Hathras case: No transfer before completion of CBI investigation; high court to monitor probe, says Supreme Court [Read Judgment]
The 19-year-old woman had died of her injuries at Safdarjung Hospital, in Delhi, where she had been transferred to Aligarh Muslim University Medical College.
The Supreme Court rejected a request that the Hathras case is referred to Delhi and clarified that transfer can be considered after the investigation has been completed. The Court has stated that the CBI has now dealt with it and that there is no reason for the arrest. The Top Court said that the investigation is first allowed to be completed by the CBI. The court also directed the CBI to be supervised by the Allahabad Supreme Court.
The court did not consider the appeal for a separate SIT. Therefore, the CBI remains the only measuring body. Only to wreck the appellants’ apprehension of the fairness of any test in Uttar Pradesh, the top court ordered the high court to track the CBI test.
The case was overwhelmed following a report from a forensic laboratory which reported no traces of sperm were found on the victim’s samples. However, the tests were carried out within 1-12 days of the alleged rape, and concerns were filed regarding the lack of proper testing results.
Protests across the country have erupted after Hathras alleged rape and the resulting assassination of the Dalit girl. The Uttar Pradesh government has been asked by a number of civil society groups as to how the matter has been handled so far.
Supreme Court stays Bombay High Court order on BCCI; setback for Lalit Modi
A bench of the Supreme Court, headed by the Justice of the RF Nariman, led by the Bombay High Court of 2019 was dismissed in a reversal in the face of fugitive cricket chief Lalit Modi in favour of Modi. In connection with the suspected FEMA breach, Modi sought cross-examine from officers of the Cricket Board of India (BCCI).
On the matter of transmission to Modi of the response from the BCCI, the Compliance Directorate (ED) had requested the high court order that he should reconsider its notice of the 2011 show cause.
In compliance with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Lalit Modi had submitted a written petition challenging the decision dates from the Enforcement Directorate of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (Law) and Rules of Procedure for Foreign Exchange Management of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (AFEMA, 1999), to the Enforcement Directorate of 8 January 2018 (Rules of Adjudication).
The Lalit Modi complaint in Bombay HC was that the order rejected Modi’s application for a copy of BCCI’s response, that is to say, the main notice of show-cause notices issued to Modi on 20 July 2011.
Supreme Court upholds high court ruling in a drug case, adds that it is already lenient
The Supreme Court has denied an appeal from a man who is evidently now far too charitable to be sentenced to two years’ intensive incarceration on drugs.
Three questions of law were raised by the Supreme Court: (a) Where is the nature and essence of the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court against the acquittal judgement? (b) how much does the other side of the test depend on a text that was not examined?; and (c) If the argument of the prosecution is not open to investigation by independent testimonies? The Supreme Court also asked the High Court’s order to pronounce a sentence and took the lenient position.
With regard to the first question of law, the apex court has declared its freedom to reconsider both legal and factual issues and re-evaluate all the recorded evidence. However, the exercise of this authority, taking the interests of justice and the basic principle of presumed innocence into consideration, is self-restrained.
“There was no independent witness to support the prosecution and that the testimony of star policy witnesses-the PW2 and PW5-was inconsistent. The Court of Justice concluded that the proceedings were unjustified.” The facts in the record do not endorse and explain all these observations. On the contrary, the High Court has given clear and lucid reasons for supporting the prosecution case significantly in the testimony of PW1 (alleged hostile independent witness).
The Supreme Court claimed that after having considered the age and circumstances of the appellant very kindly and the length of the appeal, we deem it in the interest of the judiciary to clearly not disturb the sentence of the High Court’s stringent two-year imprisonment and a fine of Rs 50,000.