Robert Vadra Friday moved a Delhi court seeking anticipatory bail in a money laundering case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

A lawyer from the prosecution team confirmed that Vadra has sought anticipatory bail in the case in which his close aide Manoj Arora was granted interim protection from arrest till February 6 by the court.

The case relates to allegations of money laundering in the purchase of a London-based property -- located at 12, Bryanston Square -- worth 1.9 million pounds, which is allegedly owned by Vadra, the brother-in-law of Congress President Rahul Gandhi.&nbsp;

Vadra's anticipatory bail application is likely to be heard by the court on Saturday.

On January 19, the ED had told the court that Arora was cooperating in the probe.

Arora had earlier alleged before the court that the case was foisted on him by the NDA government out of "political vendetta".

However, the ED had refuted the allegations, asking that "should no authority investigate any political bigwig because that will be called a political vendetta?"

The agency had told the court that it lodged the money laundering case against Arora after his role came up during the probe of another case by the Income Tax Department under the newly-enacted Black Money Act and tax law against absconding arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari.

It had alleged that the London-based property was bought by Bhandari for GBP 1.9 million and sold in 2010 for the same amount despite incurring additional expenses of approximately GBP 65,900 on its renovation.

"This gives credence to the fact that Bhandari was not the actual owner of the property but it was beneficially owned by Vadra who was incurring expenditure on the renovation of this property," the ED had told the court.

Arora, an employee of Vadra's Skylight Hospitality LLP, was a key person in the case and he was aware of the latter's overseas undeclared assets and was instrumental in arranging funds, ED had alleged.

&nbsp;

Robert Vadra Friday moved a Delhi court seeking anticipatory bail in a money laundering case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). A lawyer from the prosecution team confirmed that Vadra has sought anticipatory bail in the case in which his close aide Manoj Arora was granted interim protection from arrest till February 6 by the court.

Robert Vadra Friday moved a Delhi court seeking anticipatory bail in a money laundering case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). A lawyer from the prosecution team confirmed that Vadra has sought anticipatory bail in the case in which his close aide Manoj Arora was granted interim protection from arrest till February 6 by the court. The case relates to allegations of money laundering in the purchase of a London-based property -- located at 12, Bryanston Square -- worth 1.9 million pounds, which is allegedly owned by Vadra, the brother-in-law of Congress President Rahul Gandhi. Vadra's anticipatory bail application is likely to be heard by the court on Saturday. On January 19, the ED had told the court that Arora was cooperating in the probe. Arora had earlier alleged before the court that the case was foisted on him by the NDA government out of "political vendetta". However, the ED had refuted the allegations, asking that "should no authority investigate any political bigwig because that will be called a political vendetta?" The agency had told the court that it lodged the money laundering case against Arora after his role came up during the probe of another case by the Income Tax Department under the newly-enacted Black Money Act and tax law against absconding arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari. It had alleged that the London-based property was bought by Bhandari for GBP 1.9 million and sold in 2010 for the same amount despite incurring additional expenses of approximately GBP 65,900 on its renovation. "This gives credence to the fact that Bhandari was not the actual owner of the property but it was beneficially owned by Vadra who was incurring expenditure on the renovation of this property," the ED had told the court. Arora, an employee of Vadra's Skylight Hospitality LLP, was a key person in the case and he was aware of the latter's overseas undeclared assets and was instrumental in arranging funds, ED had alleged.

Robert Vadra moves Delhi court seeking anticipatory bail in money laundering case

Special Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Rakesh Asthana on Wednesday moved an application in the Delhi High Court, seeking some corrections in the recent judgement pertaining to him.

The High Court will take up his application for consideration on Thursday.

The Delhi High Court on Friday had dismissed a plea filed by Asthana, seeking quashing of an FIR against him in a bribery case.

The single judge bench of the High Court had refused to grant interim protection to Asthana but Justice Najmi Waziri asked the CBI to maintain the status quo for two weeks.

Asthana, the number two in the CBI, had sought liberty to appeal against the High Court judgement before the Supreme Court, which was granted.

The High Court directed the CBI to conclude investigation against Asthana within 10 weeks.

The court also turned down a plea by Deputy SP Devender Kumar seeking quashing of FIR filed against them.&nbsp;

Special Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Rakesh Asthana on Wednesday moved an application in the Delhi High Court, seeking some corrections in the recent judgement pertaining to him.

Special Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Rakesh Asthana on Wednesday moved an application in the Delhi High Court, seeking some corrections in the recent judgement pertaining to him. The High Court will take up his application for consideration on Thursday. The Delhi High Court on Friday had dismissed a plea filed by Asthana, seeking quashing of an FIR against him in a bribery case. The single judge bench of the High Court had refused to grant interim protection to Asthana but Justice Najmi Waziri asked the CBI to maintain the status quo for two weeks. Asthana, the number two in the CBI, had sought liberty to appeal against the High Court judgement before the Supreme Court, which was granted. The High Court directed the CBI to conclude investigation against Asthana within 10 weeks. The court also turned down a plea by Deputy SP Devender Kumar seeking quashing of FIR filed against them.

Rakesh Asthana moves Delhi high court, seeks correction in recent judgement

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed the plea filed by CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana seeking quashing of FIR filed against him for bribery allegations.&nbsp;

Justice Najmi Waziri also refused to quash the FIR lodged against CBI Deputy Superintendent Devender Kumar and alleged middleman Manoj Prasad.

The High Court stated that the probe needs to be carried out expeditiously. As per reports, Asthana seeks two weeks of protection from the arrest and to appeal in the Supreme Court but the Court&nbsp;refuses to grant interim protection to CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana.

The Court has asked the CBI to maintain status quo for two weeks.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi HC: No doubt, registration of an FIR against a public servant will be a cause of great concern and stress for the public servant. Charges under the FIR are a matter of investigation. It is important that law presumes a person is innocent until proven guilty <a href="https://t.co/ByLr9nz4vI">https://t.co/ByLr9nz4vI</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1083658872458498050?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Court has directed the CBI to conclude the investigation against Rakesh Asthana and Devender Kumar in 10 weeks.&nbsp;

The Court further said that the allegation of "mala fide" raised against then CBI Director Alok Verma is not made out. It also vacated its interim order granting protection to Asthana against criminal proceedings.

Justice Waziri said that permission for prior sanction to prosecute Asthana and Kumar was not required considering the facts of the case.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi High Court dismisses the plea filed by CBI's Spl Director Rakesh Asthana and DySP Devender Kumar plea seeking quashing of FIR filed against them <a href="https://t.co/zSmYoZlzsl">pic.twitter.com/zSmYoZlzsl</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1083655418772099074?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Asthana was booked on charges of criminal conspiracy, corruption and criminal misconduct under sections of Prevention of Corruption Act.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi High Court: CBI to conclude investigation against Rakesh Asthana and Devender Kumar in 10 weeks <a href="https://t.co/ByLr9nz4vI">https://t.co/ByLr9nz4vI</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1083659181373173760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

He was booked by the CBI on October 15, 2018 on the basis of a magisterial statement recorded by a businessman Sathish Babu Sana who had claimed that two businessmen brothers had sought bribe of Rs 5 crore from him to get relief to him in a CBI case against him using their contacts with the special director, news agency PTI reported.

Hyderabad-based businessman Sathish Babu Sana had also made allegations of corruption, extortion and high-handedness. &nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI)&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed the plea filed by CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana seeking quashing of FIR filed against him for bribery allegations.

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed the plea filed by CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana seeking quashing of FIR filed against him for bribery allegations. Justice Najmi Waziri also refused to quash the FIR lodged against CBI Deputy Superintendent Devender Kumar and alleged middleman Manoj Prasad. The High Court stated that the probe needs to be carried out expeditiously. As per reports, Asthana seeks two weeks of protection from the arrest and to appeal in the Supreme Court but the Court refuses to grant interim protection to CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana. The Court has asked the CBI to maintain status quo for two weeks. Delhi HC: No doubt, registration of an FIR against a public servant will be a cause of great concern and stress for the public servant. Charges under the FIR are a matter of investigation. It is important that law presumes a person is innocent until proven guilty https://t.co/ByLr9nz4vI — ANI (@ANI) January 11, 2019 × The Court has directed the CBI to conclude the investigation against Rakesh Asthana and Devender Kumar in 10 weeks. The Court further said that the allegation of "mala fide" raised against then CBI Director Alok Verma is not made out. It also vacated its interim order granting protection to Asthana against criminal proceedings. Justice Waziri said that permission for prior sanction to prosecute Asthana and Kumar was not required considering the facts of the case. Delhi High Court dismisses the plea filed by CBI's Spl Director Rakesh Asthana and DySP Devender Kumar plea seeking quashing of FIR filed against them pic.twitter.com/zSmYoZlzsl — ANI (@ANI) January 11, 2019 × Asthana was booked on charges of criminal conspiracy, corruption and criminal misconduct under sections of Prevention of Corruption Act. Delhi High Court: CBI to conclude investigation against Rakesh Asthana and Devender Kumar in 10 weeks https://t.co/ByLr9nz4vI — ANI (@ANI) January 11, 2019 × He was booked by the CBI on October 15, 2018 on the basis of a magisterial statement recorded by a businessman Sathish Babu Sana who had claimed that two businessmen brothers had sought bribe of Rs 5 crore from him to get relief to him in a CBI case against him using their contacts with the special director, news agency PTI reported. Hyderabad-based businessman Sathish Babu Sana had also made allegations of corruption, extortion and high-handedness. (With inputs from PTI)

Delhi High Court dismisses CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana's plea to quash FIR in bribery case

The Delhi High Court said Wednesday it will hear on January 15 the appeal of Associated Journals Ltd (AJL), publisher of National Herald newspaper, challenging the single judge order asking it to vacate its premises here, due to non-availability of advocates.

A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V K Rao was informed by the central government's standing counsel Rajesh Gogna that they are led by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who was not available for the day.

The counsel for AJL said senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who will argue their case, was also not available.

The court listed the matter for hearing on January 15 after both the sides consented to it.

A single judge on December 21 had dismissed AJL's plea challenging the Centre's order to vacate its premises and asked AJL to vacate the ITO premises within two weeks after which eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, would be initiated.&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court said Wednesday it will hear on January 15 the appeal of Associated Journals Ltd (AJL), publisher of National Herald newspaper, challenging the single judge order asking it to vacate its premises here, due to non-availability of advocates.

The Delhi High Court said Wednesday it will hear on January 15 the appeal of Associated Journals Ltd (AJL), publisher of National Herald newspaper, challenging the single judge order asking it to vacate its premises here, due to non-availability of advocates. A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V K Rao was informed by the central government's standing counsel Rajesh Gogna that they are led by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who was not available for the day. The counsel for AJL said senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who will argue their case, was also not available. The court listed the matter for hearing on January 15 after both the sides consented to it. A single judge on December 21 had dismissed AJL's plea challenging the Centre's order to vacate its premises and asked AJL to vacate the ITO premises within two weeks after which eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, would be initiated.

Delhi HC to hear on January 15 appeal of AJL, publisher of National Herald

The 73-year-old Congress leader, Sajjan Kumar, who was awarded life sentenced by the Delhi High Court in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, is expected to surrender before Karkardooma Court or Tihar jail authorities on Monday.

Overturning the acquittal granted to Kumar by a trial court in 2013, the Delhi High Court on December 17 convicted Kumar and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 5 lakh.

