<p>In a strange and now-viral video from a Gujarat High Court virtual hearing, a man was found attending court while he was sitting on a toilet seat. The incident happened on Friday (June 20) during a hearing in front of Justice Nirzar S Desai. Legal news website Bar and Bench posted an audio recording of the proceeding that has since gone viral online.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The man is seen logged in as "Samad Battery" in the video, with a Bluetooth earphone hanging around his neck. At first, he is seen close up, but then he sets his phone away, which shows him sitting on a toilet seat. The video continues to depict him cleaning himself and later exiting the washroom. Soon after, he appears in another room, appearing oblivious to, or unconcerned with, the location he had just exposed himself in.</p>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A video showing a man attending Gujarat High Court virtual proceedings while seated on a toilet and apparently relieving himself has gone viral on the social media. <br><br>Read full story: <a href="https://t.co/FbendKMD2M">https://t.co/FbendKMD2M</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GujaratHighCourt?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#GujaratHighCourt</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/VirtualHearings?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#VirtualHearings</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/VideoConferencehearing?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#VideoConferencehearing</a>… <a href="https://t.co/spyxMiptiO">pic.twitter.com/spyxMiptiO</a></p>&mdash; Bar and Bench (@barandbench) <a href="https://twitter.com/barandbench/status/1938507921861628098?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<p>As per a report in Bar and Bench, according to court documents, the man appeared as a respondent in a case related to the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR). In fact, he was the original complainant in the case. The court went on to quash the FIR after an amicable settlement among the parties involved. The video sparked swift and sharp reactions on social media, especially from legal professionals and citizens stunned by the man’s casual misconduct.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>One of the user posted, “Only lawyers can conduct VC. If a client would like to join him, he should join from the lawyer's chamber. Such events will attract world shame. What audacity. Should be strictly punished.” Another user joked about the fellow's camera swagger, "How much trust he has on his camera placement." And in a sarcastic interpretation, one commenter said, "Contempt of court in the highest odour—I mean order."</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Notably, this is not the first time courtroom etiquette has been breached in online hearings. In April this year, the Gujarat High Court imposed a ₹50,000 fine on a litigant who had appeared through video smoking a cigarette, the report added further. A similar drama was enacted in March in a Delhi court when a litigant was called to court after being spotted smoking during a hearing.</p>

‘Loo’dicrous behaviour: Man joins Gujarat HC virtual hearing from pot seat, video goes viral-WATCH

In a strange and now-viral video from a Gujarat High Court virtual hearing, a man was found attending court while he was sitting on a toilet seat. The incident happened on Friday (June 20) during a hearing in front of Justice Nirzar S Desai. Legal news website Bar and Bench posted an audio recording of the proceeding that has since gone viral online. The man is seen logged in as "Samad Battery" in the video, with a Bluetooth earphone hanging around his neck. At first, he is seen close up, but then he sets his phone away, which shows him sitting on a toilet seat. The video continues to depict him cleaning himself and later exiting the washroom. Soon after, he appears in another room, appearing oblivious to, or unconcerned with, the location he had just exposed himself in.

<p>The video sparked swift and sharp reactions on social media, especially from legal professionals and citizens were left stunned by the man’s casual misconduct</p>

<p>Aamir Khan's son Junaid Khan's debut film <em>Maharaj</em> was all set to release on an OTT platform on Friday, June 14. The film's release, however, has been stayed by the Gujarat High Court following a plea by a Hindu group, which claimed that the film can potentially incite communal violence.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
Helmed by Siddharth P Malhotra, <em>Maharaj</em> also stars Jaideep Ahlawat and Shalini Pandey in key roles and is a period film.</p>

<p><strong>The controversy surrounding Maharaj</strong><br />
<br />
According to reports, the “stay order was issued on a petition filed on behalf of devotees of Lord Krishna and followers of Vallabhacharya, which is the Pushtimarg sect.”&nbsp;<br />
<br />
The film, which revolves around the Maharaj Libel Case of 1862, could potentially cause a rupture in public order and even incite violence against the followers of the sect.<br />
<br />
The Maharaj Libel Case of 1862 was a legal battle between a reformer and journalist who had made allegations against a prominent religious leader of misconduct. The petition points out that the case was ruled over by the English Judges of the Supreme Court of Bombay.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
It makes “seriously blasphemous comments against Lord Krishna as well as devotional songs and hymns.”</p>

<p>Meanwhile, the complaint also points out that the film has been planned to be released without sufficient promotional materials, including a trailer, so that there is limited access to the story. That could cause serious hurt to the sentiments. On these grounds, Justice Sangeeta Vishen of the Gujarat High Court passed an interim order staying the release of the movie in any manner whatsoever.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The matter has been now scheduled for a hearing on June 18.</p>

<p><strong>About <em>Maharaj </em>the film</strong><br />
<br />
Netflix, on which the film is set to release, has not given out much details about the film. As per the synopsis, the film is set in 1862.<br />
<br />
"A time when there were only three universities in India, Rabindranath Tagore is a year old and the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 continues to fan the flames of independence. Against all odds, one man takes a courageous stand in a landmark legal battle, a true story that’s now come to light in Maharaj — more than 160 years later," reads the synopsis of the film.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
“Karsandas Mulji, a journalist and social reformer, was a pioneering advocate for women’s rights and social reform. A student at Elphinstone College in Mumbai and a protégé of the scholar-leader Dadabhai Naoroji, he wrote on widow remarriage, stood up for the oppressed, and sowed the seeds of reform in society. It all came to a head in the Maharaj Libel Case of 1862, which was ignited by allegations of misconduct by a prominent figure, the case garnered widespread attention and scrutiny, setting the stage for what many consider to be one of the most significant legal battles of all time,” it added.<br />
<br />
Junaid Khan, Bollywood superstar Aamir Khan's son, plays Karsandas Mulji while Jaideep Ahlawat plays a supreme religious leader in the film.&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;</p>


Aamir Khan's son Junaid Khan's debut film Maharaj was all set to release on an OTT platform on Friday, June 14. The film's release, however, has been stayed by the Gujarat High Court following a plea by a Hindu group, which claimed that the film can potentially incite communal violence.

