Gujarat court convicts 23 for Ode massacre

April 9, 2012

anand

Anand (Guj), April 9: A sessions court here today convicted 23 people and acquitted as many others for want of evidence in connection with the Ode village massacre in 2002 post-Godhra riots.

The verdict was delivered by the district and sessions court Judge Poonam Singh. The court will pronounce the quantum of sentence later.

The riot case was probed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court.

Twentythree people, including women and children of the minority community, were burnt to death in a house in Pirwali Bhagol area of Ode village on March one, 2002, following the Godhra train burning incident.

In total, there were 47 accused in the case, however, one of them had died during the course of trial.

Special public prosecutor P N Parmar said more than 150 witnesses have been examined, while over 170 documentary evidences have been placed before the court.

The trial began in the end of 2009 and was on the verge of completion when the then judge hearing the case resigned in May 2011 citing personal reasons.

Following this, Judge Singh was appointed and all the arguments were made afresh before her.

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.
News Network
March 22,2024

kejriatishi.jpg

New Delhi, Mar 22: The Aam Aadmi Party has made it clear that Arvind Kejriwal will remain the Delhi Chief Minister despite his arrest in the liquor policy case. While no law would stop the AAP leader from running the state from prison, the jail guidelines would make it extremely difficult.

Kejriwal was arrested yesterday by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), following his avoidance of nine summons issued by the investigative agency in relation to the Delhi liquor policy case. 

The decision to apprehend Kejriwal transpired shortly after the High Court's denial of protection from arrest. With this development, Kejriwal becomes the second opposition Chief Minister to face arrest by the ED within a span of fewer than two months, following Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren's similar fate in January 2024 due to allegations in a graft case. Subsequently, Hemant Soren was replaced by his party colleague, Champai Soren.

Delhi government minister Atishi declared shortly after Kejriwal's arrest that he would not step down from his position. However, the legality and feasibility of a detained Chief Minister continuing to fulfill official duties warrant examination.

A former law officer of Delhi's Tihar Jail says that an inmate can only hold two meetings in a week, which would make it difficult for Mr Kejriwal to carry out his responsibilities as Chief Minister.

Can he run government from prison?

While theoretically plausible, governing from detention presents logistical challenges. However, there exists no explicit prohibition against a Chief Minister conducting official responsibilities while under arrest. Disqualification only occurs upon conviction.

The Representation of the People Act, 1951 outlines disqualification provisions for specific offenses, necessitating a conviction for those holding office.

Will centre impose president’s rule?

Constitution expert SK Sharma told TOI that there exists no specific legal provision mandating the automatic resignation of a state's Chief Minister upon arrest. He cited the example of former Bihar CM Lalu Prasad Yadav, who appointed his wife Rabri Devi as CM during his arrest. "Former Bihar CM Lalu Prasad Yadav made his wife Rabri Devi the CM of the state when he was arrested. More recently, Hemant Soren in Jharkhand also resigned. Calling cabinet meetings in the jail or review meetings with officials in his cell does not seem practical," said Sharma.

Sharma further indicated that if AAP persisted in retaining Kejriwal as CM, it could lead to a deadlock, potentially prompting the Centre to impose President's rule in Delhi.

What may happen next?

Despite AAP's unwavering stance on Kejriwal's continuation in office, internal sources say that potential successors, including Atishi and health minister Saurabh Bharadwaj. Atishi, known for her extensive portfolio and close ties to Kejriwal, alongside Bharadwaj, a prominent minister with significant responsibilities, emerged as likely contenders. Additionally, sources speculated about the surprise candidacy of Kejriwal's wife, Sunita, given her background as a revenue services officer and active involvement in party affairs.

However, finding a successor of comparable stature to Kejriwal, a national convener of the party and three-time Delhi CM, presents a formidable challenge for AAP.

Role of Delhi's Lieutenant Governor

Delhi's unique power structure, featuring an elected Chief Minister and a Lieutenant Governor appointed by the Centre, presents a complex scenario. Kejriwal's ability to continue as CM hinges on legal relief, failing which the Lieutenant Governor can seek Presidential intervention, potentially leading to the imposition of President's rule.