In view of this, HS Phoolka, one of the petitioners in 1984 anti-Sikh riot case, has appealed to the victims of the riot to not go to the court on Monday.

In a statement, Phoolka said: "It is apprehended that Sajjan Kumar might try to create disturbances around the court tomorrow, to use as an excuse not to surrender and ask for an extension. I request 1984 Sikh genocide victims not to go to the court tomorrow. He has not got any relief from the Supreme Court. So, he has to surrender."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Latestvisuals?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Latestvisuals</a> Delhi: Sajjan Kumar, who was awarded life sentence by Delhi High Court in 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, to surrender before Karkardooma Court or Tihar jail authorities today <a href="https://t.co/tgnHrWD81r">pic.twitter.com/tgnHrWD81r</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1079568917276868608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 31, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Speaking to ANI, Phoolka said,&nbsp;"He simply has to go to the court tomorrow and surrender. If he does not do that, then on January 1 the police will have to take him in custody and send him to Tihar Jail. This is a very big victory for the entire nation, as a mass murderer is going to be punished after years."

Notably, the case against Kumar pertains to the murder of five members of a Sikh family in Delhi Cantonment area during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots aftermath of the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984.

The court, which had asked the former MP Kumar to surrender before December 31, made stinging observations over the investigations and said there "appeared to be ongoing large-scale efforts to suppress cases against him".

"In the summer of 1947, during partition, several people were massacred. 37 years later Delhi was the witness of a similar tragedy. The accused enjoyed political patronage and escaped trial," the court had said.

It added that what happened in the aftermath of the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was "carnage of unbelievable proportions" in which over 2,700 Sikhs were murdered in Delhi alone.

The victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots hailed the High Court`s verdict. Last month, an anti-Sikh riots witness and victim Cham Kaur issued a statement identifying Kumar as the instigator.

Another witness named Sheela Kaur also identified him in connection with the case. In March, the Delhi High Court had received a petition containing a CD, which was stated to be Kumar's confession about accepting his role in the riots.

On December 22 after the decision given by the High Court, the Congress leader filed an appeal in the Apex Court, after the High Court dismissed Kumar's plea seeking more time to surrender.

In his plea, he had sought 30 additional days to surrender, on account of settling family affairs with regard to property and inheritance. Earlier on Thursday, the former parliamentarian appeared before Delhi's Patiala House Court for hearing in the second case, related to the riots, registered against him by the CBI on the recommendation of Nanavati Commission.

The court has adjourned the matter till January 22. As per official records, over 2,700 Sikhs were killed across India after the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984 by her Sikh bodyguards, Satwant Singh, and Beant Singh.

The 73-year-old Congress leader, Sajjan Kumar, who was awarded life sentenced by the Delhi High Court in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, is expected to surrender before Karkardooma Court or Tihar jail authorities on Monday.

The 73-year-old Congress leader, Sajjan Kumar, who was awarded life sentenced by the Delhi High Court in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, is expected to surrender before Karkardooma Court or Tihar jail authorities on Monday. Overturning the acquittal granted to Kumar by a trial court in 2013, the Delhi High Court on December 17 convicted Kumar and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 5 lakh. In view of this, HS Phoolka, one of the petitioners in 1984 anti-Sikh riot case, has appealed to the victims of the riot to not go to the court on Monday. In a statement, Phoolka said: "It is apprehended that Sajjan Kumar might try to create disturbances around the court tomorrow, to use as an excuse not to surrender and ask for an extension. I request 1984 Sikh genocide victims not to go to the court tomorrow. He has not got any relief from the Supreme Court. So, he has to surrender." #Latestvisuals Delhi: Sajjan Kumar, who was awarded life sentence by Delhi High Court in 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, to surrender before Karkardooma Court or Tihar jail authorities today pic.twitter.com/tgnHrWD81r — ANI (@ANI) December 31, 2018 × Speaking to ANI, Phoolka said, "He simply has to go to the court tomorrow and surrender. If he does not do that, then on January 1 the police will have to take him in custody and send him to Tihar Jail. This is a very big victory for the entire nation, as a mass murderer is going to be punished after years." Notably, the case against Kumar pertains to the murder of five members of a Sikh family in Delhi Cantonment area during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots aftermath of the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984. The court, which had asked the former MP Kumar to surrender before December 31, made stinging observations over the investigations and said there "appeared to be ongoing large-scale efforts to suppress cases against him". "In the summer of 1947, during partition, several people were massacred. 37 years later Delhi was the witness of a similar tragedy. The accused enjoyed political patronage and escaped trial," the court had said. It added that what happened in the aftermath of the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was "carnage of unbelievable proportions" in which over 2,700 Sikhs were murdered in Delhi alone. The victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots hailed the High Court`s verdict. Last month, an anti-Sikh riots witness and victim Cham Kaur issued a statement identifying Kumar as the instigator. Another witness named Sheela Kaur also identified him in connection with the case. In March, the Delhi High Court had received a petition containing a CD, which was stated to be Kumar's confession about accepting his role in the riots. On December 22 after the decision given by the High Court, the Congress leader filed an appeal in the Apex Court, after the High Court dismissed Kumar's plea seeking more time to surrender. In his plea, he had sought 30 additional days to surrender, on account of settling family affairs with regard to property and inheritance. Earlier on Thursday, the former parliamentarian appeared before Delhi's Patiala House Court for hearing in the second case, related to the riots, registered against him by the CBI on the recommendation of Nanavati Commission. The court has adjourned the matter till January 22. As per official records, over 2,700 Sikhs were killed across India after the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984 by her Sikh bodyguards, Satwant Singh, and Beant Singh.

1984 anti-Sikh riots case: Sajjan Kumar likely to surrender today

Former Congress leader <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/1984-anti-sikh-riots-case-sajjan-kumar-moves-supreme-court-against-conviction-185836">Sajjan Kumar</a> is likely to surrender before a court here on December 31 to serve the life imprisonment awarded to him by the Delhi High Court in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.

"We will comply with the high court's judgment," his counsel Anil Kumar Sharma told PTI.

The counsel said Kumar's appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the high court verdict is not likely to be taken up for hearing before December 31.

The 73-year-old former Congress leader was sentenced to life for the "remainder of his natural life" by the Delhi High Court on December 17 in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.

The case relates to killing of five Sikhs in Raj Nagar part-I area in Palam Colony in South West Delhi on November 1-2, 1984 and burning down of a Gurudwara in Raj Nagar part II. Riots had broken out after the assassination of then prime minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984 by her two Sikh bodyguards.

The high court had on December 21 rejected Kumar's plea seeking extension till January 30 to surrender.

The former Congress leader had sought more time to surrender, saying he had to settle the family affairs related to his children and property and also needs time to file appeal in the Supreme Court against the high court verdict.

Sharma said they have removed the objections in their appeal filed in the apex court but since the court was on vacation till January 1, it was not likely to be taken up for hearing by December 31 and also the chances of mentioning for urgent listing of the appeal was not there.

The Supreme Court will open on January 2 after the winter break.

"We have removed the objections and the appeal in the apex court has been numbered. Presently, there are no benches in the Supreme Court. Even if we mention the matter for urgent hearing, the registrar will decide whether it will be heard by the bench. No time is left now," Kumar's counsel said.

He said they are yet to engage a senior counsel who would represent Kumar before the apex court.

The former Congress leader had on December 22 approached the Supreme Court challenging the high court's judgment.

Senior advocate H S Phoolka, who is representing the riots victims, had earlier said that they had already filed a caveat in the apex court to pre-empt any ex-parte hearing in favour of Kumar.

The high court had set aside the trial court's 2010 verdict which had acquitted Kumar in the case. The six accused, including Kumar who was a Member of Parliament at that time, were sent to be tried in 2010.

The high court had also upheld the conviction and varying sentences awarded by the trial court to the other five -- former Congress councillor Balwan Khokhar, retired naval officer Captain Bhagmal, Girdhari Lal and former MLAs Mahender Yadav and Kishan Khokhar.

All six, including Kumar, were directed by the high court to surrender by December 31, and not leave Delhi in the meantime.

Former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar is likely to surrender before a court here on December 31 to serve the life imprisonment awarded to him by the Delhi High Court in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.

Former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar is likely to surrender before a court here on December 31 to serve the life imprisonment awarded to him by the Delhi High Court in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. "We will comply with the high court's judgment," his counsel Anil Kumar Sharma told PTI. The counsel said Kumar's appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the high court verdict is not likely to be taken up for hearing before December 31. The 73-year-old former Congress leader was sentenced to life for the "remainder of his natural life" by the Delhi High Court on December 17 in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. The case relates to killing of five Sikhs in Raj Nagar part-I area in Palam Colony in South West Delhi on November 1-2, 1984 and burning down of a Gurudwara in Raj Nagar part II. Riots had broken out after the assassination of then prime minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984 by her two Sikh bodyguards. The high court had on December 21 rejected Kumar's plea seeking extension till January 30 to surrender. The former Congress leader had sought more time to surrender, saying he had to settle the family affairs related to his children and property and also needs time to file appeal in the Supreme Court against the high court verdict. Sharma said they have removed the objections in their appeal filed in the apex court but since the court was on vacation till January 1, it was not likely to be taken up for hearing by December 31 and also the chances of mentioning for urgent listing of the appeal was not there. The Supreme Court will open on January 2 after the winter break. "We have removed the objections and the appeal in the apex court has been numbered. Presently, there are no benches in the Supreme Court. Even if we mention the matter for urgent hearing, the registrar will decide whether it will be heard by the bench. No time is left now," Kumar's counsel said. He said they are yet to engage a senior counsel who would represent Kumar before the apex court. The former Congress leader had on December 22 approached the Supreme Court challenging the high court's judgment. Senior advocate H S Phoolka, who is representing the riots victims, had earlier said that they had already filed a caveat in the apex court to pre-empt any ex-parte hearing in favour of Kumar. The high court had set aside the trial court's 2010 verdict which had acquitted Kumar in the case. The six accused, including Kumar who was a Member of Parliament at that time, were sent to be tried in 2010. The high court had also upheld the conviction and varying sentences awarded by the trial court to the other five -- former Congress councillor Balwan Khokhar, retired naval officer Captain Bhagmal, Girdhari Lal and former MLAs Mahender Yadav and Kishan Khokhar. All six, including Kumar, were directed by the high court to surrender by December 31, and not leave Delhi in the meantime.

1984 anti-Sikh riots case: Sajjan Kumar likely to surrender before court on December 31

A Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/1984-anti-sikh-riots-sajjan-kumar-moves-high-court-to-seek-more-time-to-surrender-185458">Sajjan Kumar's plea seeking more time to surrender</a> which he filed yesterday. He is sentenced to life imprisonment in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.

According to a report by PTI, the court dismissed the plea saying that it sees no ground for granting relief to Sajjan Kumar to surrender.

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sajjan-kumar-resigns-from-congress-primary-membership-writes-to-rahul-gandhi-184982">former senior leader of Congress party, Sajjan Kumar </a>approached the Delhi High Court to extend his surrender time till January 30. He sought more time saying that he has to settle family affairs relating to children and property.

In his plea, Kumar has also said that he has the statutory right to file an appeal against the high court verdict for which he needs to engage senior advocates who are presently out of India on holiday as the Supreme Court is on vacations.

On Monday, the high court directed Sajjan Kumar to surrender before authorities by December 31.

The case relates to the killing of five Sikhs in Raj Nagar part-I area in Palam Colony in South West Delhi on November 1-2, 1984, and burning down of a Gurudwara in Raj Nagar part II during that period.