Aamir Khan's son Junaid Khan's debut film Maharaj was all set to release on an OTT platform on Friday, June 14. The film's release, however, has been stayed by the Gujarat High Court following a plea by a Hindu group, which claimed that the film can potentially incite communal violence. Helmed by Siddharth P Malhotra, Maharaj also stars Jaideep Ahlawat and Shalini Pandey in key roles and is a period film. The controversy surrounding Maharaj According to reports, the “stay order was issued on a petition filed on behalf of devotees of Lord Krishna and followers of Vallabhacharya, which is the Pushtimarg sect.” The film, which revolves around the Maharaj Libel Case of 1862, could potentially cause a rupture in public order and even incite violence against the followers of the sect. The Maharaj Libel Case of 1862 was a legal battle between a reformer and journalist who had made allegations against a prominent religious leader of misconduct. The petition points out that the case was ruled over by the English Judges of the Supreme Court of Bombay. It makes “seriously blasphemous comments against Lord Krishna as well as devotional songs and hymns.” Meanwhile, the complaint also points out that the film has been planned to be released without sufficient promotional materials, including a trailer, so that there is limited access to the story. That could cause serious hurt to the sentiments. On these grounds, Justice Sangeeta Vishen of the Gujarat High Court passed an interim order staying the release of the movie in any manner whatsoever. The matter has been now scheduled for a hearing on June 18. About Maharaj the film Netflix, on which the film is set to release, has not given out much details about the film. As per the synopsis, the film is set in 1862. "A time when there were only three universities in India, Rabindranath Tagore is a year old and the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 continues to fan the flames of independence. Against all odds, one man takes a courageous stand in a landmark legal battle, a true story that’s now come to light in Maharaj — more than 160 years later," reads the synopsis of the film. “Karsandas Mulji, a journalist and social reformer, was a pioneering advocate for women’s rights and social reform. A student at Elphinstone College in Mumbai and a protégé of the scholar-leader Dadabhai Naoroji, he wrote on widow remarriage, stood up for the oppressed, and sowed the seeds of reform in society. It all came to a head in the Maharaj Libel Case of 1862, which was ignited by allegations of misconduct by a prominent figure, the case garnered widespread attention and scrutiny, setting the stage for what many consider to be one of the most significant legal battles of all time,” it added. Junaid Khan, Bollywood superstar Aamir Khan's son, plays Karsandas Mulji while Jaideep Ahlawat plays a supreme religious leader in the film.

Maharaj on Netflix: Here's why Aamir Khan's son Junaid's debut film is not releasing today

<p>The Gujarat High Court in western India has declared it an "illegal act" for parents to compel children under the age of three to attend preschool.</p>

<p>The court made this statement while rejecting a bunch of petitions that challenged the state government's decision to establish six years as the minimum age requirement for Class One admission in the 2023-24 academic year.</p>

<p>A group of parents, whose children had not yet turned six by June 1, 2023, aimed to contest the state government's notification from January 31, 2020, which specified the age limit for admission to Class 1 in the 2023-24 academic year.</p>

<p>The petitioners requested the court to allow children who completed three years in preschool but hadn't yet reached the age of six by June 1, 2023, to be admitted for the current academic year.</p>

<p>They argued that denying admission would violate their right to education.</p>

<h2><strong>What did the court say?</strong></h2>

<p>The Gujarat High Court said that it's illegal on the part of parents to force their kids to attend preschool below the age of three.<br />
<br />
"Forcing children to go to a preschool below the age of three years is an illegal act on the part of the parents who are petitioners before us," the court observed.<br />
<br />
The court said that petitioners "cannot seek any leniency as they are guilty of a violation of the mandate of the Right to Education Rules (RTE), 2012 of the Right to Education Act, 2009", while referring to the law that gives all Indian children above the age of six right to study.<br />
<br />
The court said: "The right conferred upon a child by the constitutional provision of Article 21A and Section 3 of the RTE Act, 2009 begins after completion of the age of six years."</p>

<h2><strong>What does the rule say?</strong></h2>

<p>In accordance with the New Education Policy 2020&nbsp;— described as one of the most groundbreaking reforms in the Indian education system by Prime Minister Modi's administration&nbsp;—&nbsp;kids are supposed to be&nbsp;admitted at three years for nursery, four years for Lower Kindergarten (LKG), and five years for Upper Kindergarten (UKG).</p>

<p><strong>Also watch |&nbsp;India gets new education policy after 34 years | Explainer | MHRD</strong></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-gets-new-education-policy-after-34-years-explainer-mhrd-316875/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>This implies that children must complete a three-year foundation before entering Class 1 at the age of six.</p>

<p>However, reports have claimed that many preschools in Gujarat and beyond&nbsp;still adhere to the older criteria, where nursery class admission criteria stood&nbsp;at 2.5 years.</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


The Gujarat High Court in western India has declared it an "illegal act" for parents to compel children under the age of three to attend preschool. The court made this statement while rejecting a bunch of petitions that challenged the state government's decision to establish six years as the minimum age requirement for Class One admission in the 2023-24 academic year.

The Gujarat High Court in western India has declared it an "illegal act" for parents to compel children under the age of three to attend preschool. The court made this statement while rejecting a bunch of petitions that challenged the state government's decision to establish six years as the minimum age requirement for Class One admission in the 2023-24 academic year. A group of parents, whose children had not yet turned six by June 1, 2023, aimed to contest the state government's notification from January 31, 2020, which specified the age limit for admission to Class 1 in the 2023-24 academic year. The petitioners requested the court to allow children who completed three years in preschool but hadn't yet reached the age of six by June 1, 2023, to be admitted for the current academic year. They argued that denying admission would violate their right to education. What did the court say? The Gujarat High Court said that it's illegal on the part of parents to force their kids to attend preschool below the age of three. "Forcing children to go to a preschool below the age of three years is an illegal act on the part of the parents who are petitioners before us," the court observed. The court said that petitioners "cannot seek any leniency as they are guilty of a violation of the mandate of the Right to Education Rules (RTE), 2012 of the Right to Education Act, 2009", while referring to the law that gives all Indian children above the age of six right to study. The court said: "The right conferred upon a child by the constitutional provision of Article 21A and Section 3 of the RTE Act, 2009 begins after completion of the age of six years." What does the rule say? In accordance with the New Education Policy 2020 — described as one of the most groundbreaking reforms in the Indian education system by Prime Minister Modi's administration — kids are supposed to be admitted at three years for nursery, four years for Lower Kindergarten (LKG), and five years for Upper Kindergarten (UKG). Also watch | India gets new education policy after 34 years | Explainer | MHRD × This implies that children must complete a three-year foundation before entering Class 1 at the age of six. However, reports have claimed that many preschools in Gujarat and beyond still adhere to the older criteria, where nursery class admission criteria stood at 2.5 years. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

India's Gujarat High Court observes forcing kids below three to attend pre-school is illegal

<p>India’s Supreme Court on Monday (August 21) rebuked a lower court for passing an order against the top court’s ruling.</p>

