cabinet. Justice Chandrachud had summed up his note about Yadav with the strong recommendation that “he is not suitable for appointment as a judge of the High Court”.

Throughout his address, Justice Yadav drew a stark and inflammatory distinction between “ham” (us) and “aap” (them), speaking of “hamari Gita” (our Gita) and “aapki Koran” (your Koran). This blatantly divisive rhetoric disregards judicial impartiality, with the judge openly aligning himself with one religious community while painting the other in a deeply derogatory light. His use of the derogatory “kathmulla” to refer to a section of Muslims is deeply disturbing.

In his references to religious reform, Justice Yadav employed a tone of coercion and dominance. While acknowledging that Hindus have reformed traditional practices such as sati and Untouchability, he demanded that Muslims discard practices such as polygamy and triple talaq.

Ostensibly, Justice Yadav was commenting on the Uniform Civil Code, but the entire speech seemed like a cover for spreading hate speech on a public platform. There was nothing academic, legal, or juristic about the contents of the speech.

Further, Justice Yadav asserted a majoritarian view of governance in saying that India is run by the “bahusankhyak” (majority), whose writ must prevail. This is an affront to the constitutional promise of equality and justice for all, irrespective of religion and the rights of the minority.

Justice Yadav further invoked divisive imagery, speaking of the “liberation” of “Ram Lalla” and the construction of the temple in Ayodhya, while invoking unfounded fears of India turning into “Bangladesh” or the “Taliban”.

Justice Yadav characterized Muslims as lacking generosity (“udaar”) and tolerance (“sahishnu”), alleging that “their” children are raised with a propensity for violence (“hinsa ki pravritti”). Such remarks are not only factually baseless but also dangerously inflammatory. He went on to say that Hinduism had the seeds of tolerance which Islam didn’t.

“It is taught to us that … even an ant should not be killed. That is perhaps why we are tolerant and generous. Hame kisi ka kasht dekh karke kasht hota hai… Kisike peeda ko dekhke peeda hota hai… Par aapke andar nahin hoti hai… Why? Because when a child is born in our community, they are taught about God, the Vedas and Mantras right from childhood… They are told about non-violence… Lekin aap ke yahan to bachhpan se bachhe saamne rakh kar ke vadh kiya jaat hai pashuon ka (in your community, animals are slaughtered in the presence of children)… Toh aap kaise apeksha karte hain ki sahishnu hoga woh … udaar hoga woh (how do you expect the person to become tolerant, kind)?”

It is important to note that the Indian Express reported on January 17, 2024, that Justice Yadav stands by his remarks and justifies them.

Justice Yadav’s comments raise serious concerns about the role of the court as the guardian of the Constitutional values of Equality and Fraternity for all Indians regardless of community or creed. Justice Yadav’s speech has imprints of multiple offences described under Sections 196 and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The speech not only wounds the religious feelings of Muslims, as defined under Section 302 of the Sanhita, but it also has the undertones of promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion. The relevant Sections have been reproduced hereinunder –

Section 196. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

(1) Whoever –

(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities;

…

Shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 302. Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings of any person.

“Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amish Devgan versus Union of India & Others (2021) 1 SCC 1, at para 72, has described the offences mentioned above as “hate speech” being words considered offensive to the community and the content would allow anger or alarm or resentment or alarm, based on colour or creed relation or gender.

The speech delivered by Justice Yadav falls within the parameter of the content-based element in the judgment of this court. It is divisive and has the tendency to impact the unity and integrity of India. [See also para 71 of the said judgement]

It is clear that Justice Yadav’s participation in the event and his inflammatory statements represent a severe violation of Articles 14, 21, 25, and 26, read alongside the Preamble of the Constitution. These actions are discriminatory and stand in direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of secularism and equality before the law, which are the bedrock of our Constitution. It is also in contravention to his oath to the office as a High Court judge and the Supreme Court’s Restatement of Judicial Values, which was adopted by the full court on May 7, 1997 and talks of reaffirming the impartiality of a judge. The relevant part is herewith reproduced:

“A judge must at all times be conscious that he is under the public gaze and there should be no act or omission by him which is unbecoming of the high office he occupies and the public esteem in which that office is held.”

