The courts dealing with issue of habeas corpus regarding a minor can’t treat the child as a “movable property” and transfer their custody without even considering the impact of disturbance of custody on them, the Supreme Court said on Friday.

A habeas corpus petition is filed seeking direction to produce before the court a person who is missing or has been illegally detained.

A bench of Justices A S Oka and A G Masih said such issues cannot be decided mechanically and the court has to act based on humanitarian considerations.

“When the court deals with the issue of habeas corpus regarding a minor, the court cannot treat the child as a movable property and transfer custody without even considering the impact of the disturbance of the custody on the child,” the bench said.

The top court delivered its verdict in a case pertaining to custody of a girl child who is aged two years and seven months. Her mother had died an unnatural death in December 2022 and she is presently in custody of her maternal aunts.

A petition was filed in the top court challenging the June 2023 judgement of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had directed the maternal aunts to hand over custody of the child to her father and paternal grandparents.

The bench noted that in July last year, the top court had granted a stay of the operation of the high court’s verdict.

The top court observed the high court was dealing with custody of child who had been in custody of her maternal aunts from the tender age of 11 months after her mother died.

“It is apparent that the high court has not dealt with and considered the issue of the welfare of the child. The high court has disturbed the child’s custody based only on the father’s right as a natural guardian,” the bench noted.

It noted that as far as the decision regarding custody of a child was concerned, the only paramount consideration was the welfare of minor and the parties’ rights cannot be allowed to override the child’s welfare.

“We believe that considering the peculiar facts of the case and the child’s tender age, this is not a case where custody of the child can be disturbed in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” it said.

The bench said only in substantive proceedings under the the Guardians and Wards (GW) Act, 1890 can the appropriate court decide the issue of child custody and guardianship.

It said a regular civil/family court dealing with child custody cases was in an advantageous position and the court can frequently interact with the child.

The bench said, at this stage, it would be very difficult to decide whether the welfare of child requires custody of the maternal aunts to be disturbed.

“The child has not seen the father and grandparents for over a year. At the tender age of two years and seven months, if custody of the child is immediately transferred to the father and grandparents, the child will become miserable as the child has not met them for a considerably long time,” it said.

The top court said whether the father was entitled to custody or not was a matter to be decided by a competent court, but surely, even assuming that he was not entitled to custody, at this stage, he was entitled to have access to meet the minor.

“We propose to direct the appellants to give access to the father and paternal grandparents of the child to meet the child once a fortnight,” the bench said.

It directed that on every first, third and fifth Saturdays starting from September 21, the maternal aunts shall take the child to the office of secretary of the District Legal Service Authority (DLSA) at Panna in Madhya Pradesh at 3 pm.

The bench said under the supervision of DLSA secretary, the father and grandparents of the child shall be permitted to meet her till 5 pm.

“As assured to the court, the appellants or some of them shall file a petition seeking a declaration of guardianship and permanent custody of the child under the provisions of the GW Act before the competent court within a maximum period of two months from today,” it said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court today dismissed the petition of former RG Kar Medical College and Hospital principal Sandip Ghosh, who has found himself at the center of a storm after a trainee doctor was raped and murdered at the institution last month, challenging a Calcutta High Court order transferring the investigation into the corruption case against him to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra also refused his plea to be added as a party to a petition alleging financial irregularities at the institute during his tenure.

“As an accused, you have no locus to intervene in the PIL where the Calcutta high court is monitoring the investigation,” the bench said.

The top court also refused to remove some comments by the High Court linking the corruption allegations with the rape of the trainee doctor in Kolkata on August 9.

The Calcutta High Court had ordered the transfer of the investigation into the alleged financial irregularities at the state-run hospital, where Ghosh had been the principal since 2021 – with a brief hiatus in between – from a special investigation team to the CBI on August 23.

The order had come after a former deputy superintendent of the facility, Dr Akhtar Ali, had sought an investigation into the alleged irregularities during Ghosh’s tenure as the head of the hospital.

Sandip Ghosh was arrested by the CBI in the case on Monday after being questioned several times in a span of two weeks.

In his petition before the Supreme Court, Ghosh said the Calcutta High Court did not hear his side while ordering the CBI investigation into the corruption case against him. He argued that he filed a petition in the High Court seeking to make himself a party, but it was rejected. This, he claimed, proved that the principles of natural justice were not followed.