Kumar was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for "remainder of his natural life" in the case by the high court on December 17 which had said the riots were a "crime against humanity" perpetrated by those who enjoyed "political patronage" and aided by an "indifferent" law enforcement agency.

On Thursday, he also appeared before Patiala House Court amid tight security in another 1984 riots case for trial. The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/1984-sikh-riots-case-delhi-court-adjourns-sajjan-kumar-hearing-for-january-22-185423">court adjourned the matter for January 22</a> after his main counsel was unavailable.

The riots had broken out after the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984, by her two Sikh bodyguards.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

A Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed Sajjan Kumar's plea seeking more time to surrender which he filed yesterday. He is sentenced to life imprisonment in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.

A Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed Sajjan Kumar's plea seeking more time to surrender which he filed yesterday. He is sentenced to life imprisonment in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. According to a report by PTI, the court dismissed the plea saying that it sees no ground for granting relief to Sajjan Kumar to surrender. The former senior leader of Congress party, Sajjan Kumar approached the Delhi High Court to extend his surrender time till January 30. He sought more time saying that he has to settle family affairs relating to children and property. In his plea, Kumar has also said that he has the statutory right to file an appeal against the high court verdict for which he needs to engage senior advocates who are presently out of India on holiday as the Supreme Court is on vacations. On Monday, the high court directed Sajjan Kumar to surrender before authorities by December 31. The case relates to the killing of five Sikhs in Raj Nagar part-I area in Palam Colony in South West Delhi on November 1-2, 1984, and burning down of a Gurudwara in Raj Nagar part II during that period. Kumar was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for "remainder of his natural life" in the case by the high court on December 17 which had said the riots were a "crime against humanity" perpetrated by those who enjoyed "political patronage" and aided by an "indifferent" law enforcement agency. On Thursday, he also appeared before Patiala House Court amid tight security in another 1984 riots case for trial. The court adjourned the matter for January 22 after his main counsel was unavailable. The riots had broken out after the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984, by her two Sikh bodyguards.

1984 anti-Sikh riots: No ground for granting relief to Sajjan Kumar, says High Court

Former Congress leader<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sajjan-kumar-resigns-from-congress-primary-membership-writes-to-rahul-gandhi-184982"> Sajjan Kumar </a>on Thursday approached the Delhi High Court seeking time till January 31 to surrender in connection with a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case in which he was recently<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/1984-anti-sikh-riots-congress-leader-sajjan-kumar-sentenced-to-life-imprisonment-to-surrender-by-december-31-184695"> sentenced to life imprisonment</a>.

Kumar, who was directed by the high court on Monday to surrender before authorities by December 31, sought more time saying he has to settle family affairs.

Advocate Anil Sharma, representing Kumar, said they need some more time to file an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the high court's verdict and Kumar has to settle his family matters relating to his children and property.

The plea is likely to come up for hearing on Friday.

The case relates to the killing of five Sikhs in Raj Nagar part-I area in Palam Colony in South West Delhi on November 1-2, 1984, and burning down of a Gurudwara in Raj Nagar part II during that period.

Meanwhile, Delhi Patiala House court today <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/1984-sikh-riots-case-delhi-court-adjourns-sajjan-kumar-hearing-for-january-22-185423">adjourned the hearing of the second case against Sajjan Kumar</a> in 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. He is accused of inciting violence during the riots.

According to a report by ANI, the hearing was adjourned as Kumar's main counsel Anil Sharma did not appear before the Court today for cross-examination of witnesses in the case.

The case, registered by Central Bureau of Investigation on the recommendations of Nanavati Commission, was transferred from the Karkardooma court to the Patiala House court by the Delhi High Court.

Sajjan Kumar is facing trial on charges of murder and rioting in the case pertaining to the killing of Surjit Singh in Delhi's Sultanpuri in 1984 during the Sikh riots.

Apart from&nbsp;Kumar, two others who are facing the charges are Brahmanand Gupta and Ved Prakash.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar on Thursday approached the Delhi High Court seeking time till January 31 to surrender in connection with a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case in which he was recently sentenced to life imprisonment.

Former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar on Thursday approached the Delhi High Court seeking time till January 31 to surrender in connection with a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case in which he was recently sentenced to life imprisonment. Kumar, who was directed by the high court on Monday to surrender before authorities by December 31, sought more time saying he has to settle family affairs. Advocate Anil Sharma, representing Kumar, said they need some more time to file an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the high court's verdict and Kumar has to settle his family matters relating to his children and property. The plea is likely to come up for hearing on Friday. The case relates to the killing of five Sikhs in Raj Nagar part-I area in Palam Colony in South West Delhi on November 1-2, 1984, and burning down of a Gurudwara in Raj Nagar part II during that period. Meanwhile, Delhi Patiala House court today adjourned the hearing of the second case against Sajjan Kumar in 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. He is accused of inciting violence during the riots. According to a report by ANI, the hearing was adjourned as Kumar's main counsel Anil Sharma did not appear before the Court today for cross-examination of witnesses in the case. The case, registered by Central Bureau of Investigation on the recommendations of Nanavati Commission, was transferred from the Karkardooma court to the Patiala House court by the Delhi High Court. Sajjan Kumar is facing trial on charges of murder and rioting in the case pertaining to the killing of Surjit Singh in Delhi's Sultanpuri in 1984 during the Sikh riots. Apart from Kumar, two others who are facing the charges are Brahmanand Gupta and Ved Prakash.

1984 anti-Sikh riots: Sajjan Kumar moves high court, seeks more time to surrender

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley today hailed the life sentence given to Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.

"Sajjan Kumar’s conviction by the Delhi High Court is a delayed vindication of Justice. The Congress and the Gandhi family legacy will continue to pay for the sins of 1984 riots," Jaitley tweeted on Monday after the Delhi High Court verdict.

The high court reversed the verdict of the trial court which had acquitted Kumar. He has to surrender by December 31, 2018.

Besides Congress' Sajjan Kumar, Captain Bhagmal, Girdhari Lal and former Congress councillor Balwan Khokhar have been sentenced to life imprisonment. Kishan Khokkar and former legislator Mahender Yadav have been sentenced to 10 years in prison.

A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and Vinod Goel had on October 29 concluded hearing arguments on the appeals filed by the CBI, riots victims and the convicts, and reserved the judgement.

Former Congress councillor Balwan Khokhar, retired naval officer Captain Bhagmal, Girdhari Lal and two others were held guilty in the case relating to the murder of five members of a family in Raj Nagar area of Delhi Cantonment on November 1, 1984 after the assassination of then prime minister Indira Gandhi.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley today hailed the life sentence given to Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. "Sajjan Kumar’s conviction by the Delhi High Court is a delayed vindication of Justice.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley today hailed the life sentence given to Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. "Sajjan Kumar’s conviction by the Delhi High Court is a delayed vindication of Justice. The Congress and the Gandhi family legacy will continue to pay for the sins of 1984 riots," Jaitley tweeted on Monday after the Delhi High Court verdict. The high court reversed the verdict of the trial court which had acquitted Kumar. He has to surrender by December 31, 2018. Besides Congress' Sajjan Kumar, Captain Bhagmal, Girdhari Lal and former Congress councillor Balwan Khokhar have been sentenced to life imprisonment. Kishan Khokkar and former legislator Mahender Yadav have been sentenced to 10 years in prison. A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and Vinod Goel had on October 29 concluded hearing arguments on the appeals filed by the CBI, riots victims and the convicts, and reserved the judgement. Former Congress councillor Balwan Khokhar, retired naval officer Captain Bhagmal, Girdhari Lal and two others were held guilty in the case relating to the murder of five members of a family in Raj Nagar area of Delhi Cantonment on November 1, 1984 after the assassination of then prime minister Indira Gandhi.

Delayed vindication of justice: Arun Jaitley on Sajjan Kumar's conviction in 1984 anti-Sikh riots case

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought response of the Centre, the AAP government and police on a PIL seeking entry of women into the sanctum sanctorum of the Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia Dargah in the national capital.

Apart from the Centre, the Delhi government and police, a bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice VK Rao also issued notice to the trust managing the 'dargah' (shrine) and sought their stand on the plea by April 11, 2019.

The court was hearing a plea by three women law students, who have claimed that the dargah here does not permit entry of women into the shrine.

The petition, filed though advocate Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, has claimed that there is a notice put up outside the 'dargah' -- a shrine built over the grave of a religious figure -- clearly stating in English and Hindi that women are not allowed inside.

The law students, in their petition, have contended that they made several representations to authorities, including the Delhi Police, but no response was received and therefore, they moved the high court.

The plea has sought directions to the Centre, the Delhi government, police and the trust managing the shrine, to frame guidelines for ensuring entry of women into the dargah and declare the bar on entry of women as "unconstitutional".

The petitioners, who are law students from Pune, have contended that when the Supreme Court has allowed women of all ages into the Sabarimala shrine in Kerala, women in the heart of the national capital were being discriminated against.

According to the petition, the law students came to know of the bar on women's entry at the dargah when they visited the shrine on November 27 to offer prayers.

"Nizamuddin Dargah by its very nature is a public place and prohibition of entry of anyone in a public place on the basis of gender is contrary to the framework of the Constitution of India," the PIL said.

It also said that various other shrines like the Ajmer Sharif Dargah and the Haji Ali Dargah do not prohibit entry of women.

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought response of the Centre, the AAP government and police on a PIL seeking entry of women into the sanctum sanctorum of the Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia Dargah in the national capital.

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought response of the Centre, the AAP government and police on a PIL seeking entry of women into the sanctum sanctorum of the Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia Dargah in the national capital. Apart from the Centre, the Delhi government and police, a bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice VK Rao also issued notice to the trust managing the 'dargah' (shrine) and sought their stand on the plea by April 11, 2019. The court was hearing a plea by three women law students, who have claimed that the dargah here does not permit entry of women into the shrine. The petition, filed though advocate Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, has claimed that there is a notice put up outside the 'dargah' -- a shrine built over the grave of a religious figure -- clearly stating in English and Hindi that women are not allowed inside. The law students, in their petition, have contended that they made several representations to authorities, including the Delhi Police, but no response was received and therefore, they moved the high court. The plea has sought directions to the Centre, the Delhi government, police and the trust managing the shrine, to frame guidelines for ensuring entry of women into the dargah and declare the bar on entry of women as "unconstitutional". The petitioners, who are law students from Pune, have contended that when the Supreme Court has allowed women of all ages into the Sabarimala shrine in Kerala, women in the heart of the national capital were being discriminated against. According to the petition, the law students came to know of the bar on women's entry at the dargah when they visited the shrine on November 27 to offer prayers. "Nizamuddin Dargah by its very nature is a public place and prohibition of entry of anyone in a public place on the basis of gender is contrary to the framework of the Constitution of India," the PIL said. It also said that various other shrines like the Ajmer Sharif Dargah and the Haji Ali Dargah do not prohibit entry of women.

Delhi High Court seeks Centre’s response on PIL seeking entry of women into Nizamuddin shrine

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/regret-pak-chose-to-politicise-kartarpur-ceremony-by-making-unwarranted-reference-to-jk-india-180039">Regret Pak chose to politicise Kartarpur ceremony by making unwarranted reference to J&amp;K: India</a>

India today reacted strongly after Pakistan PM Imran Khan said the Kashmir issue can be solved during his speech after laying the foundation stone of the Kartarpur corridor.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-vs-cbi-delhi-high-court-allows-alok-verma-a-k-sharma-to-inspect-rakesh-asthanas-case-files-180002">CBI vs CBI: Delhi High Court allows Alok Verma, A K Sharma to inspect Rakesh Asthana's case files</a>

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday allowed CBI Director Alok Verma and Joint Director A K Sharma to inspect in the CVC's office the case file relating to FIR against the agency's Special Director Rakesh Asthana.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/navjot-sidhu-should-contest-election-in-pakistan-he-will-win-surely-says-imran-khan-179998">Navjot Sidhu should contest </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/navjot-sidhu-should-contest-election-in-pakistan-he-will-win-surely-says-imran-khan-179998">election</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/navjot-sidhu-should-contest-election-in-pakistan-he-will-win-surely-says-imran-khan-179998"> in Pakistan's Punjab, he will win surely, says Imran Khan</a>

Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan on Wednesday said that former cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu is so popular in Pakistan that he can contest and win an election here.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/assembly-election-2018-madhya-pradesh-registers-50-voter-turnout-mizoram-58-till-3-pm-179973">Assembly polls: Madhya Pradesh registers 50% voter turnout, Mizoram 58% till 3 pm</a>

The voter turnout in Madhya Pradesh till 3 pm was recorded as 50 per cent, while that in the northeastern state was recorded as 58 per cent in Mizoram.

The turnout till 1 pm was recorded as 27 per cent in MP while 49 per cent in Mizoram.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/republican-hyde-smith-wins-racially-charged-us-senate-race-in-mississippi-179982">Republican Hyde-Smith wins racially charged US Senate race in Mississippi</a>

Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith won a US Senate special election runoff in conservative Mississippi on Tuesday, defeating a black challenger after a campaign that recalled the history of racist violence in the deep South state.

Regret Pak chose to politicise Kartarpur ceremony by making unwarranted reference to J&K: India India today reacted strongly after Pakistan PM Imran Khan said the Kashmir issue can be solved during his speech after laying the foundation stone of the Kartarpur corridor.

Regret Pak chose to politicise Kartarpur ceremony by making unwarranted reference to J&K: India India today reacted strongly after Pakistan PM Imran Khan said the Kashmir issue can be solved during his speech after laying the foundation stone of the Kartarpur corridor. CBI vs CBI: Delhi High Court allows Alok Verma, A K Sharma to inspect Rakesh Asthana's case files The Delhi High Court on Wednesday allowed CBI Director Alok Verma and Joint Director A K Sharma to inspect in the CVC's office the case file relating to FIR against the agency's Special Director Rakesh Asthana. Navjot Sidhu should contest election in Pakistan's Punjab, he will win surely, says Imran Khan Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan on Wednesday said that former cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu is so popular in Pakistan that he can contest and win an election here. Assembly polls: Madhya Pradesh registers 50% voter turnout, Mizoram 58% till 3 pm The voter turnout in Madhya Pradesh till 3 pm was recorded as 50 per cent, while that in the northeastern state was recorded as 58 per cent in Mizoram. The turnout till 1 pm was recorded as 27 per cent in MP while 49 per cent in Mizoram. Republican Hyde-Smith wins racially charged US Senate race in Mississippi Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith won a US Senate special election runoff in conservative Mississippi on Tuesday, defeating a black challenger after a campaign that recalled the history of racist violence in the deep South state.

News brief: Big stories of the day

Delhi High Court has adjourned AJL (Associated Journals limited) plea seeking quashing Centre's order of eviction and told the Centre to maintain status quo till the next hearing on November 22.&nbsp;

Associated journals limited, the publishers of National Herald newspaper moved Delhi high court after they were asked to handover the possession to the centre by November 15. While the centre also warned that AJL's failure to vacate the premises will result in penalisation under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.&nbsp;

The plea states that Centre's order for eviction is illegal, unconstitutional arbitrary, tainted with malafide and without authority and jurisdiction. However senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi arguing for the publisher (AJL) said that the prosecution had ulterior political motives.&nbsp;

On December 4th, Supreme Court bench of Justices AK Sikri and SA Nazeer will hear Congress president Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi’s appeal challenging Delhi High Court's order which had dismissed their pleas against IT departments reopening of their tax assessments for the year 2011-2012.&nbsp;

Delhi High Court has adjourned AJL (Associated Journals limited) plea seeking quashing Centre's order of eviction and told the Centre to maintain status quo till the next hearing on November 22.

Delhi High Court has adjourned AJL (Associated Journals limited) plea seeking quashing Centre's order of eviction and told the Centre to maintain status quo till the next hearing on November 22. Associated journals limited, the publishers of National Herald newspaper moved Delhi high court after they were asked to handover the possession to the centre by November 15. While the centre also warned that AJL's failure to vacate the premises will result in penalisation under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The plea states that Centre's order for eviction is illegal, unconstitutional arbitrary, tainted with malafide and without authority and jurisdiction. However senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi arguing for the publisher (AJL) said that the prosecution had ulterior political motives. On December 4th, Supreme Court bench of Justices AK Sikri and SA Nazeer will hear Congress president Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi’s appeal challenging Delhi High Court's order which had dismissed their pleas against IT departments reopening of their tax assessments for the year 2011-2012.

National Herald case: Maintain status quo till the next hearing, High Court to Centre

The CBI on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that the FIR on bribery allegations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana and others shows cognisable offences.

The agency opposed Asthana's plea seeking quashing of the FIR and said a roving inquiry at this stage was not permissible.&nbsp;

It also told the court that the probe against Asthana was at a nascent stage and several incriminating documents, as well as the role of other persons, was under investigation.&nbsp;

The agency said it was handicapped in the probe as certain files and documents were under the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) scrutiny.

The agency denied all adverse allegations levelled by Asthana, "whether germane or not germane", in his petition.

The petitions of Asthana, CBI DSP Devendra Kumar and alleged middleman Manoj Prasad are scheduled to come up for hearing before a bench of Justice Najmi Waziri during the day.&nbsp;

The CBI on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that the FIR on bribery allegations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana and others shows cognisable offences. The agency opposed Asthana's plea seeking quashing of the FIR and said a roving inquiry at this stage was not permissible.

The CBI on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that the FIR on bribery allegations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana and others shows cognisable offences. The agency opposed Asthana's plea seeking quashing of the FIR and said a roving inquiry at this stage was not permissible. It also told the court that the probe against Asthana was at a nascent stage and several incriminating documents, as well as the role of other persons, was under investigation. The agency said it was handicapped in the probe as certain files and documents were under the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) scrutiny. The agency denied all adverse allegations levelled by Asthana, "whether germane or not germane", in his petition. The petitions of Asthana, CBI DSP Devendra Kumar and alleged middleman Manoj Prasad are scheduled to come up for hearing before a bench of Justice Najmi Waziri during the day.

FIR against Asthana shows cognisable offences: CBI to Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sentenced 16 policemen to life imprisonment for killing 42 people of a minority community in the 1987 Hashimpura massacre case in Uttar Pradesh.

A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and Vinod Goel reversed the trial court's verdict which had acquitted the accused.

The high court convicted 16 former Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) personnel for murder and of kidnapping, criminal conspiracy and destruction of evidence under the Indian Penal Code.

It termed the massacre "targeted killing" of unarmed and defenceless people by the police.

The high court's verdict came on pleas challenging a trial court's decision to acquit 16 policemen of charges of murder and other crimes in the case.

Timeline of events

The following is the chronology of events relating to 1987 Hashimpura Massacre case leading up to the Delhi High Court on Wednesday sentencing 16 ex-policemen to life imprisonment for killing 42 people of a minority community in Uttar Pradesh.

May 22, 1987: 50 Muslims picked up allegedly by Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) personnel from Hashimpura village in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.

Victims later shot and bodies thrown into canal. 42 persons declared dead.

1988: UP government orders CB-CID probe in the case.

February 1994: CB-CID submits inquiry report indicting over 60 PAC and police personnel of all ranks.

May 20, 1996: Charge sheet filed against 19 accused before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad by CB-CID of Uttar Pradesh police. 161 people listed as witnesses.

September 2002: Case transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court on petition by the families of victims and survivors.

July 2006: Delhi court frames charges of murder, attempt to murder, tampering with evidence and conspiracy under the IPC against 17 accused.

March 8, 2013: Trial court dismisses Subramanian Swamy's plea seeking probe into the alleged role of P Chidambaram, then Minister of State for Home, in the matter.

January 22, 2015: Trial court reserves judgement.

March 21: Court acquits 16 surviving accused giving them benefit of doubt regarding their identity.

May 18: Trial court decision challenged in the Delhi HC by the victims' families and eyewitnesses who survived the incident.

May 29: HC issues notice to the 16 PAC personnel on Uttar Pradesh government's appeal against the trial court verdict.

December: National Human Rights Commission is impleaded in the matter.

NHRC also seeks further probe in to the massacre.

February 17, 2016: HC tags Swamy's appeal with the other petitions in the matter.

September 6, 2018: Delhi HC reserves verdict in the case.

October 31: Delhi HC convicts 16 former PAC personnel for life after finding them guilty of murder of 42 people.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sentenced 16 policemen to life imprisonment for killing 42 people of a minority community in the 1987 Hashimpura massacre case in Uttar Pradesh.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sentenced 16 policemen to life imprisonment for killing 42 people of a minority community in the 1987 Hashimpura massacre case in Uttar Pradesh. A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and Vinod Goel reversed the trial court's verdict which had acquitted the accused. The high court convicted 16 former Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) personnel for murder and of kidnapping, criminal conspiracy and destruction of evidence under the Indian Penal Code. It termed the massacre "targeted killing" of unarmed and defenceless people by the police. The high court's verdict came on pleas challenging a trial court's decision to acquit 16 policemen of charges of murder and other crimes in the case. Timeline of events The following is the chronology of events relating to 1987 Hashimpura Massacre case leading up to the Delhi High Court on Wednesday sentencing 16 ex-policemen to life imprisonment for killing 42 people of a minority community in Uttar Pradesh. May 22, 1987: 50 Muslims picked up allegedly by Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) personnel from Hashimpura village in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Victims later shot and bodies thrown into canal. 42 persons declared dead. 1988: UP government orders CB-CID probe in the case. February 1994: CB-CID submits inquiry report indicting over 60 PAC and police personnel of all ranks. May 20, 1996: Charge sheet filed against 19 accused before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad by CB-CID of Uttar Pradesh police. 161 people listed as witnesses. September 2002: Case transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court on petition by the families of victims and survivors. July 2006: Delhi court frames charges of murder, attempt to murder, tampering with evidence and conspiracy under the IPC against 17 accused. March 8, 2013: Trial court dismisses Subramanian Swamy's plea seeking probe into the alleged role of P Chidambaram, then Minister of State for Home, in the matter. January 22, 2015: Trial court reserves judgement. March 21: Court acquits 16 surviving accused giving them benefit of doubt regarding their identity. May 18: Trial court decision challenged in the Delhi HC by the victims' families and eyewitnesses who survived the incident. May 29: HC issues notice to the 16 PAC personnel on Uttar Pradesh government's appeal against the trial court verdict. December: National Human Rights Commission is impleaded in the matter. NHRC also seeks further probe in to the massacre. February 17, 2016: HC tags Swamy's appeal with the other petitions in the matter. September 6, 2018: Delhi HC reserves verdict in the case. October 31: Delhi HC convicts 16 former PAC personnel for life after finding them guilty of murder of 42 people.

1987 Hashimpura massacre: Delhi high court sentences 16 former policemen to life imprisonment

CBI Additional SP S S Gurm alleged in the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who has filed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR against him in a bribery case, was misleading the court by placing "selective" facts before it.

Gurm, who was transferred along with other CBI officials in the feud between CBI Director Alok Verma and Asthana, has sought to be made a party in the petition filed by Asthana.

The officer, who was transferred from Delhi to Jabalpur, has sought an opportunity to be heard in the case.

In an application before the high court, the additional SP claimed he has "reasonable" apprehension that CBI is seeking to protect and support Asthana and may not effectively contest the petition.

He has also sought dismissal of Asthana's petition.

The separate petitions of Asthana, Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar and alleged middleman Manoj Prasad seeking to quash the FIR against them are scheduled to be heard by Justice Najmi Waziri on Thursday.

CBI Additional SP S S Gurm alleged in the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who has filed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR against him in a bribery case, was misleading the court by placing "selective" facts before it.

CBI Additional SP S S Gurm alleged in the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who has filed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR against him in a bribery case, was misleading the court by placing "selective" facts before it. Gurm, who was transferred along with other CBI officials in the feud between CBI Director Alok Verma and Asthana, has sought to be made a party in the petition filed by Asthana. The officer, who was transferred from Delhi to Jabalpur, has sought an opportunity to be heard in the case. In an application before the high court, the additional SP claimed he has "reasonable" apprehension that CBI is seeking to protect and support Asthana and may not effectively contest the petition. He has also sought dismissal of Asthana's petition. The separate petitions of Asthana, Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar and alleged middleman Manoj Prasad seeking to quash the FIR against them are scheduled to be heard by Justice Najmi Waziri on Thursday.

CBI Additional SP Gurm approaches Delhi High Court against Asthana

The Delhi High court on Tuesday refused to stay the FIR filed by <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-arrests-its-own-deputy-sp-in-bribery-case-involving-its-special-director-172826">the CBI</a> against its own second-in-command Rakesh Asthana.&nbsp;

The court however added that no action can be taken against Asthana till Monday when CBI Director Alok Verma will have to respond to the allegations levelled by Asthana against Verma.&nbsp;

Both Verma and Asthana have accused each other of corruption.&nbsp;

Verma had accused Asthana — who is a Gujarat cadre officer — of corruption before he was appointed to the CBI. Verma pointed out the alleged corruption to the Central Vigilance Commission.&nbsp;

Asthana in turn wrote to the Central Vigilance Commission and the&nbsp;Cabinet Secretary <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-terms-allegations-against-its-director-alok-verma-as-false-and-malicious-172714">accusing Verma of corruption</a>.&nbsp;

A little later, the CBI filed the FIR against Asthana. Asthana is accused of demanding a bribe of Rs 5 crore to let businessman Satish Sana off the hook in the Moin Qureshi case.&nbsp;

"This is a case of illegal registration of FIR against CBI Spl Director (Asthana) based on a statement of an accused," Asthana's lawyer told the Delhi High Court on Tuesday.&nbsp;

"This matter is of great urgency. The person whose arrest was recommended by Asthana has now been made a complainant and based on his complaint, this FIR has been filed. Any investigation without proper permission will be illegal," Asthana's lawyer added.&nbsp;

The CBI counsel replied: "Charges very serious against the accused including that of bribery. Charges under prevention of corruption act along with criminal conspiracy. Charges of extortion and forgery will be added."&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Delhi High court on Tuesday refused to stay the FIR filed by the CBI against its own second-in-command Rakesh Asthana. The court however added that no action can be taken against Asthana till Monday when CBI Director Alok Verma will have to respond to the allegations levelled by Asthana against Verma.

The Delhi High court on Tuesday refused to stay the FIR filed by the CBI against its own second-in-command Rakesh Asthana. The court however added that no action can be taken against Asthana till Monday when CBI Director Alok Verma will have to respond to the allegations levelled by Asthana against Verma. Both Verma and Asthana have accused each other of corruption. Verma had accused Asthana — who is a Gujarat cadre officer — of corruption before he was appointed to the CBI. Verma pointed out the alleged corruption to the Central Vigilance Commission. Asthana in turn wrote to the Central Vigilance Commission and the Cabinet Secretary accusing Verma of corruption. A little later, the CBI filed the FIR against Asthana. Asthana is accused of demanding a bribe of Rs 5 crore to let businessman Satish Sana off the hook in the Moin Qureshi case. "This is a case of illegal registration of FIR against CBI Spl Director (Asthana) based on a statement of an accused," Asthana's lawyer told the Delhi High Court on Tuesday. "This matter is of great urgency. The person whose arrest was recommended by Asthana has now been made a complainant and based on his complaint, this FIR has been filed. Any investigation without proper permission will be illegal," Asthana's lawyer added. The CBI counsel replied: "Charges very serious against the accused including that of bribery. Charges under prevention of corruption act along with criminal conspiracy. Charges of extortion and forgery will be added."

Delhi High Court refuses to stay FIR filed by CBI against CBI's 2nd-in-command

A Delhi court Tuesday ordered attachment of liquor baron Vijay Mallya's properties in Bengaluru in a case relating to FERA violations.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Deepak Sherawat issued fresh directions after the Bengaluru Police, through ED's special public prosecutor N K Matta and advocate Samvedna Verma, sought more time to execute its earlier order.

The Bengaluru Police had earlier informed the court that it has identified 159 properties belonging to Mallya, but has not been able to attach any of them.

Mallya has been declared a proclaimed offender by the court on January 4 for evading its summons in the case.

The court had on 8 May directed the attachment of Mallya's properties in the case through the Bengaluru Police commissioner and sought a report on it.

It had declared Mallya a proclaimed offender for evading summons in a FERA violation case after noting that he had failed to appear despite repeated summonses.

It had on 12 April last year issued an open-ended non-bailable warrant against the liquor baron.

Unlike a non-bailable warrant, an 'open-ended NBW' does not carry a time limit for execution.

A Delhi court Tuesday ordered attachment of liquor baron Vijay Mallya's properties in Bengaluru in a case relating to FERA violations. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Deepak Sherawat issued fresh directions after the Bengaluru Police, through ED's special public prosecutor N K Matta and advocate Samvedna Verma, sought more time to execute its earlier order.

A Delhi court Tuesday ordered attachment of liquor baron Vijay Mallya's properties in Bengaluru in a case relating to FERA violations. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Deepak Sherawat issued fresh directions after the Bengaluru Police, through ED's special public prosecutor N K Matta and advocate Samvedna Verma, sought more time to execute its earlier order. The Bengaluru Police had earlier informed the court that it has identified 159 properties belonging to Mallya, but has not been able to attach any of them. Mallya has been declared a proclaimed offender by the court on January 4 for evading its summons in the case. The court had on 8 May directed the attachment of Mallya's properties in the case through the Bengaluru Police commissioner and sought a report on it. It had declared Mallya a proclaimed offender for evading summons in a FERA violation case after noting that he had failed to appear despite repeated summonses. It had on 12 April last year issued an open-ended non-bailable warrant against the liquor baron. Unlike a non-bailable warrant, an 'open-ended NBW' does not carry a time limit for execution.

Delhi court orders attachment of Mallya's properties in Bengaluru

The Delhi High Court Tuesday dismissed a plea seeking cancellation of Shashi Tharoor's anticipatory bail granted by a trial court in the Sunanda Pushkar death case.

A bench of Justice R K Gauba dismissed the plea filed by lawyer Deepak Anand challenging the Congress MP's move to bypass a magisterial court and directly approach a sessions court for anticipatory bail in the death case of his wife Sunanda Pushkar.

On September 25, the Delhi Police had partly supported the plea where the Delhi Police Standing Counsel (Criminal) Rahul Mehra informed the high court that Tharoor ought to have first gone to the magisterial court that had summoned him as an accused, to seek bail.

Delhi Police had also filed a status report in the matter.

Pushkar was found dead in a suite of a luxury hotel in the city on the night of January 17, 2014. The couple was staying in the hotel, as the official bungalow of Shashi Tharoor was being renovated at that time.&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court Tuesday dismissed a plea seeking cancellation of Shashi Tharoor's anticipatory bail granted by a trial court in the Sunanda Pushkar death case.

The Delhi High Court Tuesday dismissed a plea seeking cancellation of Shashi Tharoor's anticipatory bail granted by a trial court in the Sunanda Pushkar death case. A bench of Justice R K Gauba dismissed the plea filed by lawyer Deepak Anand challenging the Congress MP's move to bypass a magisterial court and directly approach a sessions court for anticipatory bail in the death case of his wife Sunanda Pushkar. On September 25, the Delhi Police had partly supported the plea where the Delhi Police Standing Counsel (Criminal) Rahul Mehra informed the high court that Tharoor ought to have first gone to the magisterial court that had summoned him as an accused, to seek bail. Delhi Police had also filed a status report in the matter. Pushkar was found dead in a suite of a luxury hotel in the city on the night of January 17, 2014. The couple was staying in the hotel, as the official bungalow of Shashi Tharoor was being renovated at that time.

HC dismisses plea challenging cancellation of Shashi Tharoor's bail plea in Pushkar death case

The Delhi High Court Monday allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a closure report in the case of JNU student Najeeb Ahmed, who went missing from the university nearly two years ago.

A bench of justices S Muralidhar and Vinod Goel "declined" the plea of the missing student's mother, Fatima Nafees, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and monitor the probe, thereby removing the CBI from the investigation.

The bench said Nafees, who had moved the high court in November 2016 seeking directions to the police to trace her son, "can raise all contentions available to her before the trial court" and disposed of the plea.

The court had reserved its verdict in the case on September 4.

The CBI, which had taken over the probe on May 16 last year, had after more than a year of investigation said it had looked into all the aspects of the case and was of the opinion that no offence was committed against the missing student.

Ahmed had gone missing from the Mahi-Mandvi hostel of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) here on October 15, 2016, following a scuffle with some students allegedly affiliated to the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) the previous night.

The lawyer for Nafees had contended before the court that it was a "political case" and that the "CBI has succumbed to the pressure of its masters".

Nafees had moved the high court on November 25, 2016, seeking directions to the police to trace her son.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
It's been 2 yrs. I had high hopes from Court but we didn't move even an inch. Security agencies misguided Court. We'll go to the Supreme Court. All that is happening since last 2 yrs is being done under the pressure by those sitting in power: Fatima Nafees, mother of Najeeb Ahmad <a href="https://t.co/FYRorvRCDF">pic.twitter.com/FYRorvRCDF</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1049195505459191809?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

However, as the Delhi Police remained clueless about Ahmed's whereabouts even after seven months since he went missing, the probe was handed over to the CBI on May 16 last year.

The Delhi Police had not opposed the handing over of the investigation in the case, saying it had done its bit in the matter.

The counsel for Nafees had earlier said nine students were named in a complaint filed by 18 students, who were eyewitnesses to the alleged assault on Ahmed, yet they were not interrogated.

The nine students named in the complaint have denied all the allegations against them.&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court Monday allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a closure report in the case of JNU student Najeeb Ahmed, who went missing from the university nearly two years ago.

The Delhi High Court Monday allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a closure report in the case of JNU student Najeeb Ahmed, who went missing from the university nearly two years ago. A bench of justices S Muralidhar and Vinod Goel "declined" the plea of the missing student's mother, Fatima Nafees, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and monitor the probe, thereby removing the CBI from the investigation. The bench said Nafees, who had moved the high court in November 2016 seeking directions to the police to trace her son, "can raise all contentions available to her before the trial court" and disposed of the plea. The court had reserved its verdict in the case on September 4. The CBI, which had taken over the probe on May 16 last year, had after more than a year of investigation said it had looked into all the aspects of the case and was of the opinion that no offence was committed against the missing student. Ahmed had gone missing from the Mahi-Mandvi hostel of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) here on October 15, 2016, following a scuffle with some students allegedly affiliated to the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) the previous night. The lawyer for Nafees had contended before the court that it was a "political case" and that the "CBI has succumbed to the pressure of its masters". Nafees had moved the high court on November 25, 2016, seeking directions to the police to trace her son. It's been 2 yrs. I had high hopes from Court but we didn't move even an inch. Security agencies misguided Court. We'll go to the Supreme Court. All that is happening since last 2 yrs is being done under the pressure by those sitting in power: Fatima Nafees, mother of Najeeb Ahmad pic.twitter.com/FYRorvRCDF — ANI (@ANI) October 8, 2018 × However, as the Delhi Police remained clueless about Ahmed's whereabouts even after seven months since he went missing, the probe was handed over to the CBI on May 16 last year. The Delhi Police had not opposed the handing over of the investigation in the case, saying it had done its bit in the matter. The counsel for Nafees had earlier said nine students were named in a complaint filed by 18 students, who were eyewitnesses to the alleged assault on Ahmed, yet they were not interrogated. The nine students named in the complaint have denied all the allegations against them.

Missing JNU student Najeeb Ahmed: Delhi High Court allows CBI to file closure report

Delhi High Court on Friday acquitted TV anchor and producer&nbsp;Suhaib Ilyasi in the murder case of his wife.&nbsp;

Earlier, a trial court had sentenced him to life term for the murder.

Ilyasi approached the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court order.&nbsp;

Ilyasi, the former host of the popular crime show "India's Most Wanted", &nbsp;was sentenced to life imprisonment by a Delhi court on December 20, 2017 for the murder of his wife Anju 17 years ago.&nbsp;

The court said Ilyasi "committed her murder and gave it a colour of suicide".&nbsp;

Right after the verdict, Ilyasi, 51, shouted that he was innocent and that the conviction was an "injustice".&nbsp;

Ilyasi was earlier charged under milder sections of the IPC, including 304 B (dowry death).

Anju's mother and sister Rashmi Singh had moved the Delhi High Court which in August 2014 ruled that Ilyasi would be tried for murder.

Delhi High Court on Friday acquitted TV anchor and producer Suhaib Ilyasi in the murder case of his wife. Earlier, a trial court had sentenced him to life term for the murder.

Delhi High Court on Friday acquitted TV anchor and producer Suhaib Ilyasi in the murder case of his wife. Earlier, a trial court had sentenced him to life term for the murder. Ilyasi approached the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court order. Ilyasi, the former host of the popular crime show "India's Most Wanted", was sentenced to life imprisonment by a Delhi court on December 20, 2017 for the murder of his wife Anju 17 years ago. The court said Ilyasi "committed her murder and gave it a colour of suicide". Right after the verdict, Ilyasi, 51, shouted that he was innocent and that the conviction was an "injustice". Ilyasi was earlier charged under milder sections of the IPC, including 304 B (dowry death). Anju's mother and sister Rashmi Singh had moved the Delhi High Court which in August 2014 ruled that Ilyasi would be tried for murder.

TV anchor Suhaib Ilyasi acquitted in wife's murder case 

The Delhi High Court on Monday allowed Gautam Navlakha, one of the five rights activists arrested in connection with Koregaon-Bhima case, to be freed from the house arrest.

The high court granted him the relief saying that the Supreme Court last week had given him the liberty to approach the appropriate forum within four weeks to seek further recourse, which he has availed.

The high court also quashed the trial court's transit remand order which he had challenged before the matter was taken to the apex court.

Navlakha's detention has exceeded 24 hours which was "untenable", the high court said.

A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and Vinod Goel set aside the August 28 order of chief metropolitan magistrate granting transit remand of Navlakha saying there was non-compliance of basic provisions of the Constitution and the CrPC which were mandatory in nature.

The bench said the trial court order was unsustainable in law.

"In view of Section 56 read with Section 57 of the CrPC and absence of remand order of the CMM, the detention of the petitioner has clearly exceeded 24 hours which is untenable in law. Consequently, the house arrest of the petitioner comes to an end now," the court said.

It made it clear that this order will not preclude the state of Maharashtra from proceeding further.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Very happy.For 35 days he has not stepped out. It's a political battle&amp;this is a small victory.Bigger victory is yet to come as many others are still under house arrest or in Pune Jail:Sehba Hussain,activist on Gautam Navlakha's transit remand set aside by Delhi HC <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BhimaKoregaon?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BhimaKoregaon</a> <a href="https://t.co/rGBT2SYd6w">pic.twitter.com/rGBT2SYd6w</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1046745476052078592?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 1, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

When the counsel for Maharashtra government sought the court to extend Navlakha's house arrest by two more days as the apex court has also extended it by four weeks, the bench said, the counsel has overlooked that the top court has passed this order to enable the activist to avail appropriate legal remedy.

The high court allowed the petition filed on behalf of Navlakha challenging his arrest and the transit remand order of the trial court.

Navlakha was arrested from the national capital on August 28. The other four activists were arrested from different parts of the country.

The Maharashtra police had arrested the activists on August 28 in connection with an FIR lodged following a conclave -- 'Elgaar Parishad' -- held on December 31 last year that had allegedly triggered violence later at Koregaon-Bhima village in the state.

The five activists -- Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves, Sudha Bharadwaj and Gautam Navlakha -- were put under house arrest on August 29 following an apex court order on the plea by historian Romila Thapar, economists Prabhat Patnaik and Devaki Jain, sociology professor Satish Deshpande and human rights lawyer Maja Daruwala against the police action.

Prominent Telugu poet Rao was arrested on August 28 from Hyderabad, while activists Gonsalves and Ferreira were nabbed from Mumbai, trade union activist Sudha Bharadwaj from Faridabad in Haryana and civil liberties activist Navlakha from Delhi.

The Delhi High Court on Monday allowed Gautam Navlakha, one of the five rights activists arrested in connection with Koregaon-Bhima case, to be freed from the house arrest.

The Delhi High Court on Monday allowed Gautam Navlakha, one of the five rights activists arrested in connection with Koregaon-Bhima case, to be freed from the house arrest. The high court granted him the relief saying that the Supreme Court last week had given him the liberty to approach the appropriate forum within four weeks to seek further recourse, which he has availed. The high court also quashed the trial court's transit remand order which he had challenged before the matter was taken to the apex court. Navlakha's detention has exceeded 24 hours which was "untenable", the high court said. A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and Vinod Goel set aside the August 28 order of chief metropolitan magistrate granting transit remand of Navlakha saying there was non-compliance of basic provisions of the Constitution and the CrPC which were mandatory in nature. The bench said the trial court order was unsustainable in law. "In view of Section 56 read with Section 57 of the CrPC and absence of remand order of the CMM, the detention of the petitioner has clearly exceeded 24 hours which is untenable in law. Consequently, the house arrest of the petitioner comes to an end now," the court said. It made it clear that this order will not preclude the state of Maharashtra from proceeding further. Very happy.For 35 days he has not stepped out. It's a political battle&this is a small victory.Bigger victory is yet to come as many others are still under house arrest or in Pune Jail:Sehba Hussain,activist on Gautam Navlakha's transit remand set aside by Delhi HC #BhimaKoregaon pic.twitter.com/rGBT2SYd6w — ANI (@ANI) October 1, 2018 × When the counsel for Maharashtra government sought the court to extend Navlakha's house arrest by two more days as the apex court has also extended it by four weeks, the bench said, the counsel has overlooked that the top court has passed this order to enable the activist to avail appropriate legal remedy. The high court allowed the petition filed on behalf of Navlakha challenging his arrest and the transit remand order of the trial court. Navlakha was arrested from the national capital on August 28. The other four activists were arrested from different parts of the country. The Maharashtra police had arrested the activists on August 28 in connection with an FIR lodged following a conclave -- 'Elgaar Parishad' -- held on December 31 last year that had allegedly triggered violence later at Koregaon-Bhima village in the state. The five activists -- Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves, Sudha Bharadwaj and Gautam Navlakha -- were put under house arrest on August 29 following an apex court order on the plea by historian Romila Thapar, economists Prabhat Patnaik and Devaki Jain, sociology professor Satish Deshpande and human rights lawyer Maja Daruwala against the police action. Prominent Telugu poet Rao was arrested on August 28 from Hyderabad, while activists Gonsalves and Ferreira were nabbed from Mumbai, trade union activist Sudha Bharadwaj from Faridabad in Haryana and civil liberties activist Navlakha from Delhi.

Bhima-Koregaon case: Delhi HC ends activist Gautam Navlakha's house arrest

A petitioner who sought that the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid site at Ayodhya be declared a national heritage was today asked by the Delhi High Court to file a representation in this regard before the Centre.

A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar did not issue notice on the PIL and instead asked petitioner advocate Anu Mehta to make a representation before the Union Ministry of Culture in this regard.

The bench said that the Centre may consider the representation and take a decision within three months.&nbsp

The PIL has sought a direction to the government to notify and acquire the disputed site and the monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act and declare it as the national heritage.

It further sought a direction to the Centre to preserve and protect the site, take necessary action "to preserve the monuments -- the ancient temple as well as the mosque -- independently".

"If there was a requirement to separate the superstructure from the original structure, i.E., the entire monument at the site, the sanctity of both monuments should be maintained," the plea said.

It said that the disputed site was of archaeological importance and had "ancient monuments, antique artefacts and antiques which constitute our national heritage".

"As per the Act, duty is cast upon the State to preserve ancient monuments and sites and accordingly the said site/monument ought to be accorded place and status of national importance, acquired from private owners and preserved by the state for sake of historical and cultural preservation of the country," the plea said.

A petitioner who sought that the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid site at Ayodhya be declared a national heritage was today asked by the Delhi High Court to file a representation in this regard before the Centre

A petitioner who sought that the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid site at Ayodhya be declared a national heritage was today asked by the Delhi High Court to file a representation in this regard before the Centre. A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar did not issue notice on the PIL and instead asked petitioner advocate Anu Mehta to make a representation before the Union Ministry of Culture in this regard. The bench said that the Centre may consider the representation and take a decision within three months. The PIL has sought a direction to the government to notify and acquire the disputed site and the monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act and declare it as the national heritage. It further sought a direction to the Centre to preserve and protect the site, take necessary action "to preserve the monuments -- the ancient temple as well as the mosque -- independently". "If there was a requirement to separate the superstructure from the original structure, i.E., the entire monument at the site, the sanctity of both monuments should be maintained," the plea said. It said that the disputed site was of archaeological importance and had "ancient monuments, antique artefacts and antiques which constitute our national heritage". "As per the Act, duty is cast upon the State to preserve ancient monuments and sites and accordingly the said site/monument ought to be accorded place and status of national importance, acquired from private owners and preserved by the state for sake of historical and cultural preservation of the country," the plea said.

Plea for declaration of disputed area in Ayodhya as national heritage

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has summoned P Chidambaram to appear on June 6 in connection with INX Media case, reported&nbsp;news agency ANI.&nbsp;

Former union minister secured an interim protection from arrest till July 3 only yesterday from the Delhi High Court in the same case lodged by the CBI.&nbsp;

Justice A K Pathak asked Chidambaram to join questioning and cooperate in the investigation as and when called by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).&nbsp;

The court also issued a notice to the CBI and sought its response on the senior Congress leader's anticipatory bail plea and listed the matter for further hearing on July 3, directing that the agency will not arrest him till then.&nbsp;

Chidambaram's role has come under the scanner of investigating agencies in the Aircel-Maxis deal of Rs 3,500 crore and INX Media case involving Rs 305 crore. It was during his tenure as finance minister in the UPA-1 regime that FIPB clearance was granted to the two ventures in which alleged irregularities have been found.&nbsp;

In the INX Media case, the CBI had registered an FIR on May 15 last year against alleged irregularities in the FIPB clearance to INX Media for receiving overseas funds to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when Chidambaram was finance minister.&nbsp;

Chidambaram's son Karti Chidambaram was also arrested in the matter on February 28 for allegedly receiving funds to the tune of Rs 10 lakh in the case. He was granted bail on March 23.&nbsp;

The other accused in the case include then INX Media Director Indrani Mukerjea and then INX News Director Peter Mukerjea.&nbsp;

(With PTI inputs)&nbsp;

Former union minister yesterday secured an interim protection from arrest till July 3 from the Delhi High Court in the same case lodged by the CBI.

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has summoned P Chidambaram to appear on June 6 in connection with INX Media case, reported news agency ANI. Former union minister secured an interim protection from arrest till July 3 only yesterday from the Delhi High Court in the same case lodged by the CBI. Justice A K Pathak asked Chidambaram to join questioning and cooperate in the investigation as and when called by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The court also issued a notice to the CBI and sought its response on the senior Congress leader's anticipatory bail plea and listed the matter for further hearing on July 3, directing that the agency will not arrest him till then. Chidambaram's role has come under the scanner of investigating agencies in the Aircel-Maxis deal of Rs 3,500 crore and INX Media case involving Rs 305 crore. It was during his tenure as finance minister in the UPA-1 regime that FIPB clearance was granted to the two ventures in which alleged irregularities have been found. In the INX Media case, the CBI had registered an FIR on May 15 last year against alleged irregularities in the FIPB clearance to INX Media for receiving overseas funds to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when Chidambaram was finance minister. Chidambaram's son Karti Chidambaram was also arrested in the matter on February 28 for allegedly receiving funds to the tune of Rs 10 lakh in the case. He was granted bail on March 23. The other accused in the case include then INX Media Director Indrani Mukerjea and then INX News Director Peter Mukerjea. (With PTI inputs)

INX Media case: CBI summons Chidambaram for questioning on June 6

According to reports, former Union Minister P Chidambaram filed an anticipatory bail again on Wednesday. Chidambaram moved the Delhi High Court in connection with the INX media case shortly after moving an anticipatory bail plea earlier in the day in Delhi's Patiala House Court.

Chidambaram was asked to appear before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on June 5. The Patiala House Court said that until then, no coercive action can be taken against him.&nbsp;The court also gave protection from arrest to P Chidambaram until next hearing.

The Delhi court has asked the Enforcement Directorate to come up with a reply on the anticipatory bail plea moved by P Chidambaram by June 5.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
P. Chidambaram files anticipatory bail again, this time in Delhi High Court in connection with the INX media case <a href="https://t.co/vRzPnBbCyT">pic.twitter.com/vRzPnBbCyT</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1001727697691684869?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 30, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram's son Karti Chidambaram was arrested by the CBI in February in connection with the case.

The matter pertains to grant of Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to firm M/S Global Communication Holding Services Ltd. for investment in Aircel by P Chidambaram during his tenure as the Finance Minister in the Manmohan Singh-led UPA government.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Chidambaram moved the Delhi High Court in connection with the INX media case

According to reports, former Union Minister P Chidambaram filed an anticipatory bail again on Wednesday. Chidambaram moved the Delhi High Court in connection with the INX media case shortly after moving an anticipatory bail plea earlier in the day in Delhi's Patiala House Court. Chidambaram was asked to appear before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on June 5. The Patiala House Court said that until then, no coercive action can be taken against him. The court also gave protection from arrest to P Chidambaram until next hearing. The Delhi court has asked the Enforcement Directorate to come up with a reply on the anticipatory bail plea moved by P Chidambaram by June 5. P. Chidambaram files anticipatory bail again, this time in Delhi High Court in connection with the INX media case pic.twitter.com/vRzPnBbCyT — ANI (@ANI) May 30, 2018 × Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram's son Karti Chidambaram was arrested by the CBI in February in connection with the case. The matter pertains to grant of Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to firm M/S Global Communication Holding Services Ltd. for investment in Aircel by P Chidambaram during his tenure as the Finance Minister in the Manmohan Singh-led UPA government.

INX media case: P Chidambaram files anticipatory bail in Delhi High Court

A man knocked the doors of the Delhi High Court in search of a woman whom he claimed to be his wife but she refused to go with him telling the court that she never married him.

The woman also denied the man’s claim that she was detained illegally by her brother and maintained that she was living with him willingly. She told the court that the ‘nikahnama’ (marriage certificate) claimed by the man was not genuine as she was forced to sign blank papers after being taken forcibly in a car.

With these facts coming up in the court proceedings, a bench of justices S Muralidhar and I S Mehta refused to be drawn into any further claims and counter-claims and held that it was satisfied that the woman was living with the brother of her own free will and was under “no restraint or illegal detention”. The court disposed of a habeas corpus petition filed by the man seeking direction to the woman’s brother to produce the woman, whom he claimed to have married on July 26, 2017, and said it was “not inclined to issue any directions in this petition”.

“This court would not like to enter into this controversy at this stage because as far as the habeas corpus petition is concerned, the court has to satisfy itself that the person whose production is sought by the petitioner is not under any restraint and is not being detained by anyone against that person’s wishes. “In this case, the court is satisfied that as of date, the woman is living of her own free will with her brother and is under no restraint or illegal detention. The court, accordingly, is not inclined to issue any directions in this petition,” the bench said.

The judges spoke to the woman and her brother in their chamber where she said that “no valid” marriage was performed between her and the man and she does not wish to go with him. The woman also maintained that she was staying with her brother and his family willingly and her date of birth in her Aadhaar card, produced by the man, was erroneous. The judges, thereafter, called the man and his counsel in their chamber and conveyed to them the stand of the woman. The man also denied that he had taken away the woman forcibly and made her sign papers for the purpose of marriage.

When the man’s counsel expressed apprehension over his safety, the judges said it will be for the SHO of Malviya Nagar police station to make an assessment for his protection and issue directions. The man claimed before the court that he married the woman and they both decided not to disclose this to their families. He said that in April when the woman disclosed about her marriage to her brother, he objected to it and threatened the man with dire consequences. On April 22, the man also told his parents about his marriage and they agreed to it.

While the man claimed that according to the Aadhaar card submitted at the time of marriage, the woman was born on January 1, 1998, she said she turned 18 on March 24 this year as she was born in 2000. The police had said that the man was known to the woman’s family and had also stayed at her brother’s house earlier for some years. They said that the woman had claimed that her signatures were forcibly taken by the man after she denied his marriage proposal.

While the man claimed that according to the Aadhaar card submitted at the time of marriage, the woman was born on January 1, 1998, she said she turned 18 on March 24 this year as she was born in 2000.

A man knocked the doors of the Delhi High Court in search of a woman whom he claimed to be his wife but she refused to go with him telling the court that she never married him. The woman also denied the man’s claim that she was detained illegally by her brother and maintained that she was living with him willingly. She told the court that the ‘nikahnama’ (marriage certificate) claimed by the man was not genuine as she was forced to sign blank papers after being taken forcibly in a car. With these facts coming up in the court proceedings, a bench of justices S Muralidhar and I S Mehta refused to be drawn into any further claims and counter-claims and held that it was satisfied that the woman was living with the brother of her own free will and was under “no restraint or illegal detention”. The court disposed of a habeas corpus petition filed by the man seeking direction to the woman’s brother to produce the woman, whom he claimed to have married on July 26, 2017, and said it was “not inclined to issue any directions in this petition”. “This court would not like to enter into this controversy at this stage because as far as the habeas corpus petition is concerned, the court has to satisfy itself that the person whose production is sought by the petitioner is not under any restraint and is not being detained by anyone against that person’s wishes. “In this case, the court is satisfied that as of date, the woman is living of her own free will with her brother and is under no restraint or illegal detention. The court, accordingly, is not inclined to issue any directions in this petition,” the bench said. The judges spoke to the woman and her brother in their chamber where she said that “no valid” marriage was performed between her and the man and she does not wish to go with him. The woman also maintained that she was staying with her brother and his family willingly and her date of birth in her Aadhaar card, produced by the man, was erroneous. The judges, thereafter, called the man and his counsel in their chamber and conveyed to them the stand of the woman. The man also denied that he had taken away the woman forcibly and made her sign papers for the purpose of marriage. When the man’s counsel expressed apprehension over his safety, the judges said it will be for the SHO of Malviya Nagar police station to make an assessment for his protection and issue directions. The man claimed before the court that he married the woman and they both decided not to disclose this to their families. He said that in April when the woman disclosed about her marriage to her brother, he objected to it and threatened the man with dire consequences. On April 22, the man also told his parents about his marriage and they agreed to it. While the man claimed that according to the Aadhaar card submitted at the time of marriage, the woman was born on January 1, 1998, she said she turned 18 on March 24 this year as she was born in 2000. The police had said that the man was known to the woman’s family and had also stayed at her brother’s house earlier for some years. They said that the woman had claimed that her signatures were forcibly taken by the man after she denied his marriage proposal.

Man moves Delhi High Court in search of ‘wife’, woman denies wedlock

Yoga guru Ramdev has approached the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court order removing the ban on publication and sale of a book purportedly on his life, which he claimed contained defamatory content.

Justice R K Gauba is likely to hear tomorrow his plea which has been filed against the publisher and the author of the book.

Ramdev has challenged a civil judge's April 28 order by which the court had lifted the ban on the book by setting aside the injunction order of the trial court in August last year.

The judge had struck down the order to prohibit/ban the publication and sale of the book by "stifling" the right of freedom and speech and expression guaranteed to the author and the publisher under the Article 19(1) of the Constitution till the final disposal of the suit.

In August last year, a Delhi court had restrained publisher Juggernaut Books from publishing and selling the book titled 'Godman To Tycoon', which was allegedly based on the life of the yoga guru, till further orders.

It had also restrained Amazon India and Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd from selling the book online and said any pending delivery of the book to buyers be stopped immediately.

The book was published in July last year and authored by journalist Priyanka Pathak Narain, who was represented through advocate Satyajit Sarna in the court.

Ramdev, in his suit, had alleged that the information in the book was false, tended to injure his reputation and led to an inference that the yoga guru had been involved in mischievous and criminal activities to achieve fame and success.&nbsp

The publisher had earlier said that the book was a work of serious journalism. It was the product of over fifty interviews, many of them taped, with Ramdev and key players in his life, including close aides and family members, it had said.

"The book contains a detailed 25-page note on sources that lists the interviews, articles, police reports and RTI replies that are the basis of each chapter," it had said in the statement.&nbsp

Justice R K Gauba is likely to hear tomorrow his plea which has been filed against the publisher and the author of the book.

