Live
- They always want me to win, and now I feel lucky to have been offered a story like ‘Zebra’: Satyadev Kancharana
- ‘Democracy first, humanity first’: PM Modi in Guyana's parliament on two countries' similarities
- PKL Season 11: Telugu Titans register third straight win to top standings
- Is Pollution Contributing to Your COPD?
- NASA Unveils Underwater Robots for Exploring Jupiter's Moons
- Additional Central forces arrive in violence-hit Manipur
- AR Rahman and Saira Banu’s Divorce: Legal Insights into Common Issues in Bollywood Marriages
- 82.7 pc work completed in HPCL Rajasthan Refinery area: official
- Curfew relaxation extended in 5 Manipur districts on Friday
- Tab scam prompts Bengal govt to adopt caution over fund disbursement
Just In
Poachgate: Lord Ram sent Sita for fire test; why BJP is afraid of police probe: State counsel Dushyant Dave
- Telangana HC single bench, headed by Justice Bollam Vijaysen Reddy, hears arguments on writ petition filed by State BJP
- Case adjourned to Dec 6
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court single bench, headed by Justice Bollam Vijaysen Reddy, on Wednesday heard arguments on the writ petition filed by State BJP, represented by its general secretary Gujjula Premendar Reddy seeking to declare the action of the State government in undertaking 'biased', 'unfair' and 'illegal'
investigation into TRS MLAs' poaching case with sole intent to frame the party and damage its reputation at the instance of the ruling dispensation.
On behalf of the three petitioners / accused in the case, Mahesh Jethmalani, senior SC counsel, argued. He informed the court that all the three petitioners / accused are in jail; they don't belong to any political party. The counsel argued that the offences alleged against them are related to the election process. The petitioners / accused are nowhere concerned with the allegations, he asserted.
"In the FIR of Moinabad police, the allegation is offer of bribe. No money is caught or recovered. The bribe, intended to be paid to MLAs, to topple the government, as alleged by the police is a big flaw. The TRS party has an overwhelming majority of 88 in the State; the BJP has only four MLAs, how can it topple the government, Jethmalani contended.
"The Prevention of Corruption Act applies to public duty, not to public service. What is the public duty these MLAs and my clients have.? Offering a bribe or giving money doesn't happen in the case, he told the court. The police breaches the investigation by leaking excerpts of evidence material to the media is certainly not in accordance with law. The petitioners just want a fair investigation by the independent agency CBI or SIT. Give fairness in the investigation, Moreover, independent agency chosen by the High Court is amiable, Jethmalani argued.
"The police undermine the presumption of innocence by publicly giving the evidence. What we need is a fair trial and fair investigation, which must be transparent and judicious", he said.
"Sending of the material evidence to the CM's office by the police is illegal; not only to the CMO, but also the media. For this senior SC counsel Dushyant Dave, who is arguing on behalf of the State, should apologise, Jethmalani asserted.
After the exchange of words between Jethmalani and Dave, the court insisted both to maintain decorum. Jethmalani concluded his arguments by making a submission to transfer the case to CBI or SIT for fair investigation.
Dave argued that prima facie the investigation discloses the offence; it's a question of survival of democracy. "BJP is a national party and it has a great reputation. TRS equally has a right to order a probe if its existence and the government is threatened; it's a biggest insult to the Constitution, he alleged, citing the case of Lord Ram sending Sita to undergo a fire test. He knew Sita is innocent, but for public perception it's important".
"But the BJP doesn't want to go for the fire test, although it wants to build temples. If you are innocent then do not stop the investigation. The police are to protect society at large, not culprits", Dave submitted. "Democracy reflects the very existence of legislature. We have seen successively in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Goa that repeatedly the governments have fallen because of mechanisation". "It is CBI and Income-Tax department raiding in every State of Opposition leaders. When the charge is against the BJP, you are trying to topple the government by offering substantial money in crores of rupees", Dave argued.
"The investigation is not under pressure from anyone. There is ample evidence to investigate the case. The BJP is not allowing the State to investigate the case. It wants the CBI to investigate the case so that you can have all the convenience of this whole case", he submitted.
"Further, in the electoral bonds Rs 10,000 crore has been given to the BJP; the other parties got only Rs 200 crore, in public returns. The BJP has so much money; this is how they scuttle. You are so ever high; the law is above you; that's the principle of rule of law in India, Dave argued. "The Supreme Court clearly mentions that MPs and MLAs are covered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The public representatives have more responsibility for people than the bureaucracy, because they are elected, not selected". "Moreover, 60 lakh cognisable cases are pending in India. If this High Court allows CBI and SIT investigation, people in States will ask for CBI and SIT investigation. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled in initial stages", Dave said.