New Delhi:

Granting bail to Arvind Kejriwal will not “demoralise” the Delhi High Court, which last month refused the Chief Minister relief over his arrest by the CBI in the alleged liquor policy scam, the Supreme Court said Thursday. A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Surya Kant waved away the federal agency’s argument against releasing the AAP leader, saying, “Don’t say that.”

Appearing for the CBI, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju also argued that Mr Kejriwal had incorrectly bypassed the lower court – i.e., Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court – and approached the High Court for bail.

“He approached High Court without going to Sessions Court… on merits, trial court could have seen it first. High Court can only see in exceptional cases…” he said, declaring releasing Mr Kejriwal now would demotivate the High Court.

The CBI’s logic also drew a sarcastic swipe from AAP MP Raghav Chadha, who posted on X, “If the Sun rises from the East, it will demoralise the West.”

In early August the High Court rejected Mr Kejriwal’s bail plea, directing him to approach the sessions court for relief. The AAP, however, opted to move the country’s top court, citing its observation in the release of ex Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, that “sending the appellant back to the trial court would be like playing a game of snakes and ladders…”

After Thursday’s hearing the top court reserved its verdict on Mr Kejriwal’s bail plea. The court also reserved its verdict on a separate plea challenging the CBI’s arrest of the Chief Minister.

The AAP chief was arrested by the CBI in June; he was taken into custody at the Rouse Avenue Court shortly after securing bail for his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the same case.

READ | “Insurance Arrest By CBI”, Kejriwal Argues For Bail In Supreme Court

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Mr Kejriwal, criticised the CBI’s arrest as an “insurance” to keep the AAP leader in jail for as long as possible, particularly with the Delhi Assembly election due early next year. Mr Singhvi pointed out Arvind Kejriwal had received bail in the ED case, which meant he had fully satisfied the ‘triple test’ legal principle for release.

READ | “Travesty Of Justice”: Manish Sisodia Gets Bail, Supreme Court Slams Delay

It was also pointed out that all others accused in the alleged liquor policy scam – Mr Sisodia and AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh, as well as Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha – had bail.

READ | ‘Just Because Woman Is Educated…’: Top Court As K Kavitha Gets Bail

“Prolonged incarceration cannot be there…” Mr Singhvi said, referring to statements by the top court in releasing Mr Sisodia, “Is ‘triple test’ satisfied? Yes… in the Manish Sisodia judgment, the court held that in this particular case of excise policy, trial is impossible to finish.”

Mr Kejriwal has been in jail since late-March. He received temporary reprieve in June, before Delhi voted in the general election, but had to return to Tihar Jail after the results were out.

The ED and CBI contend Arvind Kejriwal played a key role in forming of a new liquor excise policy for Delhi, which allowed him to sell wholesale licences and get kickbacks, around Rs 100 crore of which, the authorities claim, came from a ‘South group’ led by the BRS’ K Kavitha.

This money, the agencies allege, was used to fund the AAP’s election expenses in Goa.

Mr Kejriwal, the AAP, and other accused have denied the charge, counter-accusing rivals Bharatiya Janata Party, to whose government at the centre the agencies answer, of mounting a campaign against opposition politicians and parties, particularly before elections.

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 is hearing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s petitions seeking bail and challenging his arrest in the CBI case linked to the capital’s now-scrapped liquor policy. A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan is hearing the matter.

The top court has earlier granted interim bail to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case against him, but he remains in jail in the CBI case. This means that if the Supreme Court gives him the relief, the Delhi Chief Minister will walk out of prison after over five months.

The CBI arrested Mr Kejriwal on June 26. The Delhi High Court on August 5 upheld his arrest as legal and said the CBI was able to establish that the AAP leader could influence witnesses. 

Appearing for Mr Kejriwal, Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi said this is an unprecedented matter. The Delhi Chief Minister, he said, has got relief twice under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The CBI, he said, had done as “insurance arrest”. 

The CBI, he said, had arrested Mr Kejriwal after two years. “Three court orders are in my favour. This is an insurance arrest, so that he can be kept in jail,” Mr Singhvi said. 