<p>"What is happening in Gujarat High Court?” said the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court.</p>

<p>The strong remarks came in a case related to a rape victim who was seeking to terminate her pregnancy. As reported by NDTV, the Gujarat High Court passed an order in the case even as it was listed for hearing in the apex court on August 21.</p>

<p>Earlier, the high court had ruled against the victim and denied her relief but Supreme Court in Monday’s judgment granted her approval for terminating her pregnancy.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“No court in India can pass an order against a superior court order. It is against constitutional philosophy," the SC bench noted.</p>

<h2><strong>Gujarat government issues clarification</strong></h2>

<p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented Gujarat government in the Supreme Court, defended the court’s move by claiming that the Saturday order was passed just to fix a “clerical error.”</p>

<p><strong>Watch:&nbsp;Supreme Court of India issues handbook to remove gender stereotypes from law</strong></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/supreme-court-of-india-issues-handbook-to-remove-gender-stereotypes-from-law-626498/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>"There was a clerical error in the previous order and that was fixed on Saturday. It was a misunderstanding," Mehta said while assuring the top court that the state government shall request the high court to recall the order.</p>

<h2><strong>Supreme Court vs High Court</strong></h2>

<p>Earlier on Saturday, the Supreme Court chided the lower court for its "lackadaisical attitude" in the sensitive case, saying “valuable time" has been lost.</p>

<p>The 25-year-old victim had initially approached the high court on August 7, following which the court directed the formation of&nbsp; a medical board to look into the status of her pregnancy.</p>

<p>The report prepared by the board, which ruled that the pregnancy can be terminated, was taken up by the high court on August 11.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-supreme-court-identifies-words-promoting-stereotypes-against-women-suggests-alternate-phrases-626073"><strong>Also read:&nbsp;`Housewife, ladylike`: India Supreme Court gives alternatives to words that stereotype women</strong></a></p>

<p>However, as per the Supreme Court, the lower court “strangely” listed the matter for 12 days later, "losing sight of the fact that every day's delay was crucial and of great significance having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case".</p>

<h2><strong>Latest judgment by Supreme Court</strong></h2>

<p>India’s apex court on Monday issued a fresh judgment in the case taking into consideration the latest status report.</p>

<p>“Subsequent to the medical procedure to be carried out, in the event the foetus is found to be alive, the hospital is to give all facilities including incubation to ensure the foetus survives. The State shall then take steps to ensure the child is adopted in accordance with law," the Supreme Court said.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


India’s Supreme Court on Monday (August 21) rebuked a lower court for passing an order against the top court’s ruling. "What is happening in Gujarat High Court?” said the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court.

India’s Supreme Court on Monday (August 21) rebuked a lower court for passing an order against the top court’s ruling. "What is happening in Gujarat High Court?” said the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court. The strong remarks came in a case related to a rape victim who was seeking to terminate her pregnancy. As reported by NDTV, the Gujarat High Court passed an order in the case even as it was listed for hearing in the apex court on August 21. Earlier, the high court had ruled against the victim and denied her relief but Supreme Court in Monday’s judgment granted her approval for terminating her pregnancy. “No court in India can pass an order against a superior court order. It is against constitutional philosophy," the SC bench noted. Gujarat government issues clarification Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented Gujarat government in the Supreme Court, defended the court’s move by claiming that the Saturday order was passed just to fix a “clerical error.” Watch: Supreme Court of India issues handbook to remove gender stereotypes from law × "There was a clerical error in the previous order and that was fixed on Saturday. It was a misunderstanding," Mehta said while assuring the top court that the state government shall request the high court to recall the order. Supreme Court vs High Court Earlier on Saturday, the Supreme Court chided the lower court for its "lackadaisical attitude" in the sensitive case, saying “valuable time" has been lost. The 25-year-old victim had initially approached the high court on August 7, following which the court directed the formation of a medical board to look into the status of her pregnancy. The report prepared by the board, which ruled that the pregnancy can be terminated, was taken up by the high court on August 11. Also read: `Housewife, ladylike`: India Supreme Court gives alternatives to words that stereotype women However, as per the Supreme Court, the lower court “strangely” listed the matter for 12 days later, "losing sight of the fact that every day's delay was crucial and of great significance having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case". Latest judgment by Supreme Court India’s apex court on Monday issued a fresh judgment in the case taking into consideration the latest status report. “Subsequent to the medical procedure to be carried out, in the event the foetus is found to be alive, the hospital is to give all facilities including incubation to ensure the foetus survives. The State shall then take steps to ensure the child is adopted in accordance with law," the Supreme Court said. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Court vs court in India: Gujarat High Court passes order against Supreme Court ruling

<p>The Gujarat High Court Tuesday rejected the plea filed for interim protection for Rahul Gandhi, India’s top opposition leader from Congress, regarding his conviction in the 'Modi-Thieves' remark case. The Bench of Justice Hemant Prachchhak also reserved its order in the plea filed by Gandhi in which he sought a stay on his conviction.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The High Court’s decision will now be made public post-High Court vacations. Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi was representing Gandhi in the court while Senior Advocate Nirupam Nanvaty was arguing for the complainant Purnnesh Modi.</p>

<h2><strong>Rahul Gandhi should not make hue and cry: Advocate Nirupam Nanvaty</strong></h2>

<p>Gandhi is seeking a stay on his conviction as it will pave the way for him to get the membership of Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Indian Parliament, back. However, senior advocate Nirupam Nanvaty argued Gandhi must not be granted any relief since he was not showing any remorse for his remarks “against the Modi community.”&nbsp;</p>

<p>He said, “Even after his conviction by the Surat Court, he did not stop from making comments. He (Rahul Gandhi) said that he is not scared of sentence, prison and that he is not going to back down even if disqualified for the rest of his life. This is his public stand.”&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Watch:&nbsp;Rahul Gandhi convicted, gets bail in 2019 defamation case</strong></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/rahul-gandhi-convicted-gets-bail-in-2019-defamation-case-wion-dispatch-575044/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>“He also said that he has been given the best gift ever, so then, why is he scared now? You should keep this gift with you...But before the Court, his stand is different,” Nanvaty further added. The advocate also said Gandhi must not raise hue and cry since he doesn’t want to issue an apology in the case.</p>

<h2><strong>Singhvi describes Rahul’s disqualification as a great loss</strong></h2>

<p>Meanwhile, advocate Abhishek Singhvi suggested Rahul’s disqualification undermines the democratic framework of the country. Singhvi argued, "He will lose the present session, the next session, meetings...There is a loss to him, he loses the right to represent the voice of people. The people of the constituency lose their voice. The entire right of collectivity "we the people" is lost.”</p>

<p><strong>Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/who-is-rahul-gandhi-the-indian-opposition-leader-disqualified-from-parliament-575302">Explained: Who is Rahul Gandhi, the Indian opposition leader disqualified from parliament?</a></strong></p>

<p>He strongly recommended the court suspends all charges against Rahul Gandhi as the alleged offence did not involve the element of moral turpitude, and it was a non-cognizable, bailable and non-serious offence.</p>

<p>Rahul Gandhi moved to the Gujarat High Court on April 25 after the Surat Court rejected his plea seeking a stay on his conviction. Now, the High Court will issue a detailed verdict on the case post vacations, which are slated to end in June.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


The Gujarat High Court Tuesday rejected the plea filed for interim protection for Rahul Gandhi, India’s top opposition leader from Congress, regarding his conviction in the 'Modi-Thieves' remark case.