The delivery of such communally charged statements by a sitting judge of the High Court at a public event not only undermines religious harmony but also erodes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

This court has had occasion to deal with similar situations when a sitting judge of the Supreme Court was accused of corruption and an enquiry was in progress .

When faced with widespread reported allegations of corruption against a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, Justice V. Ramaswami, the then Chief Justice of India and late Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji sat in open court and made the following statement to the Bar:

“Re: Ramaswami, J. Chief Justice’s Statement to the Bar

In the beginning of May 1990, some learned advocates of this Court drew my attention to certain newspapers about the audit report investigating the expenses incurred in furnishing the residence of a former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, namely, Shri V. Ramaswami, who is now a sitting Judge of this Court. I was requested by the learned lawyers to take action suo motu. The matter was mentioned more than once. On 1-5-1990, I had received a communication from the editor of a magazine enclosing herewith a copy of the April 1990 issue of the magazine The Lawyers, stating that it contained the full text of the audit report of the Chandigarh Administration. Thereafter, after the learned Attorney General, Sir Soli Sorabjee, the former Attorney General, Shri Parasaran, Mr Venugopal, the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, and Dr Y.S. Chitale, former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, also met me and drew my attention to these reports and expressed concern on the contents of the publications. The Union Minister of Law and Justice called on me and expressed the concern of the Members of Parliament about the alleged extravagance by Justice Ramaswami and the contents of the report, while working as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Sharing their concern, I had told the Law Minister and have since assured the learned Attorney General and other members of the Bar that I would look into the matter.

Legally and constitutionally the Chief Justice of India, as such, has no right or authority to inquire into the conduct of a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court. However, the Chief Justice of India, as the head of the Judicial Family has, I believe, the duty and the responsibility to maintain the judicial propriety and attempts to secure the confidence of the public in the working of the judicial process.

This was an unprecedented and an embarrassing situation. It called for caution and establishment of a salutary convention. I have obtained from the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court the necessary papers.

There are three kinds of reports (i) reports submitted by the Internal Audit Cell of the High Court, (ii) fact-finding reports submitted by District and Sessions Judges (Vigilance) both of Punjab and Haryana; and (iii) reports and audit paras submitted by the official of the Accountant General’s office to the High Court for reply. The reports and audit paras last mentioned seek clarifications and justifications in respect of the transactions which prima facie appeared to be irregular.

I have looked into it and then arrived at a certain tentative impression that it is not necessary to recapitulate in detail, the alleged irregularities…

I understand that the High Court had directly sought Brother Ramaswami’s clarifications with regard to certain audit objections and he has written to the officers of the High Court on this behalf. The proceedings, as mentioned before, against some of the officers of the High Court on alleged irregularities are still pending. In respect of some of the irregularities which I have considered and the tendency of the departmental inquiries against the suspended officers, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate to wait for a closer examination of the replies to the audit objections and the various queries submitted by the High Court to Brother Ramaswami before one can come to a final conclusion.

***

The Supreme Court must uphold the rule of law. It is, therefore, necessary that those who uphold the rule of law must live by law and Judges must, therefore, be obliged to live according to law. The law, procedure and the norms applicable in this case, enjoin that the expenses incurred by the Court for the Judges must be according to the rules, norms and the practice. No man is above law or the rules. The Judges either of the Supreme Court or of the High Courts and the Chief Justices are all subject to the rule of law and procedure like any other citizen of this country and must abide by the norms and regulation prescribed inasmuch as these and to the extent are applicable to them I always thought this was clear and needed no reiteration. We must, therefore, ensure that there is no conduct of the Judges, which affects the faith of the people that Judges do not live according to law. Judges cannot afford to be involved in disputes, which have to determine the question whether the Judges while functioning as Judges or Chief Justices have attempted to subvert the law either designedly or in utter negligence or recklessness…

