Latest news with #SandeepMehta
Hans India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Intimidating laws will be used against political rivals despite SC ruling
Slamming the authorities of gross misuse of state laws like the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, a Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, has made it clear that the Act was not an instrument to target individuals, who are guilty of involvement in a single incident of anti-social activity. While warning governments against invoking such stringent laws as a tool of harassment or intimidation, the bench asserted that it was tantamount to extreme abuse of the governing laws when such an Act is used as a means of oppression, especially when political motivations are suspected. In a veiled attack, the apex court has sent across a message loud and clear that they cannot be used to settle political scores. By definition, the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is designed to prevent and combat gangsters and related anti-social activities. It defines 'gangster' and provides for the punishment of individuals involved in organized crime, including imprisonment and fines, especially if the offence is committed against a public servant but not for staging demonstrations, when used as an expression of right to expression that had no other ulterior motives. Mere involvement in a demonstration or protest after a communal clash cannot be reason enough to invoke the provisions of the Gangster Act, was made clear by the Supreme Court. Putting to rest many self-satisfactory interpretations about the provisions of the Act, most of which were invoked for serving political interests in violation of the law, the apex court drove home the point that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires greater emphasis when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions, such as the UP Gangsters Act, is invoked. In unequivocal terms, it stated, 'When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions.' This, in essence, implies that the Act cannot be invoked to stifle voices and silence dissent. Quashing an FIR lodged on April 30, 2023 against an 'organised gang', based on a social media post that cried foul of a particular religion, which led to violent protests 'involving' the appellants Lal Mohd and others, the court maintained that the complaint provided no evidence to substantiate systematic planning or coordinated criminal activities against the group. It discarded the FIR on the grounds that it was a conjectural statement by the complainant and one that was not corroborated with facts to establish 'provocative' motivations of those named in the FIR or to establish that it was a premeditated gang activity meant to create serious law and order disturbances. On their part, the appellants held that the allegations do not meet the threshold to justify invoking the UP Gangsters Act. The Supreme Court said that the accused were arrested and booked under provisions of IPC for vandalising a shop and wondered the need for lodging a second FIR by invoking Gangsters Act six months after the incident. However, the ground reality is that for decades together, many state governments have taken undue advantage of the loopholes that exist in certain laws as a means to harass political antagonists and their supporters. It is even more tragic that they get away even without coming up with any concrete proof to justify such acts of victimisation. Police and law and order are, after all, state subjects and hence none dares to beard the lion.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Time of India
SC denies pre-arrest bail to woman caught writing CTET on sister's behalf
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a woman's anticipatory bail plea after she was booked on charges of impersonation and attempting to write the Central Teacher Eligibility Test Examination pretending to be her sister. The Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) is a national level examination conducted twice in a year by the CBSE for appointment of educators in Central government schools like KVS (Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan) and the NVS (Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti). "Her custodial interrogation would be needed in the case," a bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale said while declining the pre-arrest bail plea in the case. The bench asked her to surrender to police for an effective investigation. Kumari Sharda, who hails from Bahadurpur village in Darbhanga district, was caught while trying to appear in the CTET in place of her elder sister, the police said. Her biometric and Aadhaar details did not match with that of the real examinee, they added. The prosecution said Sharda allegedly accepted her guilt at the exam Centre. The trial court in Samastipur and the Patna High Court subsequently on April 23 dismissed her anticipatory bail plea. She was booked under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for offences, including impersonation and cheating in Samastipur. PTI
News18
4 days ago
- Business
- News18
'Husband In Position To Pay Higher Amount': SC Revises Permanent Monthly Alimony For Wife
Last Updated: Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the wife had approached the apex court, which increased monthly amount from Rs 20,000 to Rs 50,000. The Supreme Court has revised the permanent alimony for a woman by enhancing the monthly sum from Rs 20,000 to Rs 50,000 and allowing her plea that the quantum was not commensurate with the standard of living enjoyed by her during the subsistence of marriage. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held the respondent-husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings established that he was in a position to pay a higher amount. The respondent-husband submitted that his current net monthly income was Rs 1,64,039, earned from his employment at the Institute of Hotel Management, Taratala, Kolkata. He also placed on record salary slips, bank statements, and income tax returns for the year 2023–2024. He stated he was earlier employed with the Taj Hotel, drawing a gross annual salary of Rs 21,92,525. He also submitted that his monthly household expenses total Rs 1,72,088, and that he has remarried, has a dependent family, and aged parents. He also contended that their son, now 26 years of age, was no longer financially dependent. The appeal was filed by the wife against the division bench order, which allowed the respondent-husband's appeal and granted a decree of divorce, awarding permanent alimony of Rs 20,000 per month to her, with an increase of 5% every three years. As per facts of the case, the appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on June 18, 1997. A son was born to the them on August 05, 1998. In July 2008, the respondent-husband filed matrimonial suit under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty allegedly inflicted by the appellant-wife. Subsequently, the appellant-wife filed an application in the same suit under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance for herself and the minor son. The Trial Court, by its order of January 10, 2016, dismissed the matrimonial suit, finding that the respondent-husband had failed to prove cruelty. The High Court, by the impugned order of June 25, 2019, allowed the respondent's appeal, granted a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and directed him to redeem the mortgage on the flat where the appellant-wife was residing and transfer the title deed to her name; allow the appellant-wife and their son to continue residing in the said flat; and continue to pay permanent alimony of Rs 20,000 per month to the appellant-wife, subject to a 5% increase every three years. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the appellant-wife approached the apex court. The court, by its order of February 20, 2023, issued notice confined to the question of enhancement of permanent alimony awarded to the appellant-wife. By an interim order of November 07, 2023, the court, noting the absence of representation on behalf of the respondent-husband despite proof of service, enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs 75,000 with effect from November 01, 2023. The respondent-husband subsequently entered appearance and filed an application seeking vacation of the said interim order. The appellant-wife contended that the amount of Rs 20,000 per month, which the High Court made final, was originally awarded as interim maintenance. She submitted that the respondent-husband has a monthly income of approximately Rs 4,00,000 and the quantum of alimony. 'Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision," the bench said. The appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount, the court felt. 'In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs 50,000 per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. This amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years," the bench ordered. With regard to the son, now aged 26, the bench said it was not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses, it added. 'We clarify that the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law," the bench said, allowing the appeal. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : alimony divorce supreme court Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 18, 2025, 16:54 IST
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
SC protects Kerala journo booked for defamation of politician on YT video
Taking note of the submissions, the bench said in the event of arrest, the journalist will be released on bail by the trial court upon on a bond and sureties as directed by the judge Press Trust of India New Delhi The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted interim bail to a Kerala-based journalist booked by the police for allegedly publishing a defamatory video against a prominent woman politician on his YouTube channel "Crime Online". A bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale issued notice to the Kerala government and the station house officer of the police station concerned on the anticipatory bail plea of journalist Nandakumar TP. Taking note of the submissions, the bench said in the event of arrest, the journalist will be released on bail by the trial court upon on a bond and sureties as directed by the judge. It also directed the journalist to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. An FIR was lodged against the journalist under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for offences of outraging a woman's modesty, intimidation and intent to cause reputational harm, and dissemination of obscene content electronically. He was also booked under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act which penalises publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form. The state police alleged a YouTube video posted by Nandakumar contained derogatory, sexually coloured, and threatening remarks aimed at humiliating and tarnishing the reputation of the woman leader. The Kerala High Court on June 9 declined to grant Nandakumar anticipatory bail and directed him to surrender before the police. The high court order was challenged in the top court, which posted the plea after six weeks. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
The Hindu
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
SC grants interim bail to Kerala journalist T.P. Nandakumar booked for defamatory YouTube video against politician
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 18, 2025) granted interim bail to a Kerala-based journalist booked by the police for allegedly publishing a defamatory video against a prominent woman politician on his YouTube channel Crime Online. A Bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B. Varale issued notice to the Kerala government and the station house officer of the police station concerned on the anticipatory bail plea of journalist T.P. Nandakumar. Taking note of the submissions, the Bench said in the event of arrest, the journalist will be released on bail by the trial court upon on a bond and sureties as directed by the judge. It also directed the journalist to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. An FIR was lodged against the journalist under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for offences of outraging a woman's modesty, intimidation and intent to cause reputational harm, and dissemination of obscene content electronically. He was also booked under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act which penalises publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form. The Kerala Police alleged that a YouTube video posted by Mr. Nandakumar contained derogatory, sexually coloured, and threatening remarks aimed at humiliating and tarnishing the reputation of the woman leader. The Kerala High Court on June 9 declined to grant Mr. Nandakumar anticipatory bail and directed him to surrender before the police. The High Court order was challenged in the top court, which posted the plea after six weeks.