The Gujarat High Court Tuesday rejected the plea filed for interim protection for Rahul Gandhi, India’s top opposition leader from Congress, regarding his conviction in the 'Modi-Thieves' remark case. The Bench of Justice Hemant Prachchhak also reserved its order in the plea filed by Gandhi in which he sought a stay on his conviction. The High Court’s decision will now be made public post-High Court vacations. Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi was representing Gandhi in the court while Senior Advocate Nirupam Nanvaty was arguing for the complainant Purnnesh Modi. Rahul Gandhi should not make hue and cry: Advocate Nirupam Nanvaty Gandhi is seeking a stay on his conviction as it will pave the way for him to get the membership of Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Indian Parliament, back. However, senior advocate Nirupam Nanvaty argued Gandhi must not be granted any relief since he was not showing any remorse for his remarks “against the Modi community.” He said, “Even after his conviction by the Surat Court, he did not stop from making comments. He (Rahul Gandhi) said that he is not scared of sentence, prison and that he is not going to back down even if disqualified for the rest of his life. This is his public stand.” Watch: Rahul Gandhi convicted, gets bail in 2019 defamation case × “He also said that he has been given the best gift ever, so then, why is he scared now? You should keep this gift with you...But before the Court, his stand is different,” Nanvaty further added. The advocate also said Gandhi must not raise hue and cry since he doesn’t want to issue an apology in the case. Singhvi describes Rahul’s disqualification as a great loss Meanwhile, advocate Abhishek Singhvi suggested Rahul’s disqualification undermines the democratic framework of the country. Singhvi argued, "He will lose the present session, the next session, meetings...There is a loss to him, he loses the right to represent the voice of people. The people of the constituency lose their voice. The entire right of collectivity "we the people" is lost.” Also Read | Explained: Who is Rahul Gandhi, the Indian opposition leader disqualified from parliament? He strongly recommended the court suspends all charges against Rahul Gandhi as the alleged offence did not involve the element of moral turpitude, and it was a non-cognizable, bailable and non-serious offence. Rahul Gandhi moved to the Gujarat High Court on April 25 after the Surat Court rejected his plea seeking a stay on his conviction. Now, the High Court will issue a detailed verdict on the case post vacations, which are slated to end in June. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Gujarat High Court refuses to entertain Rahul Gandhi’s plea for interim protection, reserves order on stay

<p>The Gujarat high court announced on Saturday (April 29)&nbsp;that it will continue hearing Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's plea on May 2 in which he is contesting the Surat sessions court's decision to deny a stay of his conviction in a criminal defamation case stemming from his remark regarding the "Modi surname."</p>

<p>Gandhi filed a criminal revision&nbsp;application&nbsp;with the Gujarat high court, challenging the ruling of the sessions court. Justice Hemant Prachchhak took up the case, as reported by PTI.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Gandhi's readmission as a member of Parliament could be possible if the high court accepts his appeal.&nbsp;After the case was brought before the high court judge&nbsp;Justice Gita Gopi on Wednesday for an urgent hearing, she decided not to hear it.</p>

<p>The court of Justice Prachchhak was then given the case.&nbsp;Gandhi is being represented in the high court by renowned attorney and Congress politician Abhishek Manu Singhvi.</p>

<p>On March 23, a metropolitan magistrate's court in Surat condemned the former president of the Congress to two years in prison after holding him guilty of violating Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 499 and 500 (criminal defamation) in a case brought by Gujarat MLA for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Purnesh Modi in 2019.</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-to-ban-sugar-exports-amid-decline-in-production-report-587295"><strong>I</strong>ndia to ban sugar exports amid decline in production: Report</a></p>

<p>Gandhi, who was elected to the Lok Sabha in 2019 from the parliamentary constituency of Wayanad in Kerala, was later declared ineligible to serve as an MP under the terms of the Representation of the People Act.</p>

<p>He filed a petition for a stay of the conviction along with a challenge to the ruling before the Surat sessions court.</p>

<p>The judge on April 20 granted him bail but declined to stay the conviction.&nbsp;Gandhi's "How come all thieves have Modi surname" comment caused Purnesh Modi to initiate a criminal defamation lawsuit against him.</p>

<h2><strong>Important points on the defamation case</strong></h2>

<p><strong>-&nbsp;</strong>Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahul&nbsp;Gandhi, told the High Court that "very serious ex-facie vitiating factors of the trial raise grave apprehensions about the process of trial that led to the conviction."</p>

<p>-&nbsp;In his appeal in the Surat court to freeze the conviction,&nbsp;Gandhi said the court treated him harshly and was overwhelmingly influenced by his status as an MP.</p>

<p><strong>ALSO WATCH |&nbsp;SCO Summit 2023: Rajnath Singh chairs SCO Defence Ministers meeting in New Delhi</strong></p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-summit-2023-rajnath-singh-chairs-sco-defence-ministers-meeting-in-new-delhi-587250/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<p>-&nbsp;The judge disagreed with Gandhi's contention and said he had "failed to satisfy that by not staying the conviction and denying an opportunity to contest the election, an irreversible and irrevocable damage will be caused to him".</p>

<p>-&nbsp;Aiming at the Prime Minister over his surname, which he shares with fugitive businessmen Lalit Modi and Nirav Modi, Rahul Gandhi stated during the Lok Sabha election campaign in 2019: "How come all thieves have the common surname Modi."</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:</strong></p>

<p><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></p>


The Gujarat high court announced on Saturday (April 29) that it will continue hearing Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's plea on May 2 in which he is contesting the Surat sessions court's decision to deny a stay of his conviction in a criminal defamation case stemming from his remark regarding the "Modi surname.