Mr Singhvi said the Supreme Court needs to address three questions — is there a flight risk? will he tamper with evidence? will he influence witnesses?

The only basis for CBI’s arrest, he said, was that Mr Kejriwal was not cooperating. This issue, Mr Singhvi said, had been addressed in the past judgments that say an accused cannot be expected to incriminate himself.

“Arvind Kejriwal is a constitutional functionary and cannot be a flight risk. There can’t be tampering, there are lakhs of documents, five chargesheets have been filed. There is also no risk of influencing witnesses. The triple test for bail is in my favour,” he said.

“This person was found fit for release twice, once by Supreme Court too even under higher threshold of Section 45 (of PMLA). I am the most captive interrogatee you can find, ever. Just for insurance you arrested! No substantial material was demonstrated before special judge to justify my arrest, grounds were vague,” Mr Singhvi said.

At one point, Justice Kant said while the bench will hear both sides, “we are wondering how long we should hear in a bail matter, do ordinary mortals get this much time?” Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the CBI, said, “I want as much time as him (Singhvi), at least.” Mr Singhvi responded, “I am glad my lordships pointed that out. I will take till 12 so we can finish by lunch.”

At one point, the CBI’s counsel asked if Mr Singhvi is arguing on bail or arrest and that he cannot mix the two. “Triple test satisfied fully. Every other possible co-accused has been released. I am taking about same, Vijay Nair, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and more,” he said.

New Delhi:

Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami’s move to appoint a controversial IFS officer as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve, disregarding the opinions of the state’s forest minister and others, has drawn strong reprimand from the Supreme Court. Heads of governments cannot be expected to be “old days’ kings” and “we are not in a feudal era”, said the Bench of Justices BR Gavai, PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan.

The state government, however, told the bench that the appointment order was withdrawn on September 3.

“There is something like a public trust doctrine in this country. The heads of the executive cannot be expected to be old days’ kings that whatever they have said, they will do… We are not in a feudal era… Just because he is the chief minister, can he do anything?” the judges said.

The bench also questioned why the Chief Minister has “special affection” for the officer, observing that a departmental proceeding is pending against him.

Senior Indian Forest Service officer Rahul has disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Senior advocate ANS Nadkarni, who represented the state, said the officer is being targeted.

Pointing out that the noting had said the officer should not be posted at the Rajaji Tiger Reserve, the court said the chief minister “just ignores it”.

The appointment of Indian Forest Service officer Rahul, a former director of the Corbett Tiger Reserve, as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve was severely discouraged by senior officers.

The court observed that there was a specific noting from the first officer. This was endorsed by the deputy secretary, the principal secretary and the state’s forest minister.

“If you disagree right from the desk officer, the deputy secretary, the principal secretary, the minister, then the least that is expected is that there is some application of mind as to why he is disagreeing with the proposal,” it said.

“You cannot sacrifice a good officer against whom there is nothing,” Mr Nadkarni had argued. “If there is nothing, then why are you holding departmental proceedings against him?” the court asked. Unless there is some prima facie material, departmental proceedings are not initiated against anyone, the judges added.

Braslia, Brazil:

A Brazilian supreme court judge ordered Monday the immediate imprisonment of four people convicted for their role in a nightclub fire that killed 242 people more than a decade ago.

The ruling overturned decisions by two lower courts in 2022 and 2023 that annulled the jail sentences, which ranged from 18 to 22 years, over apparent irregularities in the trial.

The four defendants will have one further chance to appeal at Brazil’s supreme court, which could ratify or deny Judge Jose Antonio Dias Toffoli’s decision, a judiciary representative told AFP.

The 2013 fire at the nightclub in the southern town of Santa Maria started when members of a band playing that night lit flares that set fire to the ceiling.

A police investigation concluded the fire started when sparks from a flare ignited insulating material, releasing lethal fumes.

While some burned to death, many of the mostly young victims died from asphyxiation. 

A probe found the venue had no functioning fire extinguishers, only two doors for evacuating people from an overcrowded dance floor, and poor emergency signage.

Two owners of the Kiss nightclub and two members of the Gurizada Fandangueira band were found guilty in December 2021 of murder and attempted murder of the victims, mostly young university students.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Lucknow:

BSP president Mayawati on Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court’s observation on the demolition of houses of those involved in criminal cases and said that the families of criminals should not be punished for their deeds.

