New Delhi:

Was a First Information Report or FIR filed in the Kolkata doctor’s rape-murder case – long before the one filed 14 hours after the body was discovered? An intervenor who filed a petition in the Supreme Court appears to think so. In an exclusive interview with NDTV, intervenor Vijay Singla pointed out that no forensic examination or postmortem can be done before an FIR is lodged.

“My advocate says one FIR was lodged before the postmortem was done. Maybe the FIR was missing or maybe it is there. The second FIR, they say, was lodged at midnight — some 14 hours after the incident,” he said.

Assuming that the postmortem examination was held after the 14-hour-late FIR was filed is also questionable — since the body of the young doctor was cremated around 8 pm, after just 10 hours.

The woman’s parents alleged that they wanted to preserve the body had to cremate it under police pressure. The parents have also claimed that they were even offered money by a police officer to end the matter quietly.  

There have been questions about why the postmortem examination was conducted at RG Kar hospital, which created a conflict of interest of sorts.

Missing Elements In Postmortem Report

In his petition, Mr Singla has pointed out multiple lacunae in the FIR – starting with the first line where the videographer’s name is mentioned. He is the one who pointed out that the crucial challan, without which no postmortem can be done, is not part of the documents submitted, the Central Bureau of Investigation or CBI has told the court.

The postmortem report does not mention what time it was issued — a fact pointed out by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in the Supreme Court today. The field under the name of the constable who brought in the postmortem request is also blank.

Kapil Sibal, who was representing the state government, had contested it hotly, saying, “It is all there… why are these submissions being made?”

Then the advocate representing Mr Singla had chimed in with multiple other lacunae in the report.

“Who conducted the videography… no details… was it a writable or rewritable CD… no details… all doctors present were from the north Bengal lobby!” he said. The first line of the report mentions the name of the videographer – Shekhar Roy, but there are no details about his department or designation.

When Mr Sibal pointed out that the Judicial magistrate was there,  the advocate dismissed it with “that is immaterial”.

“From 2.30 pm to 10.30 pm, there are only 10 GD entries! Or was it manufactured,” he said.

What The Court Said

That missing challan and the absence of the constable’s name were the focus of the hearing in the Supreme Court today.

The Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud questioned where the challan was. The document is expected to list the articles of clothing and personal use was submitted for forensic examination. 

Without that challan, a postmortem cannot be carried out, he said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was representing the state, could not immediately locate it. “What I am told is that CJM filled it up himself and sent it,” he said. He has been given time till the next hearing on next Wednesday.

Pointing to the postmortem report, Justice JB Pardiwala, who was part of the three-judge bench, said: “See the third column on the top, the constable (who brought the body) is supposed to carry this (form). It has been struck off. So there is no reference of this challan when the dead body is sent for examination. You need to explain, if this document is missing, then something is amiss.”

CBI’s Contention

The Central Bureau of Investigation or CBI has said “who collected the samples” for forensics has emerged as a relevant question.

The agency has also pointed out that the first five hours after the discovery of a homicide is most crucial. In this case, they have reached after five days, they have repeatedly pointed out, flagging the possibility of tampering with the crime scene.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld state governments’ right to levy royalty on mineral-bearing land, reasoning they had competence and power to do so. This will benefit mineral-rich states like Odisha, Jharkhand, Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan.

The landmark 8:1 verdict was delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, which ruled ‘royalty’ is not the same as ‘tax’; Justice BV Nagarathna delivered the dissenting verdict.

Justice Nagarathna said allowing states to tax mineral rights would lead to “unhealthy competition between states to derive revenue… the national market could be exploited… this would lead to a breakdown of the federal system, in the context of mineral development”.

Minutes earlier the majority verdict said “royalty is a contractual (consideration) paid by lessee to lessor” and that Parliament “does not have power to tax mineral rights under Entry 50, List I”.

The eight-judge verdict said there is no provision in the MMDR (the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act) that “imposes limitations on state to tax minerals”.

“We hold that both royalty and debt rent don’t fulfil the ingredients of tax,” the Chief Justice said.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed interim bail petitions filed by two men – Radheyshyam Bhagwandas and Rajubhai Babulal – who had been convicted of raping Bilkis Bano and killing her family during the 2002 riots in Gujarat’s Godhra.

Bhagwandas and Babualal had sought temporary release till the top court ruled on a fresh remission plea. They have filed a challenge to the court’s January verdict that cancelled their release by the Gujarat government on Independence Day in 2022.

Bilkis Bano Convicts’ Appeal

In March, Bhagwandas and Babulal moved the court contending the January verdict contravened a 2002 order by the Constitution bench and asked that the issue – of their remission by the Gujarat government being cancelled – be referred to a larger bench.

They claimed an “anomalous” situation had arisen; i.e., two different benches of the Supreme Court, both of same strength, had taken diametrically opposite views on the state government’s policy of early release of prisoners.

According to the plea today, in May 2022 one bench directed the state to consider Bhagwandas’ plea for early release. However, the bench that delivered the verdict said it was the Maharashtra, and not Gujarat, that was competent to grant remission.

READ | 2 Bilkis Bano Case Convicts Ask For “Final” Order On Remission

“… if this is permitted then it would lead not only to judicial impropriety but to uncertainty and chaos as to which precedence (sic) of law has to be applied in future,” the plea argued, warning that the January 8 verdict could be used as legal precedence.

The plea sought a direction to the centre to consider the case for premature release and clarify which judgement – May 13, 2022, or January 8, 2024, – will be applicable.

“My lords… now with two court decisions… if I can be allowed to approach the authority,” advocate Rishi Malhotra, who filed the plea for Bhagwandas and Babulal, said.

