Logo
Subscribe
News
Columns
Interviews
Law Firms
Apprentice Lawyer
Legal Jobs
हिंदी
ಕನ್ನಡ
Litigation News
Madras High Court imposes ₹5 lakh costs on Tamil Nadu govt for filing “frivolous” appeals
The Court called out the State for the “atrocious game” it was playing on citizens, and hoped that th costs would deter the government from filing such appeals.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court
Ayesha Arvind
Published on:
26 Aug 2024, 7:15 pm
2 min read
The Madras High Court recently imposed costs of ₹5 lakh on the Tamil Nadu government for filing frivolous appeals in an attempt to not pay arrears of salaries to a group of assistant professors it had appointed in 2009.
A Bench of Justices R Subramanian and L Victoria Gowri of the Madurai bench imposed the costs after calling out the State for the “atrocious game” it was playing on the citizens.
It expressed the hope that its orders imposing such exemplary costs would deter the government from filing such writ appeals in the future.
The Court was hearing a batch of 10 writ appeals filed by the State last year challenging a single-judge’s order which had directed the State to pay the pending salaries of the assistant professors from 2009 onwards.
As per the order, the State government had appointed some assistant professors for government colleges in Tirunelveli district in 2009. However, the Joint Director of Collegiate Education of the region approved such appointments only on March 11, 2020, saying that the appointments will be considered to have come into effect from 2009 onwards.
The next day, the State authorities issued another notification saying that the appointments stood cancelled. The notification, however, did not give any reasons for the cancellation.
10 of the assistant professors approached the High Court challenging the cancellation order. Even as the matter pending, the Director of Collegiate Education recalled the cancellation order and re-affirmed their appointment, following which the single-judge asked the government to pay their salaries and arrears.
During the hearing of the present appeal, the State told the Bench that it did not have adequate funds to pay the arrears to the assistant professors.
The Court, however, refused to accept the State’s submission and said that it was rather surprising.
It thus imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the State in each of the 10 appeals. The Bench said that ₹25,000 from such amount should be paid to each of the 10 assistant professors, and the remaining amount should be paid to a local cancer care foundation.
“We hope that this order will at least serve as a deterrent and the Government will avoid filing such writ appeals at least in future. It is open to the Government to recover the cost from the Officers who are responsible for filing of these writ appeals,” the High Court said.
Additional Government Pleader J Ashok appeared for the State government.
Advocate T Cibi Chakraborthy appeared for the assistant professors.
[Read Order]
Attachment
PDF
State vs SG Pushpalatha Gracelin.pdf
Preview
Madras High Courtfrivolous litigationJustice R SubramanianMadurai Bench Madras High CourtJustice L Victoria Gowri
News
Supreme Court seeks Gujarat’s response on Sanjiv Bhatt appeal against conviction in 1990 case
The case pertains to the custodial death of a person in 1990 in Jamnagar district, when Bhatt was an additional superintendent of police.
Sanjiv Bhatt
Sanjiv Bhatt
Abhimanyu Hazarika
Abhimanyu Hazarika
Published on:
27 Aug 2024, 11:45 am
2 min read
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Gujarat government on former police officer Sanjiv Bhatt’s appeal against his conviction and life sentence in a 1990 custodial death case [Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt vs State of Gujarat].
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale said the appeal will be listed with other appeals related to the case.
“Issue notice returnable in four weeks,” the Court ordered.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Devadatt Kamat represented Bhatt. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared for the State of Gujarat.
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale
The Gujarat High Court had in January dismissed the former Indian Police Service (IPS) officer’s appeal against the verdict of a Jamnagar sessions court in the custodial death case.
Bhatt then filed present appeal through advocate Rajesh Gulab Inamdar.
The Supreme Court had in May last year refused to grant the former Gujarat-cadre officer permission to produce additional evidence before the High Court in the matter. That was after (now-retired) Justice MR Shah had refused to recuse from the case.
The present case pertains to an incident which took place in 1990 when Bhatt was an additional superintendent of police at Jamnagar district.