With several state administrations bulldozing the houses of those involved in criminal cases, the Supreme Court on Monday asked how anybody’s house can be demolished just because he is an accused.

The court said it would lay down the guidelines on the issue that would be enforceable across the country.

“Action against criminal elements in the country should be taken under the law and their families and close ones should not be punished for their crimes. Our party’s government in the state had shown this by establishing the rule of law through law,” Mayawati said in a series of posts on X in Hindi.

“Bulldozers should also be used now as per the decision of the Supreme Court. However, it would be better if there was no need to use them because criminal elements could also be dealt with under strict laws.

“Instead of using bulldozers on the families and close ones of criminal elements, strict action should be taken against the concerned officials who, in collusion with such elements, do not give proper justice to the victims. All governments must pay attention to this,” she said.

The Supreme Court’s observation came during a hearing on petitions filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and others seeking directions to various state governments to ensure that no further demolition of properties of those accused in cases of rioting and violence takes place.

The court, however, said it would not protect any unauthorised construction or encroachment on public roads. 

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

A rueful Supreme Court slammed social media trolls and their actions as “really atrocious”, acknowledging that even the highest judicial forum in the country is not immune. “If we pass an order in favour of someone… the other side trolls the judge,” Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said Monday.

“Trolling in social media is really atrocious and everyone is affected. Judges are also trolled,” he said, to which his colleague, Justice Surya Kant said it is better to ignore such attacks.

“A large section of irresponsible people have, unfortunately, got access to these platforms. They are completely insensitive (and) are not aware of their duties. They only think about some alleged rights, and will continue to attack all institutions… they have to be ignored.”

The court’s comments came as it granted bail to Bibhav Kumar, the aide of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Mr Kumar was arrested 100 days ago for allegedly assaulting Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal, who is a member of Mr Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party, at the Chief Minister’s home.

During the hearing the representative for Ms Maliwal highlighted the trolling his client had been subject to on social media, saying, “In this case the crime did not end on May 13… since then there has been trolling and victim-shaming. I have to file a complaint… the petitioner’s friends are constantly trolling – on X, via e-mails, on other social media platforms… everywhere.”

Appearing for Mr Kumar, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi pointed out his client could not be held responsible for the actions of others, and that he did not own X or the other platforms.

The Supreme Court’s comment on the “atrocious” trolling that has become all too common today came as it sympathised with Ms Maliwal and her condition.

That did not, however, stop the court from granting Bibhav Kumar bail.

READ | Kejriwal Aide Bibhav Kumar Gets Bail In Swati Maliwal Assault Case

As with recent high-profile bail orders – including AAP leader and ex Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and BRS lawmaker K Kavitha, both arrested in the alleged liquor policy case – the Supreme Court came down strongly on keeping accused persons in jail without a trial.

Mr Kumar has spent 100 days in jail.

“Petitioner is in custody for 100 days. Chargesheet filed. It is a case for bail, and you should not oppose. You can’t keep a person in jail in such cases,” the court told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who was representing Delhi Police that was opposing the grant of bail to Mr Kumar.

On July 12, the Delhi High Court had dismissed Mr Kumar’s bail plea, saying he enjoys “considerable influence” and no ground to grant him the relief was made out.

In granting bail today, the Supreme Court also underlined the ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’ legal principle it upheld in releasing Mr Sisodia and Ms Kavitha.

READ | “Travesty Of Justice”: Manish Sisodia Gets Bail, Supreme Court Slams Delay

Pointing to the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court observed, as it has in other cases, that one cannot curtail liberty as a practice and that doing so has consequences.

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

New Delhi:

Prime Minister Narendra Modi Saturday underlined the need for swift justice in cases involving crimes against women and said that it will give them greater assurance of their safety.

PM Modi also said the judiciary is considered a guardian of the Constitution, and that the Supreme Court and the judiciary have lived up to the responsibility.

Addressing the inaugural session of a national conference of the district judiciary in the presence of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, PM Modi said the people of India have never shown any distrust of the Supreme Court or the judiciary.

