My followers want me to become CM or DyCM; next time BJP will get full majority: Eshwarappa

In a huge relief for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal ahead of the Haryana elections, the Supreme Court has granted him bail in the Delhi excise policy case. The AAP chief will now be released from jail, six months after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21. He was subsequently arrested by the CBI in June.

Here are some of the Supreme Court's key quotes:

•    Perception also matters and CBI must dispel the notion of being a caged parrot and must show it is an uncaged parrot. CBI should be like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. 

•    "No impediment in arresting person already in custody. We have noted that CBI in their application recorded reasons as to why they deemed necessary. There is no violation of Section 41A (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure," said Justice Surya Kant.

•    Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, however, noted, "CBI did not feel the need to arrest him (Mr Kejriwal) even though he was interrogated in March 2023 and it was only after his ED arrest was stayed that CBI became active and sought custody of Mr Kejriwal, and thus felt no need of arrest for over 22 months. Such action by the CBI raises serious question on the timing of the arrest and such an arrest by CBI was only to frustrate the bail granted in ED case."

•    Submission of additional solicitor general cannot be accepted that appellant has to first approach trial court for grant of bail. Process of trial should not end up becoming a punishment. Belated arrest by CBI is not justified.

•    Regarding building a public narrative of a case... Arvind Kejriwal shall not make any public comments about this case and be present for all hearings before trial court unless exempted.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today closed proceedings against Karnataka High Court Judge Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda, following his public apology for controversial comments made during court sessions. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, leading a five-judge bench, stated that the decision was made in the interest of justice and the dignity of the judiciary.

Justice Srishananda during a recent court hearing. Justice Srishananda, while addressing a landlord-tenant dispute, referred to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and made a misogynistic comment involving a woman lawyer. His comments, which went viral on social media, prompted the Supreme Court to seek a report from the Karnataka High Court, which was submitted shortly after the incident.

"No one can call any part of territory of India as 'Pakistan'," Chief Justice Chandrachud said. "It is fundamentally against the territorial integrity of the nation. The answer to sunlight is more sunlight and not to suppress what happens in court. The answer is not to close it down."

The Supreme Court had taken up the case on its own and had sought a report from the Karnataka High Court over the controversial remarks. A five-judge bench led by CJI Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, B R Gavai, S Kant, and H Roy, had on September 20 expressed the need for establishing clear guidelines for constitutional court judges regarding their remarks in court. 

"Casual observational may indicate personal biases especially when perceived to be directed at a certain gender or community. Thus one must be wary of making patriarchal or misogynistic comments. We express our serious concern about observations on a certain gender or a community and such observations are liable to be construed in a negative light. We hope and trust that the responsibilities entrusted to all stakeholders are discharged without bias and caution," CJI Chandrachud said today. 

The Supreme Court bench said that when social media plays an active role in monitoring and amplifying courtroom proceedings, there is an urgency to ensure judicial commentary aligns with the decorum expected from courts of law.

Videos of Justice Srishanananda were viral on social media.

In one video, he refers to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and in another video he was seen making objectionable comments against a woman lawyer. In the second incident, Justice Srishanananda can be heard telling the woman lawyer that she seemed to know a lot about the "opposition party", so much so that she might be able to reveal the colour of their undergarments.

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah against Governor Thawarchand Gehlot's decision to sanction the complaint and investigation against him in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam case.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said the facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require an investigation.

The court has also said that the Governor's order approving sanction to investigate against Siddaramaiah under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not suffer from application of mind, instead has abundance of application of mind.

Meanwhile, the court rejected the request made by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi to stay the order of the court. The court has vacated the interim order passed on August 19. In the interim order the trial court was directed not to take any precipitative action against Siddaramaiah. On August 17, Governor had approved sanction under section 17 A  of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS), citing three applications.

The court said the private complainants were justified in registering the complaint and seeking approval from the governor.

Insofar as private complainants seeking sanction under section 17A, the court said the provision nowhere requires only a police officer to seek sanction from a competent authority. The court further said it is in fact the duty of the private complainants to seek such approval.

Earlier, The High Court had completed its hearing in the case on September 12, and reserved its orders. It had also directed a special court in Bengaluru to defer further proceedings and not to take any precipitative action against the Chief Minister.

The case pertains to allegations that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife B M Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru that had higher property value as compared to the location of her land that had been "acquired" by MUDA.