Involvement in any investigation on the conduct of a sitting Supreme Court Judge on such matters as aforesaid is embarrassing in the circumstances and the background in which these questions have arisen in the instant case. For one who should attempt to uphold the rule of law, it is embarrassing to be involved in such a dispute. But no final decision on this aspect can be arrived at until the investigations and inquiries are completed. I have, on these aspects after looking into the matter and the points involved, no doubt that those who aspire to uphold the rule of law must strive to live according to law and they necessarily expose themselves to the danger of perishing by law. I am aware and deeply conscious that in certain circumstances somebody may be a victim of certain situation. I was constrained, in those circumstances, to advise Brother Ramaswami to desist from discharging judicial functions so long as the investigations continued and his name was cleared on this aspect.

I wrote to Brother Ramaswami on 18-7-1990 rendering my aforesaid advice. I have also conveyed to him my anguish in tendering this advice and I have requested him to please be on leave until the investigations on the aforesaid conduct are completed.

On 18-7-1990 after receipt of my letter, Brother Ramaswami applied for leave for six weeks in the first instance with effect from 23-7-1990. I have directed the office to process his application for leave.

Since I had assured the learned Attorney General, the Law Minister, the President of the Bar Association and others that I will look into it, I thought I must convey to you the result of my looking into it.” (Emphasis supplied)

For full text see Requoted from Para 29, Addl. District & Sessions Judge ‘X’ v. High Court of M.P., (2015) 4 SCC 91.

This letter is being written to you in your capacity as Chief Justice of India, that in light of the seriousness of the matter impacting the independence of the judiciary, and in light of the fact that an investigation is required to be impartial and independent of the State, to take suo moto note of the cognizable offences committed by the said judge and make a reference to the CBI to lodge an FIR to prosecute Justice Yadav in terms of the following ruling of the court:

K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:

“The Chief Justice of India is a participatory functionary in the matter of appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. (Articles 124(2) and 2 17(1).) Even for trans- fer of a Judge from one High Court to another the Chief Justice should be consulted by the President of India (Article 222). If any question arises as to the age of a Judge of a High Court,the question shall be decided by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India (Article 217(3)). Secondly, the Chief Justice being the head of the judiciary is primarily concerned with the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Hence it is necessary that the Chief Justice of India is not kept out of the picture of any criminal case contemplated against a Judge. He would be in a better position to give his opinion in the case and consultation with the Chief Justice of India would be of immense assistance to the Government in coming to the right conclusion. We therefore direct that no criminal case shall be registered under Section 154, Cr. P. C. against Judge of the High Court, Chief Justice of the High Court or Judge of the Supreme Court unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted in the matter. Due regard must be given by the Government to the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice. If the Chief Justice is of opinion that it is not a fit case for proceeding under the Act, the case shall not be registered. If the Chief Justice of India himself is the person against whom the allegations of criminal misconduct are received the Government shall consult any other Judge or Judges of the Supreme Court. There shall be similar consultation at the stage of examining the question of granting sanction for prosecution and it shall be necessary and appropriate that the question of sanction be guided by and in accordance with the advice of the Chief Justice of India. Accordingly the directions shall go to the Government. These directions, in our opinion, would allay the apprehension of all concerned that the Act is likely to be misused by the Executive for collateral purpose.” (See: para 60)

In light of the above-quoted precedents, and consistent with the principles of transparency and accountability laid down, we, the undersigned, humbly request the following actions:

Take suo motu notice of the aforesaid speech and in view of the seriousness of the issue, direct the CBI to lodge an FIR against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav in accordance with the law laid down in K. Veeraswami (supra).

We, the undersigned, would end this letter by quoting Justice Mukharji yet again, “Those who aspire to uphold the rule of law must strive to live according to law and they necessarily expose themselves to the danger of perishing by law.”

Thanking you in anticipation of your kind attention and action.

