Vijay Mallya's extradition: SC gives Centre 6 weeks to submit status report

Agencies

November 2, 2020

New Delhi, Nov 2: The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre to file a status report regarding the extradition of fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya from the UK within six weeks.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, submitted before a bench headed by Justice UU Lalit that some legal proceedings are still pending in the UK, which is delaying Mallya's extradition. The top court after a brief hearing in the matter adjourned the case to the third week of January.

Justice Lalit noted that the order dated August 31 cites MEA report that certain legal proceedings by contemnor (Mallya) is pending in the UK. The top court had asked the counsel for Mallya to respond on the nature of these proceedings. The bench noted that an intervention application has been filed by EC Agrawala, counsel for Mallya seeks discharge from the case.

Justice Lalit said this application seeking discharge is rejected and Agrawala shall continue to be the counsel for the contemnor.

Justice Lalit queried Mehta, "When will the Mallya's extradition process be completed? Any time frame?"

Mehta replied that no information from Indian High Commission in London yet.

On October 6, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has told the Supreme Court that the UK Home Office has intimated, there is a further legal issue which needs to be resolved before Vijay Mallya's extradition takes place and this issue is outside and apart from the extradition process having effect under the UK law.

The affidavit had said that Vijay Mallya's surrender to India should, in principle, have been completed within 28 days after he lost the appeal against extradition. However, the UK Home Office intimated that there is further legal issue which needs to be resolved before Mallya's extradition takes place.

"The UK side further said that this issue is outside and apart from the extradition process, but it has the effect that under the UK law, extradition cannot take place until it is resolved," said the affidavit.

The MHA said the UK has informed it that this separate legal issue is judicial and confidential in nature.

On May 14, in a major setback Mallya lost his application seeking leave to appeal in the UK Supreme Court, after the London High Court declined to entertain his appeal challenging the extradition order to India on charges of fraud and money laundering in connection with unrecovered loans to his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

"The UK side emphasized that neither they can provide any more details nor intervene in the process. They have also indicated that through the designated channel, the UK Home Office has received a request to serve summons on Vijay Mallya for his hearing before the Supreme Court (India)," said the MHA.

The UK side said it has informed the Indian High Commission that the issue is confidential and cannot be disclosed.

The British Home Office also forwarded the Supreme Court order through Hertfordshire Police on September 17, for serving it to Mallya.

"It is also submitted that during the course of processing of request of service of notice upon Vijay Mallya, an interim report from the UK authorities has been received through the High Commission of India, London," the affidavit said.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

‘Officials to pay from salary’: Supreme Court issues guidelines on ‘bulldozer justice’

News Network

November 13,2024

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments