Tag Archives: supreme court

Tirupati Laddu Controversy: Supreme Court Orders Independent SIT Probe Under CBI Supervision

Posted on by
Reply

In a significant development that has caught the attention of millions of devotees worldwide, the Supreme Court of India has ordered an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the controversy surrounding the alleged use of animal fat in the preparation of Tirupati laddus. These laddus are a sacred prasadam at the Sri Venkateswara Temple in Tirupati. The probe will be supervised by the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), ensuring a high level of scrutiny and impartiality.

The SIT, as directed by the apex court, will comprise two officers from the CBI, two from the Andhra Pradesh State Police, and a senior official from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). This diverse composition of the team is expected to bring a balanced and comprehensive approach to the investigation. The controversy erupted following allegations that substandard ghee containing animal fat was used to prepare the laddus during the previous regime of Jagan Mohan Reddy.

The Allegations and Public Outcry

The allegations were raised by the current Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu, leading to a significant public outcry and a subsequent Supreme Court order for an independent SIT probe. The Supreme Court, in its order, clarified that it had not delved into the allegations or counter-allegations and that its decision should not be construed as a reflection on the independence and fairness of the members of the SIT formed by the Andhra Pradesh Police. The Court emphasized that it would not allow the apex court to become a political battlefield.

The Court’s decision to order an independent SIT probe was influenced by the actions of the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister. The Court criticized Naidu for making public statements about the alleged use of animal fat in the Tirupati laddus before a thorough investigation was conducted. The Court observed that such statements by a high constitutional functionary could affect public sentiment and the investigation’s fairness.

The Court’s Observations and Decision

The Court noted that the Chief Minister made his statement on September 18, even before the FIR was lodged on September 25 and the SIT was constituted the following day. The Court stated, “We are, prima facie, of the view that it was not appropriate on the part of a high constitutional functionary to go public to make a statement which can affect the sentiment of crores of people and when investigation to find out adulterated ghee was used to make laddus was underway.”

Soon, AP Chief Minister responded in a post on X stating, “I welcome the Honourable Supreme Court’s order of setting up SIT, comprising officers from CBI, AP Police and FSSAI to investigate the issue of adulteration of Tirupati laddu.”

The Court’s decision to order an independent SIT probe was also influenced by the need to maintain the investigation’s neutrality and respect for the religious sentiments of devotees. The Court stated, “We do not want this to turn into a political drama because the sentiments of crores of people across the world are involved. Therefore, if there is an independent body, everybody will have confidence.”

No wonder, the Supreme Court’s decision to order an independent SIT probe into the Tirupati laddu controversy is a significant development that underscores the importance of maintaining the sanctity of religious practices and the need for impartiality in investigations involving sensitive issues. The probe’s outcome will be keenly awaited by millions of devotees worldwide, as it will not only shed light on the allegations but also set a precedent for handling similar controversies in the future.

Tirupati Laddu Probe Paused As Supreme Court Steps In

Posted on by
Reply

In a recent development that has gripped the nation, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Andhra Pradesh government has temporarily halted its probe into the alleged adulteration of Tirupati laddus. The decision comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s statement that there is currently no evidence to suggest animal fat was used in the preparation of the laddus during the previous YSRCP regime. The matter is now sub-judice in the Supreme Court.

Andhra Pradesh DGP Ch Dwaraka Tirumala Rao confirmed the development, stating that the SIT had been instructed to stall further proceedings until October 3. Over the last two days, the SIT had visited various places in TTD, the procurement area, and the sample collection area, collecting a significant amount of information. However, in adherence to the Supreme Court order, the investigation has been paused for the time being.

The Supreme Court’s intervention came after a petition was filed regarding the constitution of the SIT. The court is currently examining the case and has asked for the probe to be stalled until it decides whether the SIT should continue the investigation or if an independent agency should take over.

The Tirupati Laddu Controversy

The controversy began when Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu made public allegations about the possible use of adulterated ghee in the preparation of Tirupati laddus, suggesting that animal fat might have been used. However, the Supreme Court criticized this move, stating there was no conclusive evidence and that such allegations should not have been made publicly without certainty.

The Tirupati laddus, also known as ‘Srivari Laddus’, hold great significance as they have been the main prasadam (offering) at the Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple for over 300 years. It is believed to be the favorite offering of Lord Venkateswara. The laddus are prepared in large quantities daily to meet the demands of devotees and are renowned for their unique taste and long shelf life due to advanced packaging techniques. The tradition of making these laddus is deeply rooted in the temple’s culinary history, with the recipe and preparation methods passed down through generations.

The controversy has sparked a heated debate among the public and political circles, with some accusing the Chief Minister of using the issue for political advantage. Despite the controversy, the sale of Tirupati laddus has remained unaffected, with over 16 lakh sold in just five days.

The Role of Judiciary in the Controversy

The Supreme Court’s intervention and the subsequent halt of the SIT probe mark a significant turn in the controversy. The court’s decision to examine the case underscores the gravity of the issue, which affects the religious sentiments of millions of devotees of Lord Venkateswara, the deity of the Tirumala temple.

The case also highlights the role of the judiciary in ensuring the integrity of religious practices and the administration of justice. The Supreme Court’s decision to intervene and examine the case is a testament to its commitment to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights and beliefs of citizens.

As the nation awaits the Supreme Court’s directives on October 3, the controversy serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between religion and politics, and the importance of maintaining the sanctity of religious practices. It also underscores the need for thorough and unbiased investigations in matters of public interest, and the crucial role of the judiciary in upholding justice and truth.

EVM Issue: Supreme Court bench to hear petitions seeking full implementation of VVPATs

Posted on by
Reply

A panel comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta is set to address all concerns regarding Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) during a hearing scheduled for April 16, 2024.

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will review a series of petitions advocating for the implementation of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) to cross-verify votes. VVPAT offers an independent mechanism for voters to ensure the accuracy of their votes by generating a paper slip that confirms their selections. These slips, securely sealed, can be accessed in case of disputes.

In anticipation of the upcoming seven-phase Lok Sabha elections beginning on April 19, the Supreme Court is poised to examine crucial matters regarding EVMs and VVPAT.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had deferred hearing the plea filed by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and other related matters. Advocate Prashant Bhushan had urged an expedited hearing on April 3.

Now, ADR has petitioned the Supreme Court to direct the Election Commission and the Central Government to ensure voters can verify that their votes have been accurately recorded through VVPATs. The plea aims to align the EVM count with verifiably cast votes and guarantee that voters can confirm their selections via VVPAT slips.

Additionally, the petition underscores the importance of voters verifying that their choices have been accurately registered, which is partially addressed by the brief display of VVPAT slips after pressing the EVM button.

Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta’s panel, unable to address previous EVM-related pleas, will now consider all petitions during Tuesday’s session. Both petitions will be on the docket for today’s hearing.

On April 1, the Supreme Court sought responses from both the Election Commission of India and the central government regarding activist Arun Kumar Agrawal’s plea for a comprehensive count of VVPAT slips in elections, challenging the current practice of sampling only five randomly selected EVMs per assembly segment.

Supreme Court issues stay on Govt’s Fact-Checking Unit

Posted on by
Reply

On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a stay on the Union’s notification regarding the establishment of the Fact-Check Unit (FCU) in accordance with the IT Amendment Rules 2023. This stay will remain in effect until the Bombay High Court reaches a final decision on the challenges to the IT Rules amendment of 2023. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology had recently designated the Press Information Bureau as the FCU.

The Supreme Court’s decision to issue the stay was made without expressing a definitive opinion on the merits of the ongoing challenge to the Rules before the Bombay High Court. However, the Court found prima facie grounds to stay the March 20 notification, which would have made the contested Rules operational. Additionally, the Supreme Court overturned the Bombay High Court’s March 11 order, which had denied a stay on the implementation of the Rules and subsequently allowed the Centre to notify the FCU. The Court noted that the challenge to the rules presents “serious constitutional questions” and emphasized the need for analysis by the High Court regarding the impact of the amended Rule 3(1)(b)(v) on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

The bench, consisting of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, heard Special Leave Petitions filed by Kunal Kamra, Editors Guild of India, and the Association of Indian Magazines, challenging the Bombay High Court’s refusal to stay the implementation of the IT Rules 2023. During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Darius Khambata, representing comedian Kunal Kamra, presented several arguments: firstly, that having an FCU exclusively for the Union Government is arbitrary; secondly, that the FCU could lead to the dissemination of only the Government’s perspective; and thirdly, that with elections approaching, the FCU could be exploited as a means for the Union to control the flow of information to voters.