Yours sincerely,

Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate
Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate
Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate
Anand Grover, Senior Advocate
Chander Uday Singh, Senior Advocate
Jaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate
Mohan V. Katarki, Senior Advocate
Shoeb Alam, Senior Advocate
R. Vaigai, Senior Advocate
Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate
Jayant Bhushan, Senior Advocate
Gayatri Singh, Senior Advocate
Avi Singh, Senior Advocate

Copy to:

1) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Judge, Supreme Court of India.

2) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Judge, Supreme Court of India.

3) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Judge, Supreme Court of India.

4) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka, Judge, Supreme Court of India.

BCCI Implements Stricter Guidelines Following Series Defeats

The BCCI has appointed former Supreme Court judge Arun Mishra as its ombudsman and ethics officer, reported the Tribune.

New Delhi: In response to India’s disappointing performance in recent cricket series, including a 1-3 loss in the Border-Gavaskar Trophy and a 0-3 whitewash against New Zealand at home, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has introduced stringent protocols aimed at promoting “discipline, unity, and a positive team environment.” The measures, detailed in a 10-point directive, were announced on Thursday, January 16, according to a report in Hindustan Times.

The BCCI has also appointed former Supreme Court judge Arun Mishra as its ombudsman and ethics officer, reported the Tribune. The assignment of politically sensitive cases to Mishra by successive chief justices of India was a major reason behind the press conference by four senior judges of the Supreme Court on January 12, 2018.

Justice Arun Mishra appointed BCCI ombudsman

Mishra, who served in the Supreme Court from July 2014 to September 2020, previously chaired the National Human Rights Commission from 2021 to 2024 and has adjudicated approximately 97,000 cases during his tenure in the high courts of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Calcutta. Mishra also authored the judgment in the highly sensitive case of Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v Union of India and dismissed the plea by former Indian Police Service officer Sanjiv Bhatt seeking a fair, credible and independent probe into the two first information reports lodged against him by the Gujarat government.

Restrictions on personal staff, families and endorsements

Key provisions include mandatory participation in domestic cricket for players to remain eligible for national selection and central contracts. The move follows criticism of senior players, particularly Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma, for not prioritising the Ranji Trophy, a factor blamed for India’s recent batting woes.

The BCCI has imposed limitations on the presence of families and personal staff during tours, permitting families to join players for only two weeks during overseas tours. Players are also required to travel with the team for matches and practice sessions, barring separate arrangements.

Furthermore, the board has prohibited players from engaging in personal endorsements or promotional activities during series or tours. Players will, however, be required to participate in official BCCI shoots and promotional events.

Sanctions for non-compliance

Non-compliance with the new guidelines could result in severe penalties, including bans from participating in the Indian Premier League and deductions from retainer amounts or match fees under the BCCI player contract. The policy mandates that exceptions must be pre-approved by chairman of selectors Ajit Agarkar and head coach Gautam Gambhir.

Also read: BCCI Needs a Clear Pakistan Policy Without Holding Cricket to Ransom

“Any exceptions or deviations must be pre-approved by the chairman of the selection committee and head coach. Non-compliance may lead to disciplinary action as deemed appropriate by the BCCI,” the board’s statement warned.

Allahabad HC Judge Who Made Anti-Muslim Statement at VHP Event Stands by His Remarks: Report

Justice Yadav has reportedly written in his response that his speech was an expression of thoughts on societal issues.

New Delhi: Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad high court, who was earlier called by the Supreme Court over his remarks targeting Muslims at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), has written to the Chief Justice of the high court, saying that he stands by his remarks which according to him did not violate any principle of judicial conduct.

Justice Yadav has reportedly written in his response to Allahabad high court Chief Justice Arun Bhansali that his speech was an expression of thoughts on societal issues consistent with values enshrined in the Constitution, and not to create hatred towards any community, reported The Indian Express.

Chief Justice Bhansali had sought Justice Yadav’s response after the latter met Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna on December 17.

The letter seeking Yadav’s response also referred to a complaint against his speech filed by a law student and a former IPS officer. It also referred to one of its orders relating to cow protection and questions raised by activists.

Yadav is known to have said in the response that cow protection reflects a society’s culture and is duly recognised by law.