The Gujarat high court announced on Saturday (April 29) that it will continue hearing Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's plea on May 2 in which he is contesting the Surat sessions court's decision to deny a stay of his conviction in a criminal defamation case stemming from his remark regarding the "Modi surname." Gandhi filed a criminal revision application with the Gujarat high court, challenging the ruling of the sessions court. Justice Hemant Prachchhak took up the case, as reported by PTI. Gandhi's readmission as a member of Parliament could be possible if the high court accepts his appeal. After the case was brought before the high court judge Justice Gita Gopi on Wednesday for an urgent hearing, she decided not to hear it. The court of Justice Prachchhak was then given the case. Gandhi is being represented in the high court by renowned attorney and Congress politician Abhishek Manu Singhvi. On March 23, a metropolitan magistrate's court in Surat condemned the former president of the Congress to two years in prison after holding him guilty of violating Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 499 and 500 (criminal defamation) in a case brought by Gujarat MLA for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Purnesh Modi in 2019. ALSO READ | India to ban sugar exports amid decline in production: Report Gandhi, who was elected to the Lok Sabha in 2019 from the parliamentary constituency of Wayanad in Kerala, was later declared ineligible to serve as an MP under the terms of the Representation of the People Act. He filed a petition for a stay of the conviction along with a challenge to the ruling before the Surat sessions court. The judge on April 20 granted him bail but declined to stay the conviction. Gandhi's "How come all thieves have Modi surname" comment caused Purnesh Modi to initiate a criminal defamation lawsuit against him. Important points on the defamation case - Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahul Gandhi, told the High Court that "very serious ex-facie vitiating factors of the trial raise grave apprehensions about the process of trial that led to the conviction." - In his appeal in the Surat court to freeze the conviction, Gandhi said the court treated him harshly and was overwhelmingly influenced by his status as an MP. ALSO WATCH | SCO Summit 2023: Rajnath Singh chairs SCO Defence Ministers meeting in New Delhi - The judge disagreed with Gandhi's contention and said he had "failed to satisfy that by not staying the conviction and denying an opportunity to contest the election, an irreversible and irrevocable damage will be caused to him". - Aiming at the Prime Minister over his surname, which he shares with fugitive businessmen Lalit Modi and Nirav Modi, Rahul Gandhi stated during the Lok Sabha election campaign in 2019: "How come all thieves have the common surname Modi." (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

India: Gujarat High Court to resume hearing Rahul Gandhi’s defamation case appeal on May 2

<p>The Gujarat High Court on Friday quashed a seven-year-old order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) asking the Gujarat University to provide information on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.<br />
<br />
Allowing the Gujarat University’s appeal against the CIC order, Justice Biren Vaishnav also imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on Kejriwal and asked him to deposit the amount within four weeks to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority (GSLSA).<br />
<br />
“This court finds that the CIC while passing the impugned order was well aware that what it was directing was not a specific and certain but a fishing and roving enquiry,” said Justice Vaishnav in his order.&nbsp;“Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order (of CIC), dated April 29, 2016, is quashed and set aside,” said Justice Vaishnav in his order.<br />
<br />
Justice Vaishnav also refused to stay his order as requested by Kejriwal's lawyer Percy Kavina.<br />
<br />
Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/openais-chatgpt-blocked-in-italy-reports-577685">OpenAI’s ChatGPT blocked in Italy over alleged privacy violations</a><br />
<br />
The HC observed that despite the degree in question being put on the website of the university for all to see, and Kejriwal never ever disputing the degree in question either during the pendency of these proceedings or even during final hearing, he has persisted with the matter.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
This is one more reason to impose costs while allowing this petition, the HC order said.</p>

<p>“This court finds that the question of whether education qualifications are personal information or not is no more <em>res integra</em> and already stands authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Supra),” it said.</p>

<p>“In the said judgment, the Constitution Bench of the apex court has unequivocally held that personal professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. Are all personal information and such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy,” the HC said in its order.</p>

<p>The Commission being a statutory authority ought to have kept the aforesaid principles in mind while dealing with the oral request of Kejriwal and ought not to have made an exception in the present case, the HC said.</p>

<p>Treating the present case as an exception completely justifies the submission of the petitioner (university) that extraneous considerations have gone into the decision making process of the Commission, said the order. “There has been an indiscriminate misuse of the salutary provisions of the RTI Act in the present case for the purposes not contemplated by the legislature while enacting the said Act,” said Justice Vaishnav.<br />
<br />
Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/in-pics-top-10-corrupt-countries-in-the-world-577675">Top 10 corrupt countries in the world</a><br />
<br />
Expressing surprise that the CIC entertained Kejriwal's request and issued an order, the court said, “Such requests cannot be made so casually making mockery of the very intent and purpose of the RTI Act.”<br />
<br />
The court further observed that Kejriwal “doubtlessly used an appeal against him to kick start and trigger a controversy not falling within the purview of the RTI Act”.<br />
<br />
<strong>Watch | Will Ben Stokes be CSK's impact player? | WION Sports Extra</strong></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/will-ben-stokes-be-csks-impact-player-wion-sports-extra-577698/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>“Having found both the requests by respondent No.2 (Kejriwal) and the order by the CIC being absolutely causal and having found that neither such request was competent nor such an order could have been passed and keeping in view the salutary object of the RTI Act, this court thinks it fit to allow the present petition with a direction to Respondent No.2 to pay costs,” the HC order said.<br />
<br />
Justice Vaishnav said since the CIC was well aware of the fact that the university will face difficulty in searching that information, it did not set any time limit.<br />
<br />
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) said it would appeal against the order.</p>

<p>BJP also took jibe at Kejriwal after the court’s ruling. BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawala said, “Lying &amp; making obnoxious remarks, peddling lies against the chair of the PM has become a fashion &amp; Kejriwal is in strong competition with Rahul Gandhi in this regard. But today, he has been shown his place by High Court! Hope Kejriwal ji doesn’t make scurrilous comments on judiciary like Rahul now! That would count as being literate and yet uneducated.”</p>

<p>During hearing of the case, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta had argued that publishing a student’s degree via the RTI will breach the privacy of the individual while testifying on behalf of the institution on February 9 this year. He also submitted&nbsp;in court that the details of PM Modi’s degrees were already in the public domain,&nbsp;on the university’s website.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


The Gujarat High Court on Friday quashed a seven-year-old order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) asking the Gujarat University to provide information on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

The Gujarat High Court on Friday quashed a seven-year-old order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) asking the Gujarat University to provide information on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Allowing the Gujarat University’s appeal against the CIC order, Justice Biren Vaishnav also imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on Kejriwal and asked him to deposit the amount within four weeks to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority (GSLSA). “This court finds that the CIC while passing the impugned order was well aware that what it was directing was not a specific and certain but a fishing and roving enquiry,” said Justice Vaishnav in his order. “Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order (of CIC), dated April 29, 2016, is quashed and set aside,” said Justice Vaishnav in his order. Justice Vaishnav also refused to stay his order as requested by Kejriwal's lawyer Percy Kavina. Also Read | OpenAI’s ChatGPT blocked in Italy over alleged privacy violations The HC observed that despite the degree in question being put on the website of the university for all to see, and Kejriwal never ever disputing the degree in question either during the pendency of these proceedings or even during final hearing, he has persisted with the matter. This is one more reason to impose costs while allowing this petition, the HC order said. “This court finds that the question of whether education qualifications are personal information or not is no more res integra and already stands authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Supra),” it said. “In the said judgment, the Constitution Bench of the apex court has unequivocally held that personal professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. Are all personal information and such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy,” the HC said in its order. The Commission being a statutory authority ought to have kept the aforesaid principles in mind while dealing with the oral request of Kejriwal and ought not to have made an exception in the present case, the HC said. Treating the present case as an exception completely justifies the submission of the petitioner (university) that extraneous considerations have gone into the decision making process of the Commission, said the order. “There has been an indiscriminate misuse of the salutary provisions of the RTI Act in the present case for the purposes not contemplated by the legislature while enacting the said Act,” said Justice Vaishnav. Also Read | Top 10 corrupt countries in the world Expressing surprise that the CIC entertained Kejriwal's request and issued an order, the court said, “Such requests cannot be made so casually making mockery of the very intent and purpose of the RTI Act.” The court further observed that Kejriwal “doubtlessly used an appeal against him to kick start and trigger a controversy not falling within the purview of the RTI Act”. Watch | Will Ben Stokes be CSK's impact player? | WION Sports Extra × “Having found both the requests by respondent No.2 (Kejriwal) and the order by the CIC being absolutely causal and having found that neither such request was competent nor such an order could have been passed and keeping in view the salutary object of the RTI Act, this court thinks it fit to allow the present petition with a direction to Respondent No.2 to pay costs,” the HC order said. Justice Vaishnav said since the CIC was well aware of the fact that the university will face difficulty in searching that information, it did not set any time limit. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) said it would appeal against the order. BJP also took jibe at Kejriwal after the court’s ruling. BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawala said, “Lying & making obnoxious remarks, peddling lies against the chair of the PM has become a fashion & Kejriwal is in strong competition with Rahul Gandhi in this regard. But today, he has been shown his place by High Court! Hope Kejriwal ji doesn’t make scurrilous comments on judiciary like Rahul now! That would count as being literate and yet uneducated.” During hearing of the case, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta had argued that publishing a student’s degree via the RTI will breach the privacy of the individual while testifying on behalf of the institution on February 9 this year. He also submitted in court that the details of PM Modi’s degrees were already in the public domain, on the university’s website. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

HC quashes CIC order on PM Modi’s degree, imposes Rs 25,000 cost on Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal

<p>Senior Congress leader Ahmed Patel will be Thursday examined as a witness in the Gujarat High Court which is hearing a petition challenging his election to the Rajya Sabha from the state in 2017.</p>

<p>Patel will be cross-examined by the lawyers of BJP leader Balvantsinh Rajput, his rival in the election.</p>

<p>The court had earlier rejected Patel's application seeking more time and ordered him to remain present on June 20.</p>

<p>Rajput filed the election petition after he was defeated in the Rajya Sabha election held on August 8, 2017.</p>

<p>A former Congress MLA who switched over to the BJP, Rajput has accused Patel of bribing MLAs for getting votes.</p>

<p>Further, he has sought to quash the Election Commission's order invalidating the votes cast by two rebel Congress MLAs in his favour.</p>

<p>He has also sought invalidation of votes of two Congress MLAs which were counted and which went to Patel.</p>

<p>The EC's decision to invalidate the votes of then rebel Congress MLAs Bholabhai Gohil and Raghavji Patel helped Ahmed Patel get 44 votes, the minimum he needed to win. Rajput polled 38 votes.&nbsp;</p>


Senior Congress leader Ahmed Patel will be Thursday examined as a witness in the Gujarat High Court which is hearing a petition challenging his election to the Rajya Sabha from the state in 2017.

Senior Congress leader Ahmed Patel will be Thursday examined as a witness in the Gujarat High Court which is hearing a petition challenging his election to the Rajya Sabha from the state in 2017. Patel will be cross-examined by the lawyers of BJP leader Balvantsinh Rajput, his rival in the election. The court had earlier rejected Patel's application seeking more time and ordered him to remain present on June 20. Rajput filed the election petition after he was defeated in the Rajya Sabha election held on August 8, 2017. A former Congress MLA who switched over to the BJP, Rajput has accused Patel of bribing MLAs for getting votes. Further, he has sought to quash the Election Commission's order invalidating the votes cast by two rebel Congress MLAs in his favour. He has also sought invalidation of votes of two Congress MLAs which were counted and which went to Patel. The EC's decision to invalidate the votes of then rebel Congress MLAs Bholabhai Gohil and Raghavji Patel helped Ahmed Patel get 44 votes, the minimum he needed to win. Rajput polled 38 votes.

Ahmed Patel to be examined in Gujarat high court on election petition

<p>On the fateful morning of 27 February 2002, 59 people died in a fire inside the Sabarmati Express train near the Godhra railway station in the Indian state of Gujarat. All of them were <em>kar</em><em> </em><em>sevaks</em> who were returning after a religious ceremony at the disputed Babri Masjid site.&nbsp;</p>

<p>On the way, coach S6 of Sabarmati Express was set on fire. The tragedy of the incident did not end there but spilled into a terrible riot across the state of Gujarat. The retaliatory spree of the rioting mob killed hundreds of Muslims, displacing thousands of others as homes were set on fire.</p>

<p>The hearing on the case has continued for more than a decade. Initially, 11 of the perpetrators of the Godhra carnage were given death sentences. But, recently, in a verdict given by the Gujarat High Court, the bench of Justices Anant S Dave and G.R. Udhwani has commuted the sentence of the 11 convicts into life imprisonment.&nbsp;</p>

<p>WION spoke to human rights activist and the Director of Human Rights Watch in South Asia, Meenakshi Ganguly on the issue.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>What is key is a criminal justice system that conducts a fair and impartial investigation to identify perpetrators and then prosecutes them with enough credible evidence to ensure a conviction.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text= What is key is a criminal justice system that conducts a fair and impartial investigation to identify perpetrators and then prosecutes them with enough credible evidence to ensure a conviction." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p><strong>1. Has justice been done in giving life imprisonment terms for 11 convicts of the Godhra train burning incident?</strong></p>

<p>The High Court, on October 10, ruled on an appeal in the Godhra case, commuting 11 death sentences to life imprisonment. Under the Indian constitution, everyone has the right to a fair trial and the right of appeal. In the 2002 cases from Gujarat, most of those convicted-- both in the Sabarmati Express attack in Godhra, as well as for the subsequent attacks on Muslims in various parts of Gujarat including those claiming to be supporters of the government-- have appealed the verdict. Prosecutors can also appeal the verdict, as also happened in this case. The High Court has upheld the 2011 special court ruling, convicting 31 and acquitting 63.</p>

<p>For victims and their families, what is key is a criminal justice system that conducts a fair and impartial investigation to identify perpetrators and then prosecutes them with enough credible evidence to ensure a conviction.</p>

<p>Many believe that violent crimes deserve the capital punishment. We, however, oppose the death penalty in all countries and under all circumstances because it is unique in its cruelty and finality, and is plagued with arbitrariness, prejudice, and error. In its December 18, 2007 resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty, the UN General Assembly stated that &ldquo;there is no conclusive evidence of the death penalty&rsquo;s deterrent value and that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the death penalty&rsquo;s implementation is irreversible and irreparable.&rdquo;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>We oppose the death penalty. But, of course, those responsible for these deaths need to be held to account.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=We oppose the death penalty. But, of course, those responsible for these deaths need to be held to account. " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p><strong>2. The Gujarat High Court has cited 2 reasons for commuting the death sentence: &quot;overcrowdedness&quot; of the coach &amp; &quot;more than 100 people could escape&quot;. Do you see these as sufficient reasons to rule out premeditated murder?</strong></p>

<p>There have been various inquiries into the circumstances that led to the horrible deaths of 59 people on the Sabarmati Express. What is not in doubt is that there was a mob attack on the train and that scores were killed or injured. Since 2002, we continue to see incidents of vigilante violence, often based on racial or religious prejudice. It is crucial that the state draw some lessons. The Gujarat High Court, for instance, said that it was highly charged communal environment at that time, and the state administration should have been much more active in ensuring the protection of pilgrims, particularly in an area that was known to be prone to violence.</p>

<p><strong>3. 59 people died that day but can a state hang eleven people for the crime committed?&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p>We oppose the death penalty. But, of course, those responsible for these deaths need to be held to account. The High Court has upheld convictions after hearing appeals. It has, however, we believe also upheld humane principles and commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment.</p>

<p><strong>4. The High Court has blamed the state administration for its failure to maintain law &amp; order, leading to </strong><strong>kar</strong><strong> </strong><strong>seva</strong><strong>. Who do you think should take moral responsibility for the failure?</strong></p>

<p>It is the responsibility of the state to protect lives, and the administration clearly failed to take necessary steps to protect the pilgrims. The High Court has ordered the state to bear responsibility and pay compensation to the victims.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>We will seek the prosecution of someone responsible for a crime, but will then defend the right of that same accused to a fair trial.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=We will seek the prosecution of someone responsible for a crime, but will then defend the right of that same accused to a fair trial." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p><strong>5. Does the Human Rights Watch still hold on to the view that the government and the Court have been particularly slow in bringing the people involved in Gujarat riots to justice? Particularly, in comparison to the case filed on Godhra?</strong></p>

<p>There have been three incidents of massive communal violence in recent decades. The mass attacks on Sikhs in 1984 after the Indira Gandhi assassination, the 1992-93 attacks on Muslims around the demolition of the Babri Masjid, and then the 2002 attacks on Muslims, killing hundreds after 59 Hindus died during a mob attack on the Sabarmati Express.</p>

<p>In the 1984 and 1992-93 cases, the justice process is stalled despite numerous inquiries. In the Gujarat cases, because of interventions of the Supreme Court, the National Human Rights Commission, and the appointment of independent investigators, there has been progress in a number of cases. People, including those that held office in the Gujarat administration, have been convicted.</p>

<p><strong>6. As a human rights activist, in a situation like this, how do you decide whose side you take? Whose cause do you fight for?</strong></p>

<p>We don&rsquo;t have to take sides. Our role is to ensure that the state abides by the constitution and upholds international standards. We will seek the prosecution of someone responsible for a crime, but will then defend the right of that same accused to a fair trial.</p>


The Gujarat High Court has booked the guilty while passing a 'humane' judgement, says Meenakshi Ganguly of Human Rights Watch