He had detained nearly 133 persons under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activites (Prevention) Act (TADA) after a communal riot broke out there.
The riots took place after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) had called for a Bharat Bandh on October 30 that year, to protest the arrest of Lal Krishna Advani, the then BJP chief, who had started a Rath Yatra procession to Ayodhya for the Ram Mandir issue.
Among the detained persons, one Prabhudas Vaishnani died after being released from custody.
His family alleged that he was subjected to custodial torture by Bhatt and his colleagues.
The family alleged that the persons detained were recklessly beaten up with sticks and were compelled to do certain acts like crawling on elbows.
They weren’t even allowed to drink water which damaged Viashnani’s kidneys, it was alleged.
Vaishnani was in police custody for nine days but after being released on bail, he had died of renal failure.
Subsequently, an FIR was registered against Bhatt and other officers for custodial death, and cognisance was taken by a Magistrate in 1995.
A total of seven police officers were accused in the case including two sub-inspectors and three police constables.
Supreme Court of IndiaGujarat High CourtSanjiv Bhatt1990 Custodial Death Case
News
Patna High Court grants bail to ISKCON monk from Nigeria accused of travelling without valid visa
Single-judge Justice Sandeep Kumar allowed his bail plea after considering the petitioner’s submission that if granted bail, he will stay at ISKCON in Patna and co-operate with the trial procedure.
Patna High Court
Patna High Court
Shashwat Singh
Published on:
27 Aug 2024, 10:15 am
3 min read
The Patna High Court recently granted bail to a Nigerian monk associated with the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), who was found inside Indian territory near India-Nepal border without valid travel documentation [Agastin Chinet Nevot @ Agustine Chinendu Nwaodu v. The State of Bihar and Another].
Single-judge Justice Sandeep Kumar allowed his bail plea after considering the petitioner’s submission that if granted bail, he will stay at ISKCON in Patna and co-operate with the trial procedure.
“I have considered the submissions of the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is from Nigeria but is a monk associated with International Society for Krishna Consciousness and is Resident of Janakpur Dham, Vihar Kund, Hanuman Mandir, Nepal. A certificate to this effect has been submitted by the Nepal ISKCON. Today, two sanyasis of Nepal in ISKCON namely, Purush Bhushan Das and Rameshwar Das have appeared in Court during the course of hearing. The President of Patna ISKCON namely, Krishna Kripa Das has also appeared in Court. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that if granted bail, the petitioner may be directed to stay in ISKCON, Patna and co-operate in the trial. Considering the aforesaid, the application for bail is allowed,” the Court said in its July 20 order.
Justice Sandeep Kumar
Justice Sandeep Kumar
The petitioner, Agustine Chinendu Nwaodu, was caught by Indian authorities while he was travelling with three Nepalese citizens near India-Nepal border, without valid travel documents.
He was charged with having committed cheating and various other offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Passport Act, 1967.
Nwaodu’s counsel submitted that Nwaodu is a resident of Nepal and a bona fide member of ISKCON at Janakpur Dham in Nepal. It was also submitted that after having been caught, Nowaodu produced his passport before the authorities.
He further argued that if Nwaodu has been found to be without visa, he could be deported to his own country but he cannot be detained in a prison. He also explained that Nwaodu has been charged with offences of cheating etc. because the documents that he produced before the authorities were not not verified by the Government of Nepal.
It was further contended that Nwaodu has committed no offence and is in jail since May, 2023 awaiting trial and that he cannot be denied a speedy trial.
The Court noted that even though the Central government opposed the bail plea, it did not give any reason for the delay in trial of Nwaodu even though the prosecuting agency was the State of Bihar and not the Union of India.
However, ASG Singh submitted that as per the Passport (Entry Into India) Rules, 1950, if the person has no valid visa then his passport shall also be treated as invalid for entering India.
The Court after considering the arguments of the parties, decided to allow Nwaodu’ bail plea subject of furnishing bail bonds of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the like same amount. The Court also mandated that one of the bailors should be the President of ISKCON, Patna.
The Court also allowed the the petitioner’s request for the transfer of his trail from Sitamahri to Patna.