Also Read: SC Seeks Fresh Report on Allahabad HC Judge Shekhar Yadav’s Anti-Muslim Remarks at VHP Event

In a controversial speech on the subject of Uniform Civil Code delivered in the library hall of the Allahabad high court on December 8, Justice Yadav used the derogatory term “kathmulla” and said that Muslim children could not be expected to be “tolerant” and “generous” as they are exposed to violence – “the slaughter of animals” – from an early stage.

In comparison, Yadav added, Hindus were taught about kindness from an early age and their children had non-violence and tolerance ingrained in them. Referring to the Hindu community, he said that India would function only as per the wishes of the “majority”.

The remarks drew immense backlash and a statement from the Bar Association of India condemning it. “These remarks are contrary to the principle of secularism as enshrined in the Constitution of India, in flagrant violation of the oath of office of a judge of Constitutional Court and strike at the very foundation of a fair and unbiased judiciary which sustains the Rule of Law,” the legal body said.

Congress Backs 1991 Places of Worship Act in Supreme Court

Congress’s application argued that the Act “is essential to safeguard secularism in India and the present challenge appears to be a motivated and malicious attempt to undermine established principles of secularism.”

New Delhi: The Congress on Thursday, January 16, voiced strong support for the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, in the Supreme Court, defending the law as vital for maintaining communal harmony and upholding secularism in India.

The Act, introduced during the Congress-led government of P.V. Narasimha Rao, prohibits the conversion of a religious site into one of another faith and aims to preserve the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. Congress general secretary K.C. Venugopal, through an intervention application, stated that the law “reflected the mandate of the Indian populace,” the Telegraph reported.

The Act under challenge

The 1991 Act is facing legal scrutiny after Hindu petitioners, led by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, challenged its constitutionality. They argue that the law restricts Hindus’ rights to reclaim religious sites allegedly converted by force in the past, effectively endorsing historical vandalism by invaders.

Section 3 of the Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship to a different faith, while Section 4 mandates the preservation of its religious character as of 1947, excluding the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya.

The petitions challenging the law are set to be heard by a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna on February 17.

Congress defends the law

Congress’s application, filed through advocate Abishek Jebraj, argued that the Act “is essential to safeguard secularism in India and the present challenge appears to be a motivated and malicious attempt to undermine established principles of secularism.” It warned that any dilution of the law “could jeopardise India’s communal harmony and secular fabric thereby threatening the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.”

The Congress’s application described the petitions as having “oblique and questionable motives” and emphasised that the 1991 Act is essential for protecting religious freedom and promoting secularism in India. The Congress also cited the Supreme Court’s landmark 2019 Ayodhya verdict, which upheld the validity of the 1991 Act.

Also read: ‘Don’t Call Disputed Structures ‘Mosques’, Muslims Should Hand Over Sambhal Masjid to Hindus’: Adityanath

Other organisations, including Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, the Indian Union Muslim League and the management committee of the Shahi Masjid Eidgah in Mathura, have also opposed the petitions challenging the Act. Civil rights activists have similarly argued that the law was enacted to maintain communal harmony and prevent historical grievances from unsettling the country’s future.

POCSO Case: Karnataka Govt Urges HC to Proceed with Trial Against Yediyurappa

The Special Public Prosecutor argued that the POCSO Act presumes the accused’s guilt until proven otherwise.

New Delhi: The Karnataka government has argued before the high court that the First Information Report (FIR) filed against former chief minister B.S. Yediyurappa for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor should not be quashed. Instead, the government contends that the case should proceed to trial.

Special Public Prosecutor Ravivarma Kumar presented the government’s case, emphasising that forensic reports confirm the authenticity of a video recording that shows the minor’s mother confronting Yediyurappa about the alleged incident. The forensic analysis also verified that Yediyurappa’s voice matches the voice in the recording, Kumar said, LiveLaw reported.

Kumar argued that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act presumes the accused’s guilt until proven otherwise. He also pointed out that Yediyurappa had appeared before the investigating authorities but was not subjected to custodial interrogation.