On the fateful morning of 27 February 2002, 59 people died in a fire inside the Sabarmati Express train near the Godhra railway station in the Indian state of Gujarat. All of them were kar sevaks who were returning after a religious ceremony at the disputed Babri Masjid site. On the way, coach S6 of Sabarmati Express was set on fire. The tragedy of the incident did not end there but spilled into a terrible riot across the state of Gujarat. The retaliatory spree of the rioting mob killed hundreds of Muslims, displacing thousands of others as homes were set on fire. The hearing on the case has continued for more than a decade. Initially, 11 of the perpetrators of the Godhra carnage were given death sentences. But, recently, in a verdict given by the Gujarat High Court, the bench of Justices Anant S Dave and G.R. Udhwani has commuted the sentence of the 11 convicts into life imprisonment. WION spoke to human rights activist and the Director of Human Rights Watch in South Asia, Meenakshi Ganguly on the issue. What is key is a criminal justice system that conducts a fair and impartial investigation to identify perpetrators and then prosecutes them with enough credible evidence to ensure a conviction. × 1. Has justice been done in giving life imprisonment terms for 11 convicts of the Godhra train burning incident? The High Court, on October 10, ruled on an appeal in the Godhra case, commuting 11 death sentences to life imprisonment. Under the Indian constitution, everyone has the right to a fair trial and the right of appeal. In the 2002 cases from Gujarat, most of those convicted-- both in the Sabarmati Express attack in Godhra, as well as for the subsequent attacks on Muslims in various parts of Gujarat including those claiming to be supporters of the government-- have appealed the verdict. Prosecutors can also appeal the verdict, as also happened in this case. The High Court has upheld the 2011 special court ruling, convicting 31 and acquitting 63. For victims and their families, what is key is a criminal justice system that conducts a fair and impartial investigation to identify perpetrators and then prosecutes them with enough credible evidence to ensure a conviction. Many believe that violent crimes deserve the capital punishment. We, however, oppose the death penalty in all countries and under all circumstances because it is unique in its cruelty and finality, and is plagued with arbitrariness, prejudice, and error. In its December 18, 2007 resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty, the UN General Assembly stated that “there is no conclusive evidence of the death penalty’s deterrent value and that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the death penalty’s implementation is irreversible and irreparable.” We oppose the death penalty. But, of course, those responsible for these deaths need to be held to account. × 2. The Gujarat High Court has cited 2 reasons for commuting the death sentence: "overcrowdedness" of the coach & "more than 100 people could escape". Do you see these as sufficient reasons to rule out premeditated murder? There have been various inquiries into the circumstances that led to the horrible deaths of 59 people on the Sabarmati Express. What is not in doubt is that there was a mob attack on the train and that scores were killed or injured. Since 2002, we continue to see incidents of vigilante violence, often based on racial or religious prejudice. It is crucial that the state draw some lessons. The Gujarat High Court, for instance, said that it was highly charged communal environment at that time, and the state administration should have been much more active in ensuring the protection of pilgrims, particularly in an area that was known to be prone to violence. 3. 59 people died that day but can a state hang eleven people for the crime committed? We oppose the death penalty. But, of course, those responsible for these deaths need to be held to account. The High Court has upheld convictions after hearing appeals. It has, however, we believe also upheld humane principles and commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment. 4. The High Court has blamed the state administration for its failure to maintain law & order, leading to kar seva. Who do you think should take moral responsibility for the failure? It is the responsibility of the state to protect lives, and the administration clearly failed to take necessary steps to protect the pilgrims. The High Court has ordered the state to bear responsibility and pay compensation to the victims. We will seek the prosecution of someone responsible for a crime, but will then defend the right of that same accused to a fair trial. × 5. Does the Human Rights Watch still hold on to the view that the government and the Court have been particularly slow in bringing the people involved in Gujarat riots to justice? Particularly, in comparison to the case filed on Godhra? There have been three incidents of massive communal violence in recent decades. The mass attacks on Sikhs in 1984 after the Indira Gandhi assassination, the 1992-93 attacks on Muslims around the demolition of the Babri Masjid, and then the 2002 attacks on Muslims, killing hundreds after 59 Hindus died during a mob attack on the Sabarmati Express. In the 1984 and 1992-93 cases, the justice process is stalled despite numerous inquiries. In the Gujarat cases, because of interventions of the Supreme Court, the National Human Rights Commission, and the appointment of independent investigators, there has been progress in a number of cases. People, including those that held office in the Gujarat administration, have been convicted. 6. As a human rights activist, in a situation like this, how do you decide whose side you take? Whose cause do you fight for? We don’t have to take sides. Our role is to ensure that the state abides by the constitution and upholds international standards. We will seek the prosecution of someone responsible for a crime, but will then defend the right of that same accused to a fair trial.

Why the Godhra verdict is humane

<p>Gujarat&#39;s liquor&nbsp;prohibition policy has not yielded &quot;positive results&quot;, the state High Court observed, adding either it is not effective or something is wrong with the implementation of the law.</p>

<p>Justice J B Pardiwala, in an order passed recently, observed that the &quot;prohibition policy in Gujarat has not been able to yield positive results,&quot; and said that &quot;either the policy is not effective or something is wrong with the implementation of the law.&quot;&nbsp;</p>

<p>The court said this while dismissing a set of petitions filed by licenced liquor vendors from Daman seeking quashing of FIRs lodged against them by Gujarat police after people caught with liquor under Bombay Prohibition Act in the state showed them as suppliers.</p>

<p>&quot;I take judicial notice of the fact that the prohibition policy in the state of Gujarat has not been able to yield positive results,&quot; Justice Pardiwala said in the order.</p>

<p>&quot;One may not find an open bar on a public street, but the number of cases, as on date, pending in different courts in the state of Gujarat, bears eloquent testimony to the fact that either the policy is not effective or something is wrong with the implementation of the law,&quot; he said.</p>

<p>&quot;Out of 3,99,221 criminal cases pending as on February 28, 2017 in the state of Gujarat, 55,645 cases are under the Bombay Prohibition Act,&quot; the judge added.</p>

<p>The court further said that prohibition policy in Gujarat has not worked also because of the easy entry points in Gujarat for liquor.</p>

<p>&quot;Daman is one big hub where liquor is available in abundance and a large quantity of liquor is being illegally brought into the State of Gujarat from Daman,&quot; Justice J B Pardiwala&nbsp;said.</p>

<p>The court further observed &quot;it is high time that the central government considers denotifying Daman as a part of the UT and make it a part of the state of Gujarat so as to make the Prohibition Act applicable, which may have its own effect, and more particularly, after the recent amendment in the Act, providing more stringent provisions&quot;.</p>

<p>(PTI)</p>


The Gujarat High Court said Daman should be made a part of the state of Gujarat to make the Prohibition Act applicable

Gujarat's liquor prohibition policy has not yielded "positive results", the state High Court observed, adding either it is not effective or something is wrong with the implementation of the law. Justice J B Pardiwala, in an order passed recently, observed that the "prohibition policy in Gujarat has not been able to yield positive results," and said that "either the policy is not effective or something is wrong with the implementation of the law." The court said this while dismissing a set of petitions filed by licenced liquor vendors from Daman seeking quashing of FIRs lodged against them by Gujarat police after people caught with liquor under Bombay Prohibition Act in the state showed them as suppliers. "I take judicial notice of the fact that the prohibition policy in the state of Gujarat has not been able to yield positive results," Justice Pardiwala said in the order. "One may not find an open bar on a public street, but the number of cases, as on date, pending in different courts in the state of Gujarat, bears eloquent testimony to the fact that either the policy is not effective or something is wrong with the implementation of the law," he said. "Out of 3,99,221 criminal cases pending as on February 28, 2017 in the state of Gujarat, 55,645 cases are under the Bombay Prohibition Act," the judge added. The court further said that prohibition policy in Gujarat has not worked also because of the easy entry points in Gujarat for liquor. "Daman is one big hub where liquor is available in abundance and a large quantity of liquor is being illegally brought into the State of Gujarat from Daman," Justice J B Pardiwala said. The court further observed "it is high time that the central government considers denotifying Daman as a part of the UT and make it a part of the state of Gujarat so as to make the Prohibition Act applicable, which may have its own effect, and more particularly, after the recent amendment in the Act, providing more stringent provisions". (PTI)

Liquor?prohibition not working in Gujarat, Daman hub of illegal liquor: Gujarat HC

gujarat-high-court

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

gujarat high-court