What Supreme Court Said

“What is this plea… how is it even maintainable? Absolutely misconceived… How can we sit on appeal in PIL (public interest litigation),” Justice Sanjiv Khanna declared.

“There are two judgments… earlier judgment (the May ruling) was considered in the second (the January verdict) … under Article 32 (which gives every individual the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights) …” he said.

“We are not sitting in appeal…” the court ruled.

Court’s Bilkis Bano January Verdict

In the January judgment, the court had been extremely critical of its May 2022 ruling, delivered by Justice Ajay Rastogi (now retired), and said the Gujarat government should have sought its review.

READ | “Abuse Of Power By Gujarat”: Bilkis Bano’s Rapists To Return To Jail

It noted the release had been ordered based on a 1992 remission policy that had been superseded by a 2014 law and sent the 11 convicts back to jail.

In August 2022, the 11 convicts – serving life sentences – were granted premature release after the state accepted their remission pleas in keeping with a 1992 policy and cited their “good conduct”.

READ | “… Fraudulent Means”: Supreme Court On Bilkis Bano Case Order

Criticising the Gujarat government, the Supreme Court said it had “usurped” the power of its Maharashtra counterparts to grant remission to the convicts.

Bilkis Bano was 21 years old, and had been pregnant for five months, when she was raped. Her three-year-old daughter was among the seven family members killed.

NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest updates from NDTV on your chat.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court has refused bail relief to an Uttarakhand boy, who allegedly shot obscene videos of his 14-year-old classmate and circulated. The girl went missing from her home in October last year and was later found dead. She is suspected to have died by suicide.

The girl’s father said in his complaint that she died by suicide out of shame. The boy has been charged with IPC sections relating to abetment of suicide of a child and act intended to outrage modesty of a woman. Relevant sections under the stringent Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act have also been invoked.

Earlier, the juvenile justice board and the High Court of Uttarakhand refused bail to the teenaged accused, after which his mother approached the Supreme Court. The matter came up yesterday before a vacation bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal.

“After carefully perusing the material placed on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the high court at this stage,” the bench said.

Denying bail to the teenager, the high court had said, “Bail may be denied if there are reasonable grounds for believing that his release is likely to bring the ‘child in conflict with law’ into the association of any known criminal, expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or if his release would defeat the ends of justice.”

“Having considered the social investigation report, the medical examination report, the report from the school, this court is of the view that the best interest of the child would be served if he is not granted bail. If he is released on bail, it would definitely defeat the ends of justice,” the high court order states.

The Supreme Court’s denial of bail in this case comes amid the nationwide outrage on the relief granted to a 17-year-old accused of speeding a Porsche in Pune, leading to an accident that left two 24-year-old engineers dead. The teenager, who police say driving in a drunken condition, was granted bail within 15 hours of his detention. A local court let him out on some conditions which many have described as flimsy — he was asked to write a 300-word essay on accidents, told to work with traffic police for 15 days and asked to undergo counselling for his drinking habit. Pune Police have now approached the juvenile justice board for permission to try him as an adult.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court has taken strong exception to ‘media trials’ – referring to “biased reporting (that) gives rise to public suspicion the person has committed an offence” – and directed the Union Home Ministry to prepare guidelines for police to follow during press briefings in relation to criminal cases. The ministry has three months prepare a detailed manual.

The top police officers of each state and the National Human Rights Commission have been directed to submit suggestions to the home ministry within a month and the next hearing will be in January, a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said, underlining the need to sensitise police personnel.

“Administration of justice is affected by ‘media trials’. Need to decide at which stage (of investigation) details should be disclosed. This is a very important issue because it involves interests of victim and accused. It also involves the interest of the public at large… media report on crime-related matters involves many aspects of public interest,” the court said.

“At a basic level… fundamental right to speech and expression is directly involved in the context of both the media’s right to portray and broadcast ideas and news… but we should not allow ‘media trial’. People have the right to access information. But, if important evidence, is revealed during the investigation, the investigation can also be affected,” the court argued.

The top court was hearing a petition relating to a 2017 instruction on the same subject; the court then had asked the government to frame rules for police briefings keeping in mind the rights of the accused and the victim, and to ensure those of both sides are not prejudiced or violated in any way. The court had then given six weeks to produce a draft report.

“The accused, whose conduct is under investigation, is entitled to a fair and unbiased investigation…. at every stage, every accused is entitled to presumption of innocence. Media reportage that implicates an accused is unfair,” the court said today.

In March, the Chief Justice had urged journalists to “maintain standards of accuracy, impartiality and responsibility in reporting” and said, “… selective quoting of speeches and judgments has become a matter of concern. This practice has a tendency to distort public’s understanding of important legal issues. Judges’ decisions are often complex and nuanced, and selective quoting can give the impression a judgment means something different from what the judge intended.”

READ | “Media Trials Make Person Guilty Before Courts Decide”: Chief Justice

A month before that the court had ordered police in Maharashtra to further investigate an alleged assault case.

READ | “Victim Has Fundamental Right To Fair Probe, Trial”: Supreme Court

On behalf of the government, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati today assured the court the government will frame and release guidelines regarding media briefings by the police. “The government will inform the court about it…” she said.

An annoyed Supreme Court emphasised the fact “media trials” violate the privacy of a victim or complainant, and that this is concerning if they are a minor. “Victim’s privacy cannot be affected. We also have to take care of the rights of the accused.”

“How should police be trained for media briefings? What steps has the Government of India taken (regarding) our 2014 instruction?” the court asked. Senior lawyer, Gopal Shankaranarayan, an amicus curiae, referred to salacious media reports surrounding the Aarushi case and agreed, “We cannot stop media from reporting but police need to be sensitive.”