Latest news with #VikramNath
Hans India
4 hours 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
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court warns governments against invoking stringent laws as tool of harassment
Representative Image NEW DELHI: Cautioning govts not to invoke stringent laws like UP Gangsters Act "as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play", Supreme Court has quashed an FIR lodged under the Act against people taking part in a demonstration after a communal flare-up arising out of a controversial social media post targeting a religious group, reports Amit Anand Choudhary. It said the accused were arrested and booked under various provisions of IPC for vandalising a shop owned by a person who had put an "incendiary" social media post. Supreme Court said the accused were arrested and booked under provisions of IPC for vandalising a shop and there was no need for lodging a second FIR against them by invoking Gangsters Act six months after the incident. Noting the stringent law was invoked 13 days after an accused's daughter-in- law filed nomination for chairmanship of Nagar Panchayat Khargupur (UP), a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, "This timing lends credence to their contention the Act may have been weaponised for extraneous considerations. " Allowing the plea of Lal Mohammad and other accused, the bench said the Act was enacted to combat organised gang-based crime and dismantle criminal syndicates, and invoking the law "based on a single incident of communal violence... is a significant departure from its legislative purpose". It said mere involvement of the accused in a demonstration after the communal flare-up, however serious, did not transform the participants into a 'gang' without evidence of organised and continuous criminal activity. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What She Did Mid-Air Left Passengers Speechless medalmerit Learn More Undo "The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires even greater significance when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions, such as UP Gangsters Act, is invoked. While the state has broad discretion in criminal prosecution, this discretion must be exercised judiciously, based on relevant considerations, and in conformity with the statutory purpose. The power conferred upon the state cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play," said Justice Mehta, who penned the judgment. "It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that extraordinary penal provisions, particularly those that substantially abridge regular procedural safeguards, must be invoked based on evidence that meets a threshold of credibility and substantiality. The materials relied upon must establish a reasonable nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal activity, demonstrating actual probability of involvement rather than mere theoretical possibility. 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."
News18
2 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
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Hindustan Times
2015 fake encounter: Cops in plain clothes firing upon car driver cannot be considered as official duty: SC
The conduct of police personnel surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant cannot be considered under duties of public order or effecting lawful arrest, the Supreme Court has said, dismissing a plea of nine Punjab cops to quash murder charges against them in an alleged fake encounter case. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also restored the destruction of evidence charge levelled on deputy commissioner of police (DCP) Parampal Singh for directing the removal of the number plate of the car after the firing incident in 2015 in which a driver was killed. It has been held that the cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice, the court observed noting that prior sanction was not required to prosecute the DCP and other police personnel for their alleged actions. The bench in its April 29 order uploaded recently dismissed the appeals of nine police personnel challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order of May 20, 2019, where it refused to quash the case against them. The apex court said having gone through the material placed on record, the court is of the view that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order of the high court. The bench rejected the submission of eight police personnel that cognisance of complaint against them cannot be taken as it was barred under Section 197 of CrPC under which prior permission was needed to prosecute public servants. 'Equally untenable is the submission that cognisance was barred for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The petitioners stand accused of surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant. 'Such conduct, by its very nature, bears no reasonable nexus to the duties of maintaining public order or effecting lawful arrest,' it said. The bench further said, 'The availability of official firearms, or even an erroneous official objective cannot transmute acts wholly outside the colour of authority into those done while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty.' Dealing with the case involving DCP Parampal Singh, the bench said an act that is per se directed to erasing potential evidence, if ultimately proved, cannot be regarded as reasonably connected with any bona-fide police duty. 'The test consistently applied by this court is whether the impugned act bears a direct and inseparable nexus to official functions. 'We believe that where the very accusation is suppression of evidence, the nexus is absent on the face of the record. In such a situation the bar of section 197 CrPC is not attracted, and sanction is not a condition precedent to cognisance,' the bench said. It said this court in a verdict of 2000 while dealing with Section 197 of CrPC held that 'the cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice'. The top court said the criminal complaint alleges, in clear and specific terms, that the nine policemen surrounded the Hyundai i-20 car, alighted with firearms, and fired in concert, fatally injuring the occupant. It added that the narrative was supported, at least prima facie, by two eye-witness depositions recorded under Section 200 CrPC during the preliminary inquiry. 'In addition, the Special Investigation Team constituted at the behest of senior police administrators, found the self-defence version subsequently projected in FIR…to be false and recommended prosecution of eight of the petitioners for culpable homicide. 'A CCTV clip recovered by the SIT depicts the three police vehicles converging on the i-20 exactly as alleged. Taken together, these materials furnish a coherent evidentiary thread sufficient, at the threshold, to justify summoning and the framing of charges,' the top court said. Justice Nath, who penned the verdict on behalf of the bench said the order of the magistrate summoning the policemen and the subsequent order of the Sessions Court framing charges proceed on an appreciation that there exists prima facie evidence of concerted firearm assault. 'No error of law or perversity of approach is shown,' the bench said and dismissed the appeal filed by the policemen. The top court, however, allowed the appeal of complainant Princepal Singh seeking reversal of the high court's order of May 20, 2019, by which it had quashed a criminal complaint and the summoning order against DCP Parampal Singh in the destruction of evidence case against him. The bench said, 'In our considered opinion, at the summoning stage, those two depositions, read with the detailed narrative in the complaint, furnish a legally sufficient basis to proceed. Their credibility is a matter for trial, not for preliminary scrutiny.' As per the complaint, at 6.30 pm, on June 16, 2015, a police party, travelling in a Bolero jeep, an Innova and a Verna, intercepted a white Hyundai i-20 on the Verka-Batala Road in Amritsar of Punjab. It said nine policemen alighted in plain clothes and, after a brief exhortation, opened fire from pistols and assault rifles at close range, killing the car driver, Mukhjit Singh @ Mukha. The complainant (then riding a motorcycle nearby) and another witness claim to have seen the shooting and to have raised an alarm that drew local residents to the spot. They claimed shortly after the firing incident, DCP Parampal Singh arrived with additional force, cordoned off the scene and directed the removal of the car's registration plates.