Recent cases demonstrate how denial of bail can compel resignation, highlighting the precarious position of arrested officials.

In light of these developments, the Lieutenant Governor could invoke 'failure of constitutional machinery' to justify President's rule, thereby bringing the national capital under direct Union government control until the end of the current Assembly's tenure in February 2025.

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.
News Network
March 19,2024

ramadev.jpg

New Delhi, Mar 19: The Supreme Court today came down heavily on Patanjali Ayurved for failing to respond to a contempt notice for issuing misleading advertisements and ordered yoga guru Ramdev to appear before it.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah also summoned Patanjali managing director Acharya Balkrishna.

The Supreme Court last month pulled up Patanjali for prima facie violation of its assurances about its products and statements claiming their medicinal efficacy. The court had issued a notice to Patanjali and Balkrishna, asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.

It noted today that Patanjali did not file a response even though it had held a press conference after its previous order. "Why haven't you filed your response yet? We will ask the managing director to appear in the court during the next hearing," the court said.

The order states both Ramdev and Balakrishna were prima facie in violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Drugs and Remedies Act, which deal with misleading ads of medicines.

The court also issued a contempt notice to Ramdev, co-founder of Patanjali, and asked him to explain why he should not face action for contempt of court.

Senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Patanjali Ayurved, opposed the move and sought to know, "How Ramdev comes into the picture?"

"You are appearing. We will see on the next date. Enough," the court replied.

"We had our hands tied earlier but not now. As an officer of the court, you (Mr Rohatgi) should know your position," said Justice Amanullah.

The court was hearing a petition by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) alleging a smear campaign by Ramdev against the vaccination drive and modern medicines.

On February 27, it had issued a contempt notice to Patanjali and cautioned them against from making any statements against any system of medicine in the media. It had also pulled up the centre for not taking action and said they were sitting with their eyes closed.

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.
News Network
March 15,2024

SCSBI.jpg

New Delhi, Mar 13: The Supreme Court on Friday took exception to the State Bank of India (SBI) for not disclosing complete details of Electoral Bonds, including unique alfa numeric numbers, furnished to the Election Commission for uploading on the website.

A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud issued notice to the SBI seeking its response on Monday after the court was informed that the issuing bank for the Electoral Bonds has not disclosed unique alfa numeric number of each bond.

"They have not disclosed the bond numbers. It has to be disclosed by the State Bank of India. All details have to be provided by the SBI," the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, noted.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said as per the Constitution bench judgment of February 15, 2024, all details were to be disclosed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted since the SBI was a party to the judgment, notice may be issued to it.

The court said the counsel for SBI should have been here.

"If you see the judgment, we have specified that bond numbers have to be provided," the bench said.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the main petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).

On an application by the EC, the bench said the details of Electoral Bonds furnished by the poll panel before the top court should be scanned and returned to it for the purpose of uploading on the website.

The Election Commission through advocate Amit Sharma filed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to release data on electoral bonds furnished to the top court in terms of previous orders of April 12, 2019 and November 2, 2023.

As per March 11, 2024 order, the Election Commission on Thursday uploaded the data on electoral bonds furnished to it by the SBI.

However, in an application, the poll panel said it had furnished to the Supreme Court a number of sealed envelopes, containing details on EBs encashed by the political parties, during the course of hearing in the matter.

It sought a direction for the return of those sealed envelopes to comply with the directions to upload it on the website as per order of March 11.

On Monday, the Supreme Court had told the SBI to furnish details of purchasers of Electoral Bonds and names of political parties redeemed those instruments by March 12 to the Election Commission, rejecting its plea for extension of time until June 30 for the purpose.

It had then directed the Election Commission to publish the information provided by the SBI on its website on March 15.

In its February 15, 2024 judgment, the SC had declared the Electoral Bonds scheme, introduced in 2018 for donation to political parties, as "unconstitutional" for being violative of the right to information.

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.