Yoga guru Ramdev has approached the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court order removing the ban on publication and sale of a book purportedly on his life, which he claimed contained defamatory content. Justice R K Gauba is likely to hear tomorrow his plea which has been filed against the publisher and the author of the book. Ramdev has challenged a civil judge's April 28 order by which the court had lifted the ban on the book by setting aside the injunction order of the trial court in August last year. The judge had struck down the order to prohibit/ban the publication and sale of the book by "stifling" the right of freedom and speech and expression guaranteed to the author and the publisher under the Article 19(1) of the Constitution till the final disposal of the suit. In August last year, a Delhi court had restrained publisher Juggernaut Books from publishing and selling the book titled 'Godman To Tycoon', which was allegedly based on the life of the yoga guru, till further orders. It had also restrained Amazon India and Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd from selling the book online and said any pending delivery of the book to buyers be stopped immediately. The book was published in July last year and authored by journalist Priyanka Pathak Narain, who was represented through advocate Satyajit Sarna in the court. Ramdev, in his suit, had alleged that the information in the book was false, tended to injure his reputation and led to an inference that the yoga guru had been involved in mischievous and criminal activities to achieve fame and success. The publisher had earlier said that the book was a work of serious journalism. It was the product of over fifty interviews, many of them taped, with Ramdev and key players in his life, including close aides and family members, it had said. "The book contains a detailed 25-page note on sources that lists the interviews, articles, police reports and RTI replies that are the basis of each chapter," it had said in the statement.

Ramdev moves HC against lifting of ban on book on his life

Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Friday withdrew from the Delhi High Court his pleas challenging trial court orders in a criminal defamation case filed against him by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in connection with the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) row.&nbsp

The lawyers for Kejriwal told the high court that since he has been acquitted in the case after he had apologised for his statements against Jaitley in connection with alleged irregularities in DDCA, the AAP convenor's appeals against the trial court orders have become infructuous.

Taking note of the submission, Justice A K Pathak dismissed as withdrawn the two pleas seeking quashing of the summons issued to Kejriwal in the criminal defamation case and expunging of remarks made against him by the trial court.

The trial court had on April 3 acquitted Kejriwal and four other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders -- Raghav Chadha, Sanjay Singh, Ashutosh and Deepak Bajpai - after a joint application was filed by them and Jaitley to settle the matter.

The application was filed on April 2 after the AAP leaders apologised to Jaitley for their statements against him and his family in connection with alleged irregularities in the DDCA.

Jaitley had accused Kejriwal and other AAP leaders -- Kumar Viswas, Singh, Chadha, Ashutosh and Bajpai -- of making a series of "false, scandalous and defamatory" allegations against him, claiming it adversely affected his reputation.

Vishwas has not yet tendered an apology and hence, the proceedings against him shall continue.

The AAP leaders had alleged financial irregularities in the DDCA when Jaitley was its president from 2000 to 2013, prompting the minister to lodge a defamation case against them while denying all the allegations.

The criminal defamation case has been filed against Arvind Kejriwal by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in connection with the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) row

Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Friday withdrew from the Delhi High Court his pleas challenging trial court orders in a criminal defamation case filed against him by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in connection with the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) row. The lawyers for Kejriwal told the high court that since he has been acquitted in the case after he had apologised for his statements against Jaitley in connection with alleged irregularities in DDCA, the AAP convenor's appeals against the trial court orders have become infructuous. Taking note of the submission, Justice A K Pathak dismissed as withdrawn the two pleas seeking quashing of the summons issued to Kejriwal in the criminal defamation case and expunging of remarks made against him by the trial court. The trial court had on April 3 acquitted Kejriwal and four other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders -- Raghav Chadha, Sanjay Singh, Ashutosh and Deepak Bajpai - after a joint application was filed by them and Jaitley to settle the matter. The application was filed on April 2 after the AAP leaders apologised to Jaitley for their statements against him and his family in connection with alleged irregularities in the DDCA. Jaitley had accused Kejriwal and other AAP leaders -- Kumar Viswas, Singh, Chadha, Ashutosh and Bajpai -- of making a series of "false, scandalous and defamatory" allegations against him, claiming it adversely affected his reputation. Vishwas has not yet tendered an apology and hence, the proceedings against him shall continue. The AAP leaders had alleged financial irregularities in the DDCA when Jaitley was its president from 2000 to 2013, prompting the minister to lodge a defamation case against them while denying all the allegations.

Kejriwal withdraws appeal in high court against summons in defamation case

Jammu High Court Bar Association (JHCBA) tells SC that it did not support lawyers protest in connection with Kathua gangrape-murder case.

Bar Council of India tells SC that it has set up a team, headed by a former HC judge to examine the matter.

The Bar Association of Jammu on April 13 said that it was extending its strike till April 17 against the “growing illegal presence of Rohingya and Bangladeshi nationals,” while alleging that its agitation for a CBI probe into the Kathua rape-cum-murder case was wrongly being portrayed as “communal”.

(With inputs from PTI)

Bar Council of India tells SC that it has set up a team, headed by a former HC judge to examine the matter.

Jammu High Court Bar Association (JHCBA) tells SC that it did not support lawyers protest in connection with Kathua gangrape-murder case. Bar Council of India tells SC that it has set up a team, headed by a former HC judge to examine the matter. The Bar Association of Jammu on April 13 said that it was extending its strike till April 17 against the “growing illegal presence of Rohingya and Bangladeshi nationals,” while alleging that its agitation for a CBI probe into the Kathua rape-cum-murder case was wrongly being portrayed as “communal”. (With inputs from PTI)

Didn't support lawyers protest in connection with Kathua case: Jammu Bar Association to SC

Delhi High Court today directed national aviation regulator, Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), to make sure that no pilot flies for more than 125 hours in 30 consecutive days.&nbsp

The aviation watchdog added that "making pilots overwork is dangerous for the safety of passengers".

Last month, Delhi HC cracked its whip on the DGCA asking for an affidavit stating that the remaining fleet of A-320 neo planes were safe and airworthy.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi HC tells Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) that no pilot should fly for a time of more than 125 hours in 30 consecutive days, adds that, 'making pilots overwork is dangerous for safety of passengers.'
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/986554972170006528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

According to DGCA, IndiGo and GoAir together have a total of 45 A320 neo aircraft, of which 14 have been grounded till date due to engine trouble.

The direction from a bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar came on a plea which has sought the grounding of all the A320 neos till the aviation regulator certified that they are safe to fly.

(With inputs from agencies)

Making pilots overwork is dangerous for the safety of passengers: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court today directed national aviation regulator, Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), to make sure that no pilot flies for more than 125 hours in 30 consecutive days. The aviation watchdog added that "making pilots overwork is dangerous for the safety of passengers". Last month, Delhi HC cracked its whip on the DGCA asking for an affidavit stating that the remaining fleet of A-320 neo planes were safe and airworthy. Delhi HC tells Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) that no pilot should fly for a time of more than 125 hours in 30 consecutive days, adds that, 'making pilots overwork is dangerous for safety of passengers.' — ANI (@ANI) April 18, 2018 × According to DGCA, IndiGo and GoAir together have a total of 45 A320 neo aircraft, of which 14 have been grounded till date due to engine trouble. The direction from a bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar came on a plea which has sought the grounding of all the A320 neos till the aviation regulator certified that they are safe to fly. (With inputs from agencies)

No pilot should fly over 125 hours in 30 days: Delhi High Court tells DGCA

Delhi High Court has ordered media houses who had revealed the identity of Kathua rape case victim and to whom notices were issued to pay Rs 10 lakh each to the court.

According to ANI, the Court will transfer the amount to J&K victims compensation fund.

On April 13, Delhi Court had issued notices to media houses for leaking the identity of the 8-year old girl, who was gang-raped in Kathua district, in Jammu & Kashmir.

The High Court, in its notices to media houses, had sought their response as to why no action should be taken against them.

The Court also said that anyone who discloses rape victim's identity can be imprisoned for 6 months.

Next date of hearing in the case is on April 25.

The girl from the nomadic Bakerwal Muslim community had disappeared from near her home in the forests next to her village in Kathua, 90 km from here, on January 10.

A week later, her body was found in the same area.

The state police Crime Branch, which probed the case, filed the main charge sheet against seven accused persons and a separate charge sheet against a juvenile in a court in Kathua district earlier this week.

The charge sheet revealed chilling details about how the girl was allegedly kidnapped, drugged, raped inside a place of worship before being killed.

(With inputs from Agencies) 
&nbsp;

The Court will transfer the amount to J&K victims compensation fund.

Delhi High Court has ordered media houses who had revealed the identity of Kathua rape case victim and to whom notices were issued to pay Rs 10 lakh each to the court. According to ANI, the Court will transfer the amount to J&K victims compensation fund. On April 13, Delhi Court had issued notices to media houses for leaking the identity of the 8-year old girl, who was gang-raped in Kathua district, in Jammu & Kashmir. The High Court, in its notices to media houses, had sought their response as to why no action should be taken against them. The Court also said that anyone who discloses rape victim's identity can be imprisoned for 6 months. Next date of hearing in the case is on April 25. The girl from the nomadic Bakerwal Muslim community had disappeared from near her home in the forests next to her village in Kathua, 90 km from here, on January 10. A week later, her body was found in the same area. The state police Crime Branch, which probed the case, filed the main charge sheet against seven accused persons and a separate charge sheet against a juvenile in a court in Kathua district earlier this week. The charge sheet revealed chilling details about how the girl was allegedly kidnapped, drugged, raped inside a place of worship before being killed. (With inputs from Agencies)

Delhi High Court raps media houses for revealing Kathua gang rape victim's identity, says pay Rs 10 lakh each

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought a reply from former President Pranab Mukherjee on a suit filed against him in connection with his book 'Turbulent Years 1980- 1996'.

The case filed against him seeks deletion of some portions of his book which talks about the demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.

The suit is filed for allegedly hurting Hindu sentiments.

The lower court had earlier on November 30, 2016 rejected the plea seeking deletion of the contents of the&nbsp;book.

The next hearing of the case is reserved for July 30.

The book was released in 2016.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi High Court today sought reply of former president Pranab Mukherjee on a suit filed against him which seeks deletion of some portions of his 2016 book ‘Turbulent Years 1980-1996′ for allegedly hurting Hindu sentiments. Mukherjee has to reply till 30th July (file pic) <a href="https://t.co/EHEYNpKduD">pic.twitter.com/EHEYNpKduD</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/982181403222683649?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 6, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

 
 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The case filed against him seeks deletion of some portions of his book which talks about the demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought a reply from former President Pranab Mukherjee on a suit filed against him in connection with his book 'Turbulent Years 1980- 1996'. The case filed against him seeks deletion of some portions of his book which talks about the demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. The suit is filed for allegedly hurting Hindu sentiments. The lower court had earlier on November 30, 2016 rejected the plea seeking deletion of the contents of the book. The next hearing of the case is reserved for July 30. The book was released in 2016. Delhi High Court today sought reply of former president Pranab Mukherjee on a suit filed against him which seeks deletion of some portions of his 2016 book ‘Turbulent Years 1980-1996′ for allegedly hurting Hindu sentiments. Mukherjee has to reply till 30th July (file pic) pic.twitter.com/EHEYNpKduD — ANI (@ANI) April 6, 2018 ×

High Court seeks response from Pranab Mukherjee over his book for allegedly 'hurting Hindu sentiments'

delhi-high-court

Delhi High Court, News on Delhi High Court, stories on Delhi High Court, articles on Delhi High Court, Delhi High Court stories at Wion, Delhi High Court news, Delhi High Court latest news

delhi high-court