NDTV
5 days ago
- NDTV
Cops Firing Upon Car Driver In Plain Clothes Not Official Duty: Supreme Court
New Delhi: The conduct of police personnel surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant cannot be considered under duties of public order or effecting lawful arrest, the Supreme Court has said, dismissing a plea of nine Punjab cops to quash murder charges against them in an alleged fake encounter case. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also restored the destruction of evidence charge levelled on Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Parampal Singh for directing the removal of the number plate of the car after the firing incident in 2015 in which a driver was killed. It has been held that the cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice, the court observed noting that prior sanction was not required to prosecute the DCP and other police personnel for their alleged actions. The bench in its April 29 order uploaded recently dismissed the appeals of nine police personnel challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order of May 20, 2019, where it refused to quash the case against them. The apex court said having gone through the material placed on record, the court is of the view that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order of the high court. The bench rejected the submission of eight police personnel that cognisance of complaint against them cannot be taken as it was barred under Section 197 of CrPC under which prior permission was needed to prosecute public servants. "Equally untenable is the submission that cognisance was barred for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The petitioners stand accused of surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant. "Such conduct, by its very nature, bears no reasonable nexus to the duties of maintaining public order or effecting lawful arrest," it said. The bench further said, "The availability of official firearms, or even an erroneous official objective cannot transmute acts wholly outside the colour of authority into those done while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty." Dealing with the case involving DCP Parampal Singh, the bench said an act that is per se directed to erasing potential evidence, if ultimately proved, cannot be regarded as reasonably connected with any bona-fide police duty. "The test consistently applied by this court is whether the impugned act bears a direct and inseparable nexus to official functions. "We believe that where the very accusation is suppression of evidence, the nexus is absent on the face of the record. In such a situation the bar of section 197 CrPC is not attracted, and sanction is not a condition precedent to cognisance," the bench said. It said this court in a verdict of 2000 while dealing with Section 197 of CrPC held that "the cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice". The top court said the criminal complaint alleges, in clear and specific terms, that the nine policemen surrounded the Hyundai i-20 car, alighted with firearms, and fired in concert, fatally injuring the occupant. It added that the narrative was supported, at least prima facie, by two eye-witness depositions recorded under Section 200 CrPC during the preliminary inquiry. "In addition, the Special Investigation Team constituted at the behest of senior police administrators, found the self-defence version subsequently projected in be false and recommended prosecution of eight of the petitioners for culpable homicide. "A CCTV clip recovered by the SIT depicts the three police vehicles converging on the i-20 exactly as alleged. Taken together, these materials furnish a coherent evidentiary thread sufficient, at the threshold, to justify summoning and the framing of charges," the top court said. Justice Nath, who penned the verdict on behalf of the bench said the order of the magistrate summoning the policemen and the subsequent order of the Sessions Court framing charges proceed on an appreciation that there exists prima facie evidence of concerted firearm assault. "No error of law or perversity of approach is shown," the bench said and dismissed the appeal filed by the policemen. The top court, however, allowed the appeal of complainant Princepal Singh seeking reversal of the high court's order of May 20, 2019, by which it had quashed a criminal complaint and the summoning order against DCP Parampal Singh in the destruction of evidence case against him. The bench said, "In our considered opinion, at the summoning stage, those two depositions, read with the detailed narrative in the complaint, furnish a legally sufficient basis to proceed. Their credibility is a matter for trial, not for preliminary scrutiny." As per the complaint, at 6.30 pm, on June 16, 2015, a police party, travelling in a Bolero jeep, an Innova and a Verna, intercepted a white Hyundai i-20 on the Verka-Batala Road in Amritsar of Punjab. It said nine policemen alighted in plain clothes and, after a brief exhortation, opened fire from pistols and assault rifles at close range, killing the car driver, Mukhjit Singh @ Mukha. The complainant (then riding a motorcycle nearby) and another witness claim to have seen the shooting and to have raised an alarm that drew local residents to the spot. They claimed shortly after the firing incident, DCP Parampal Singh arrived with additional force, cordoned off the scene and directed the removal of the car's registration plates.
