Explore : Law News

The Supreme Court of India has received a public interest litigation (PIL) petition urging the formation of a probe panel led by a retired judge from the apex court to investigate the recent train accident in Balasore, Odisha. The incident, which occurred on June 2, resulted in the tragic loss of approximately 288 lives and left over 1,000 people injured. The two trains involved were the Shalimar-Chennai Central Coromandel Express and the Bengaluru-Howrah Superfast Express. Advocate Vishal Tiwari filed the PIL, seeking specific directives to be issued to the Central government and Indian Railways. The PIL emphasizes the need for an expert commission, chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge and composed of technical experts, to analyze and evaluate the current risk and safety parameters within the railways. The petition also calls for the establishment of a committee to investigate the root cause of the incident and propose systematic safety modifications within a two-month timeframe. Read Also: Supreme Court Halts Allahabad High Court’s Order on Determining Rape Survivor’s Manglik Status The PIL highlights the importance of implementing the Automatic Train Protection (ATP) system, known as KAVACH, immediately to ensure public safety. The plea argues that accidents of this nature infringe upon the guaranteed rights to life and liberty under Article 21. It emphasizes the necessity for judicial intervention due to the unregulated and negligent actions exhibited by the Respondent Authorities, asserting that public safety and preservation of life should be paramount concerns for the functioning of any state machinery. The plea further states that such incidents result in various ramifications, including train cancellations, diversions, and severe inconvenience to the public. Read Also: Supreme Court Denies Urgent Hearing for Petition Challenging High Court’s Verdict on Interrogation of Trinamool Congress Leader The extensive damage to public properties is also highlighted as a

The Supreme Court has intervened to suspend an order by the Allahabad High Court that mandated the examination of a rape survivor’s Kundali (astrological birth chart) by the Head of Astrology Department at Lucknow University. The Vacation Bench, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Pankaj Mithal, issued the stay order after taking suo motu cognizance of the Single-Judge Bench’s ruling on May 23. The High Court verdict had come in response to a bail application filed by the accused, who claimed that the survivor’s Mangalik status prohibited their marriage. The Apex Court expressed concern over the intrusion into an individual’s right to privacy and questioned the relevance of astrology in the case, while respecting the opinions of all parties involved. The Supreme Court’s intervention came after the Vacation Bench reviewed the circumstances surrounding the High Court’s decision. The accused in the case had argued that the alleged rape survivor’s status as a Mangalik, a belief based on astrological considerations, prevented their marriage from taking place. In response, the High Court had ordered the examination of the survivor’s Kundali by the Head of Astrology Department at Lucknow University. Read Also: Supreme Court Denies Urgent Hearing for Petition Challenging High Court’s Verdict on Interrogation of Trinamool Congress Leader However, the Vacation Bench of the Supreme Court found this line of inquiry to be irrelevant and a violation of the survivor’s right to privacy. While acknowledging that astrology is taught as a subject in universities, the court emphasized that the intrusion into an individual’s personal life on the grounds of astrology was unacceptable. The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the High Court’s order signifies its commitment to protecting the privacy and dignity of individuals, particularly in sensitive cases such as sexual assault. By halting the astrological examination, the court has affirmed that an

In a recent development, the Supreme Court has rejected a request for an urgent hearing on a special leave petition challenging the Calcutta High Court’s decision. The High Court had previously denied interim relief and granted permission to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to interrogate Abhishek Banerjee, the national general secretary of Trinamool Congress. This interrogation was in relation to the primary teachers’ recruitment scam in the state. Advocate-on-Record Sunil Fernandes mentioned the matter before a Vacation Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K.V. Viswanathan. Fernandes urged the Apex Court to list the case for the following week, claiming that the High Court’s order was passed on May 18 without considering the defense of the state government, on a public holiday. Fernandes informed the court that a Division Bench of the High Court had already rejected their plea for interim relief against the May 18 verdict. When asked why urgent listing was necessary, Fernandes stated that the main appeal in the case was scheduled for the next week. Without the protection of an interim order, the CBI and ED would proceed with their investigation. The Supreme Court then requested Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared virtually, to present his views on the matter. Mehta had previously represented the Central agencies involved in the case. He recalled Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Counsel for the state of West Bengal, appearing before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, seeking the continuation of a previously granted stay order by the Supreme Court, citing difficulties for the state. The Solicitor General questioned the State’s claim of facing difficulties if the CBI conducted the investigation, stating that it was not the state government’s position but rather that of the accused. Mehta highlighted that the Supreme

The Supreme Court withdrew a petition filed by Nitesh Purohit, the Promoter of Giriraj Hotel in Raipur, regarding the ongoing investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) into the Rs 2,000 crore liquor syndicate scandal in Chhattisgarh. The petitioner’s counsel requested permission to withdraw the petition before the Vacation Bench headed by Justice Bela M. Trivedi. A similar petition by Amit Singh, another accused in the case, was also scheduled for hearing on the same day. Previously, the Chhattisgarh High Court rejected four petitions challenging the legality of the ED’s investigation, including search and seizure operations and custodial interrogations related to the alleged liquor scam. The petitions sought to declare these actions illegal and requested their reversal, along with any subsequent actions. During a hearing on Tuesday, the Vacation Bench, consisting of Justice Trivedi and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, criticized the practice of filing Article 32 petitions directly in the Apex Court to challenge summons or seek bail instead of utilizing alternative remedies. This observation was made in response to a set of petitions filed by Chhattisgarh government officials implicated in the liquor scam, who subsequently sought to withdraw their petitions. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, argued that the Supreme Court should take a firm stance against this emerging trend of filing writs challenging the constitutionality of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as a means to obtain anticipatory bail. He considered it a concerning development that needed to be discouraged. The Solicitor General further stated that individuals were being advised to challenge the provisions of the Act rather than seek anticipatory bail, with the aim of securing a “no coercive action” order. He emphasized the need for the Apex Court to address this issue, as the trend was likely to persist without intervention. He advocated for the