Also read: B.S. Yediyurappa Sexual Assault Case: Victim’s Brother Seeks Karnataka Govt’s Help

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who is hearing the case, asked Kumar if he was suggesting that the trial should proceed, to which Kumar replied affirmatively.

The case pertains to an alleged incident in February 2024, when the minor, then 17 years old, was allegedly sexually assaulted by the former chief minister. A complaint was lodged against Yediyurappa under the Pocso Act and Section 354 A (Sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the Sadashivanagar police station on March 14 by the minor’s mother, which was later handed over to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). The CID filed a chargesheet in June 2024.

Yediyurappa has denied the allegations, and his advocates have argued that the incident never occurred.

On December 18, the Karnataka high court expressed a prima facie view that it was not possible for it to quash proceedings against Yediyurappa solely based on the statements of witnesses who disagree with the victim’s version of the alleged incident.

However, in June 2024, the high court had stepped in to prevent the CID from arresting Yediyurappa, with Justice Krishna S. Dixit noting that “[Yediyurappa] is not some Tom, Dick or Harry to flee… He is a former chief minister of (a) state.”

The court has adjourned the hearing to January 17.

‘Saying that Wife Can’t Stay With Husband if She Fails to Bring Money is Not Harassment’: Bombay HC

The judges said that the allegations made by the woman were “vague” and she didn’t point out how she was subjected to cruelty and maltreatment.

New Delhi: The Bombay High Court has recently said that merely telling a woman that if she fails to bring an amount of money from her parental house in wake of such a demand by her husband or in-laws, she would be allowed to cohabit with her husband, will not amount to mental or physical harassment.

A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi said that in the FIR lodged against her husband and in-laws, the wife had said that they had asked her to bring Rs. 5 lakh from her parents’ house so that her husband can pay money to get a permanent job in public service.

“Then the husband and in-laws responded that if she is unable to bring the amount, then she should not come for cohabitation and on that count, she was harassed mentally and physically time and again. Again the acts amounting to ‘physical and mental cruelty’ are not given. Statement that unless she brings the amount she should not come for cohabitation without any action will not amount to mental and physical harassment,” the judges held in their order pronounced on January 10,” said the court in its order on January 10, reported LiveLaw.

The court said that the wife had not been able to bring properly on record as to on which dates such demands were made and for how long the accused persisted with their demands.

The judges said that the allegations made by the woman were “vague” and she didn’t point out how she was subjected to cruelty and maltreatment.

The bench subsequently quashed the FIR.

‘Won’t Tolerate Union of India Making Submissions Contrary to Law’: SC Slams ED

The court subsequently granted bail to the accused after considering that she has been under incarceration since November 2023.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (January 15) slammed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and said that it will not tolerate legal submissions made on behalf of the Union of India which are “contrary to law.”

“We will not tolerate conduct on the part of Union of India to make submissions contrary to statute,” said a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan while disapproving an argument made by the ED that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act will not apply to a woman, reported LiveLaw.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had offered an apology for an earlier submission made on behalf of the ED in which the agency had argued that the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA Act were applicable to a woman as well.

After the Supreme Court had pulled up the agency for the submission, Solicitor General Mehta on Wednesday said that the previous submission had happened because of “some confusion due to miscommunication.”

“No question of miscommunication. We will never appreciate such submissions by the Union of India,” said Justice Oka.

“This is a clear intention on part of Union of India that by hook or by crook bail is to be denied. Therefore, such submissions are made. If people who appear for the Union of India do not know basic provisions of law why should they appear in the matter? And to file counter at the 11th hour? This shows that this is final that a person who is arrested under PMLA has to be denied bail under any circumstance,” added Justice Oka.

The court subsequently granted bail to the accused after considering that she has been under incarceration since November 2023 and there was no likelihood of an early completion of the trial.

“If government counsels who appear before the court are to proceed on the footing that the court is not aware about basic provisions and make such admissions, what do we do? How do we conduct the proceedings? We accept that we don’t know the entire Law but sometimes we do know few provisions of law,” said the court.