"Under the purview of Section 226 and 482, the rich and the powerful approach the High Court. Let the doors of court open to the needy", he submitted. For further arguments, hearing in the case was adjourned to December 6.
Allowed to withdraw petition
On Wednesday Justice Vijaysen Reddy permitted Pratap Pogulakonda, advocate, one of the accused in the TRS MLAs poaching case to withdraw the writ petition filed by him seeking a stay on investigation as the SIT has clarified that he is neither an accused nor a suspect in the case. Justice Reddy directed the SIT not to arrest Tushar Vellapally, president, Bharat Dharma Jana Sena, who is also one of the accused in the case.
One of the senior counsel appearing for Vellapally argued that one of the three accused, who are lodged in prison, had the number of Tushar, because of which the SIT has summoned him for investigation. Justice Reddy insulated him from arrest, but directed him to appear before the SIT and cooperate in the investigation.
Transgenders must be treated like all other citizens: HC
two-judge panel of the HC, comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice CV Bhasker Reddy, on Wednesday reserved orders in a case pertaining to transgender rights in the State.
In a writ plea filed by Vyjayanthi Vasantha Mogli seeking provision of free ration and nutrition, including vegetables and fruits, to members of the transgender community. senior counsel Jayana Kothari, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the Telangana Eunuchs Act also violates the NALSA judgment by the Supreme Court criminalising the acts of transgenders. She contended that basic facilities are not provided by the government.
She suggested that district camps must be conducted by the government which will provide a census of the number of transgenders in Telangana. Special Government Pleader Andapally Sanjeev Kumar stated that the reports have been filed by the Departments of Health, Civil Supplies and Finance, among others.
CJ Bhuyan opined that the State must be open to the idea of an inclusive society while living in the 21st century. On an argument by Kumar that the financial aspect of the State must be kept in mind the CJ stated transgenders must be treated like any other citizen or economically backward community. In view of the fact that lawyers, civil servants, government officers are also transgenders and living in a society amongst everyone else, it must be normal.
Why TS-B Pass does not have a column on pending cases: HC
On Wednesday, the HC single bench headed by Justice Kanneganti Lalitha heard the writ petition filed by G Nagarjuna Pranthamani, from Suryapet, challenging the demolition order against his property in the town. Summoned by the court, the director of Municipal Administration was present to answer under what authority he had passed the demolition order. The judge found that he had acted based on a memo issued by the Special Chief Secretary (SCS) ordering maintenance of the status quo, enquiry, and demolition.
Justice Lalitha wondered why the SCS had stepped into the shoes of the Commissioner, Suryapet Municipality. in passing orders, without even giving an opportunity to the petitioner.
"The officer has gone beyond his powers in passing the order. On the face of it the order is illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice", the judge remarked. Finding that the director has acted based on the memo, his presence was dispensed. Justice Lalitha reprimanded SCS Arvind for not acting in accordance with the law and not guiding the municipal authorities to act in accordance with law. Annoyed, she said every time I cannot call every municipal authority for their errors. You have to ensure officers are acting in accordance with the law. Consider the viewpoint of the common man also, she opined.
"Why TS-B Pass does not have a column on pending cases. With the lack of column comments on arrival, there is material suppression. Ease of doing business is not at the cost of appropriate information. Your officers do not visit the field to check realities", the judge observed.
Justice Lalitha directed that comprehensive guidelines and checklists be given to officers; the same has to be placed before the court within 10 days. "Don't just frame guidelines, make erring officers accountable. In the show-cause notice, a minimum of seven days time is a must, in the case of the final order 15 days minimum. enlighten your officers on the distinction between notice and order".
"No demolitions during holidays or at night. While granting building permissions you can only seek valid title and legal possession; you cannot insist on ULC or other no objections except in cases where the subject land is a water body or falling in FTL. This court wants to know how many cases against municipal bodies are pending in trial courts and also data on a number of cases in which counters/vacate applications are filed and not filed".
"Why Town Planning building tribunals are not constituted under the Municipalities Act, take steps to constitute. In GHMC task force teams, the commissioner is a member, and why the commissioners are not in other municipalities, it is against law. include commissioners in task force teams in the municipalities also. Why are auctions of municipal properties not conducted on a regular basis? Why illegal local body property is allowed to be enjoyed for decades without auctions. Take steps to conduct auctions regularly for every three years/ after the agreement period". "All guidelines have to be framed and reported to this court in 10 days, Justice Lalitha directed the municipal authorities.
© 2024 Hyderabad Media House Limited/The Hans India. All rights reserved. Powered by hocalwire.com