Advocates Kumar Harshvardhan, Sudhanshu Prakash and Kalpana appeared for Agustine Chinendu Nwaodu.
Additional Solicitor General Dr. KN Singh, Senior Central Government Counsel Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Central Government Counsel Arvind Kumar and advocates Lokesh and Abhijeet Gautam represented the Union of India.
Assistant Public Prosecutor Jharkhandi Upadhyay represented the State of Bihar.
[Read Order]
Attachment
PDF
Agastin Chinet Nevot @ Agustine Chinendu Nwaodu v. The State of Bihar and Another.pdf
Preview
Patna High CourtISKCONNigerian nationalsMonkNigerian Monk
News
Bombay High Court denies bail to BRAHMOS engineer convicted for leaking information to Pakistan
The Court stated that the question of national safety and security is far more serious than cases of gruesome murder.
Nagpur Bench, Bombay High Court
Nagpur Bench, Bombay High Court
Sahyaja MS
Published on:
27 Aug 2024, 8:12 am
3 min read
The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court recently denied bail to Nishant Agrawal, a former engineer at BrahMos Aerospace Pvt Ltd, convicted for spying for Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI and leaking sensitive information related to BRAHMOS missiles [Nishant Agrawal v. Anti Terrorist Squad, Lucknow].
The Court also rejected the plea to suspend the sentence of Agrawal, Senior System Engineer, who was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to life in prison.
In its order of August 23, the Bench of Justices Vinay Joshi and Vrushali V Joshi stated that the question of national safety and security is far more serious than cases of gruesome murder.
“The issue largely relates to security and safety of the country, which has to be seriously viewed. The impact of crime may pose a serious threat to the National security. In our view, when the question of National security and safety arises, it is quite serious than the cases of gruesome murder. In the circumstances, we are not prepared to take a risk to put the National security and safety at risk,” the Court said.
Justices Vinay Joshi and Vrushali Joshi
Justices Vinay Joshi and Vrushali Joshi
Agrawal was employed in the technical research section of BrahMos’ missile centre at Nagpur.
He was arrested in 2018 in a joint operation by the Military Intelligence and the Anti-Terrorism Squads (ATS) of Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra after he was booked for offences under the Official Secrets Act (OSA), Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology Act (IT Act).
Sessions judge MV Deshpande convicted him on June 3 and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
The accused moved the High Court for suspension of his sentence, claiming he unintentionally downloaded malware while searching for a job. He contended that there was no evidence of unauthorized transmission of sensitive data, emphasizing the lack of external devices that could have facilitated such a breach.
However, the prosecution presented compelling evidence during the trial, highlighting that the accused had access to classified information, with 19 secret files concerning BRAHMOS missile systems discovered on his personal laptop.
Of these, 16 files were labeled as “secret” and 3 as “restricted.”
The prosecution revealed that the accused had communicated with social media accounts linked to Islamabad in Pakistan, raising significant concerns about potential threats to national security.
Evidence showed that he had accepted a friend request from a Facebook account created in Pakistan and engaged in conversations with an individual named Sejal Kapoor without verifying her identity.
The Court found that he shared personal information and uploaded links containing classified data to his laptop, which was vulnerable to malware. The forensic report indicated that the links installed on his laptop were capable of sharing sensitive information with external servers.
“We have gone through the entire material and considered the rival submissions… It is prima facie evident that the accused has copied the secret information/files onto his personal laptop /files in his personal laptop. It has come on record, rather not disputed, that he has accepted the friend request on Facebook, which was created in Pakistan,” the Court said.
It further noted that the accused had received training on maintaining confidentiality and had signed an undertaking to protect classified information.
The Court found it inappropriate to suspend the sentence, asserting that the seriousness of the crime warranted the decision.
“Taking an overall view of the matter, certainly this is not a case to form a prima facie opinion that the accused has fair chances of success in appeal,” the order stated.
Senior Advocate S Dave along with advocate CB Barve appeared for the convicted engineer.
Additional Public Prosecutor AB Badar appeared for the State.
[