Describing the imposition of the Emergency as a “dark” period, the prime minister said the judiciary played a key role in upholding fundamental rights.

On matters of national security, PM Modi said, the judiciary has protected national integrity by keeping national interests paramount.

Against the backdrop of the alleged rape and murder of a doctor in Kolkata and the sexual assault on two kindergarten girls in Thane, he said atrocities against women and the safety of children were matters of grave concern for society.

“The faster justice is delivered in cases of atrocities against women, the greater assurance half of the population will have about their safety,” the prime minister said.

PM Modi said there were several stringent laws to deal with crimes against women and there was a need to ensure better coordination among the criminal justice system to ensure swift justice.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

Terming a recovery agent firm of a bank as a “group of goons” who did not return the vehicle seized from a man despite one time settlement of the loan amount, the Supreme Court has directed the West Bengal Police to file charge sheet against the company within two months.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, which directed for payment of compensation to one Debasish Bosu Roy Chowdhury who took a loan of Rs 15.15 lakh for purchasing a bus, directed Bank of India to recover the amount from the recovery agent.

“Given the observations made by the high court and the plea taken by the petitioners, we find that respondent No. 4, a recovery agent, in actuality appears to be a group of goons, who use their muscle power to harass loanees on behalf of the petitioner-bank,” the bench said in its recent order.

It noted an FIR was lodged against the recovery agent firm M/s City Investigation and Detective for failing to return the vehicle in proper condition and said, “The Commissioner of Police of the concerned area is directed to ensure that investigation of FIR dated July 5, 2023, registered at Police Station Sodepur in West Bengal, under Sections 406, 420 and 471 of the IPC, is taken to its logical conclusion without any delay, and charge sheet is filed within a period of two months.” The recovery agent firm, however, later returned the vehicle but in a damaged condition, with chassis and engine numbers changed.

“The petitioner-bank shall be entitled to recover the compensation amount paid to respondent No. 1 (Chowdhury) from respondent No. 4 (recovery agent firm), or any other person found to be responsible for the damage caused to the vehicle,” the bench said.

It directed that thereafter, the trial court would take cognisance of the charge sheet and proceed in accordance with law.

The bench further directed, “If there is any license/authority letter granted by a competent authority to respondent No. 4 to act as recovery agent, the petitioner-bank is directed to make a separate complaint to that authority, regarding cancellation of such permission/authority letter.” The top court refused to interfere with the Calcutta High Court order of May 16 by which the bank was asked to pay Chowdhury Rs 5 lakh interim compensation for its conduct in not returning the vehicle to him.

The high court had granted liberty to the loanee to approach the civil court for higher compensation.

Chowdhury had approached the bank for a loan of Rs 15.15 and upon satisfaction of his credentials, his loan was sanctioned and to be repaid along with interest in 84 equated monthly installments of Rs 26,502 commencing from December 2014. The vehicle (bus) in question was hypothecated to the bank.

It was contended by the bank that from January 2018, Chowdhury started defaulting in payment of monthly installment and his account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on May 31, 2018.

The outstanding amount of loan as on date of NPA stood at Rs 10.23 lakh.

The top court noted that the bank hired the services of M/s City Investigation and Detective, the so-called recovery agent, who was aided by the government authorities in seizing Chowdhury’s vehicle for and on behalf of the bank.

The bank claimed in the high court that the market value of the vehicle as on July 31, 2019 was only Rs 2.37 lakh and the distress sale value was only Rs 1.66 lakh.

In March 2021, Chowdhury approached the bank for One-Time Settlement (OTS) of Rs 1.8 lakh towards the entire outstanding. The bank agreed to the proposal to accept the OTS offer though it was only 17.75 per cent of the outstanding dues.

“For reasons best known to the officers of the bank, a one-time settlement (OTS) was executed between the bank and respondent No. 1 (loanee) for a paltry sum of Rs 1,80,000. The said amount was admittedly deposited by respondent No. 1 (loanee) with the Bank,” the top court noted in its order.

It said the vehicle, however, was not released to the loanee, even though the bank was bound to do so, having accepted the OTS.

“After great efforts, the vehicle/bus was recovered, but by that time its chassis number and engine number were changed and some of the spare parts were also removed. Also, the vehicle was not in working condition,” the bench noted.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)