SC Directs DoPT, States To Appoint Information Commissioners Within Specified Timeline

The court has also asked for the details of vacant posts and cases pending before each information commission in the country.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 7) directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to file an affidavit within two weeks, specifying the timeline within which the vacant posts at the Central Information Commission (CIC) will be filled.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh were hearing the matter regarding vacancies at the CIC and various State Information Commissions (SICs).

The court noted that of the ten sanctioned posts for information commissioners at the CIC, only two have been filled, while various SICs are lying defunct, even as the backlog of appeals and complaints are increasing.

The court gave time-bound directions to the Union and state governments to make appointments of an adequate number of commissioners.

In its directive to the DoPT, the court also specified that candidates who had not applied in response to the government’s advertisement shall not be offered appointments.

In response to an RTI query filed by transparency activist Lokesh Batra, the DoPT in July 2024 had said that the information of the applicants will be tabulated and sent to a search committee constituted by the prime minister.

The court on Tuesday directed the Union government to disclose the members of the search committee and the list of candidates who have applied as per its earlier directions.

Vacancies at SICs

The court noted that the Jharkhand SIC has been non-functional for more than 4 years and directed the state government to complete the appointment process for ICs within 9 weeks from the date of the order.

According to the affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the Jharkhand government had called for applications to fill the post of CIC and six ICs in June last year and received 37 applications.

However, the selection process could not commence as after the assembly elections in the state in November 2024, a leader of opposition (LoP) was not appointed. LoPs are members of the selection committee that appoint ICs.

Also read: ‘Vacant Posts, Backlogs at Information Commissions Extremely Concerning’: Activists Write to Govt

The court has therefore ordered the largest opposition party in the Jharkhand legislative assembly to nominate one of its elected members as a member of the selection committee.

For other states, where the selection process has commenced, the following directions have been given:

The list of the applicants shall be notified within one week;
The composition of the search committee along with the criteria prescribed for shortlisting applicants shall be notified within one week thereafter;
The timeline within which the interviews shall be completed be notified. This shall not be more than six weeks from the date of notification of composition of the search committee and the criteria for shortlisting applicants;
On receipt of the recommendations, the competent authority shall scrutinize and make appointments within two weeks.

Chief secretaries of all states have been directed to file compliance affidavits. The court has also asked for the details of vacant posts and cases pending before each commission in the country.

The case is listed for hearing on March 4, 2025.

Backlogs

In July last year, the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI) had written to Prime Minister Modi, Rahul Gandhi and the chief ministers and LoPs of 12 states over vacancies and case backlogs in various information commissions.

In its letter, the NCPRI had noted that five SICs were lying completely defunct. These were Jharkhand (since May 2020), Telangana (since February 2023), Tripura (since July 2021), Madhya Pradesh and Goa (since March 2024).

The letter also noted that more than 23,000 cases were pending at the CIC and this number was even higher at several SICs

Karnataka’s SIC, functioning with only three commissioners and no chief, was facing a backlog of more than 40,000 cases. In Bihar, the SIC was operating with just two commissioners and a backlog of nearly 28,000 cases. The Chhattisgarh and West Bengal SIC had only two commissioners each and a backlog of about 17,500 and 10,000 cases respectively.

Rajasthan and Punjab SICs, both down to a single commissioner, had a backlog of around 9,000 cases each, while the Maharashtra SIC, functioning with six commissioners, was grappling with a significant backlog of more than 1 lakh cases, the rights group had pointed out.

PM Modi’s Degree | ‘RTI Can’t Be to Satisfy Third Party’s Curiosity,’ Delhi University Tells HC

The high court was hearing Delhi University’s 2017 plea against the Central Information Commission’s order asking it to allow inspection of records of the students who had graduated from its Bachelor of Arts programme in 1978.

New Delhi: The Delhi University has told the Delhi high court that the purpose of a Right to Information request cannot be to satisfy a third party’s curiosity – in a case relating to prime minister Narendra Modi’s college degree.

Representing the university was Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who said that students’ information was held by a university in a “fiduciary capacity”. It could not be revealed “to a stranger”, he argued.

“Section 6 provides a mandate that information will have to be given, that is the purpose. But the RTI Act is not for the purpose of satisfying someone’s curiosity,” Mehta said to a bench of Justice Sachin Datta, according to a report by The Hindu.

‘Misuse’

LiveLaw reported that Mehta submitted that the RTI law cannot be “misused” by ordering disclosure of information which is “unrelated” to the transparency and accountability in functioning of public authorities.

While there is speculation and controversy over Modi’s degrees Mehta seemed to suggest that this will open itself up to more such requests.

“He wants everybody’s information in the year 1978. Somebody can come and say 1979. Someone 1964. This university was established in 1922,” he said.

A decade’s efforts

The CIC had passed its order almost a decade ago, in 2016, in response to RTI activist Neeraj Kumar’s application for details of 1978 DU graduates. The CIC had observed that every University is a public body and that all degree related information is available in the varsity’s private register, which is a public document, LiveLaw noted in its report.

In October last year, the Supreme Court refused to quash summons issued by a trial court to Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal in a defamation case filed by Gujarat University over comments he made about Modi’s education. The Bharatiya Janata Party – Modi’s party – has alleged that he got his Masters degree from GU after the BA from DU.

In March 2023, the Gujarat high court had quashed another 2016 directive of the CIC asking it to provide details of Modi’s educational qualifications to Kejriwal.

Court Grants Bail to Last Accused in Custody in Gauri Lankesh Murder Case

Sharad Bhausaheb Kalaskar, the prosecution claimed, was involved in training other accused in arms handling and bomb preparation.

New Delhi: A Bengaluru court granted bail to Sharad Bhausaheb Kalaskar, the last accused in custody in the Gauri Lankesh murder case.

Gauri Lankesh, a prominent journalist and outspoken critic of right-wing ideologies, was shot dead outside her Bengaluru residence in September 2017. The case, which involves numerous witnesses and extensive evidence, has since drawn nationwide attention, with allegations linking the accused to a covert organisation aiming to establish a “Hindu Rashtra.”

The latest order was issued by the Principal City Civil and Sessions judge Muralidhara Pai B. on Wednesday, January 8, allowing Kalaskar’s release on a personal bond with stringent conditions, Bar and Bench has reported.

The accused, who has been in custody since September 4, 2018, had filed a petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking regular bail. The defence argued that Kalaskar’s prolonged detention was unjustified, citing the release on bail of 16 co-accused in the case.

The case involves 18 accused individuals alleged to be part of an organised crime syndicate responsible for the assassination of journalist Gauri Lankesh on September 5, 2017. Kalaskar, the prosecution claimed, was involved in training other accused in arms handling and bomb preparation.

Court’s observations

While granting bail, the court noted that Kalaskar’s role did not directly link him to the act of murder and emphasised the principle of parity, as 16 of the 18 co-accused were already out on bail. Another accused, Vikas Patil, is absconding and yet to be arrested.

Also read: Gauri Lankesh: Writer, Fighter, Speaker, Friend

The court highlighted the extended period of incarceration faced by the accused and emphasised the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Pai underscored that prolonged pretrial detention undermines the fairness of justice.

The court dismissed concerns raised by the prosecution regarding potential threats to witnesses, noting that witness identities had been concealed and a substantial number of testimonies had already been recorded.

The investigation into Lankesh’s murder case is riddled with questions. Last year, one of the key witnesses in the murder case turned hostile, telling the court that the police had forced him to make a confessional statement.

The same group of people who were behind the Lankesh killing were also behind the killings of rationalists M.M. Kalburgi and Narendra Dabholkar.

Bail conditions

Kalaskar’s bail comes with the following conditions:

A personal bond of Rs 2,00,000 and two sureties of the same amount.
Mandatory appearance in court on all hearing dates unless exempted for valid reasons.
A prohibition on threatening or tampering with witnesses.
A ban on engaging in similar offences in the future.
Submission of residential details, mobile number and email ID to the court.
A restriction on leaving the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.

The court also warned that any violation of these conditions would lead to the cancellation of bail.