“Why is the FCU only for the Central Govt? Why isn’t there an independent body for everyone, rather than just for the Central Govt.? If the objective is to combat fake news, then everyone is impacted by it.”

 

Electoral Bonds: SC asks SBI to declare all details by Thursday, March 21

Posted on by
Reply

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued directives to the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose comprehensive details concerning electoral bonds. These details include the date of purchase and redemption, the names of purchasers and recipients, denominations, and alphanumeric numbers and serial bonds.

Furthermore, the court instructed SBI Chairman Dinesh Kumar Khara to submit an affidavit by 5 pm on Thursday, confirming the disclosure of all pertinent details in the bank’s possession and affirming that no information has been withheld.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud emphasized the necessity for SBI to provide all available details, including alphanumeric and serial numbers of purchased bonds, to prevent potential future controversies. The court underscored the importance of transparency by mandating the filing of an affidavit to confirm the disclosure and absence of withheld information.

supreme court/IANS

Additionally, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition by the ‘Citizens Rights Trust’ seeking to pre-date the disclosure of bond details. Instead, the court directed SBI to disclose information from April 12, 2019, to Feb 15, 2024. The plea alleged the sale of 9,159 bonds worth ₹4,000 crores during this period.

The court declined pleas by industry bodies like Ficci and Assocham to defer the disclosure of bond numbers, asserting that anonymity cannot supersede the requirement for information disclosure.

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised concerns about misinformation on social media regarding the court’s electoral bond judgment. He highlighted deliberate misrepresentation by petitioners in press interviews and emphasized a hidden agenda behind such actions. In response, the court reiterated its readiness to handle social media commentary, asserting its commitment to the rule of law and transparency.

In the previous hearing, the Supreme Court instructed the Election Commission to return sealed covers containing electoral bond information. The court directed the digitization of this data by 5 pm on Saturday and its subsequent public release in accordance with the court’s directives.

Electoral Bonds: Furnish unique numbers, SC tells SBI while hearing EC plea

Posted on by
Reply

The highest judicial authority today issued a stern rebuke to the State Bank of India (SBI) concerning its handling of information regarding electoral bonds, a program enabling discreet donations to political parties by individuals and entities.

Following the court’s previous decision to nullify the electoral bonds scheme, SBI was instructed to divulge comprehensive data regarding donations spanning the past half-decade.

Responding to a plea from the Election Commission, the Supreme Court pointed out deficiencies in the data furnished by SBI. Presiding over a five-judge panel, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud directed SBI to not only provide existing details but also disclose the electoral bond numbers.

Chief Justice Chandrachud wasted no time in highlighting the absence of bond numbers, querying the representation for the State Bank of India at the onset of the session.

In a notification served to SBI, the Supreme Court bench requested clarification regarding this oversight, scheduling a follow-up hearing for March 18. The inclusion of electoral bond numbers is deemed crucial for establishing connections between donors and political entities.

Electoral bonds were introduced in 2018 by the BJP administration as a measure to substitute cash contributions, purportedly enhancing transparency in political funding.

Last month, the Supreme Court invalidated the program, citing constitutional concerns and the potential for quid pro quo arrangements. Furthermore, the court urged SBI to furnish the Election Commission with all pertinent details regarding bond transactions.

In its submission, the Election Commission reiterated the court’s directive to retain copies of documents submitted during the proceedings, emphasizing the importance of maintaining records at the commission’s office.

The Election Commission clarified that it had not retained any copies of the documents and requested their return to facilitate compliance with the court’s instructions.

Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu appointed new EC commissioners: Adhir Ranjan

Posted on by
Reply

A committee led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday announced the selection of bureaucrats Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu as election commissioners, according to Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, who shared the information insisting that he had raised objections at the selection process.

The decision follows the recent resignation of Election Commissioner Arun Goel just ahead of the Lok Sabha elections.

The committee, which includes the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition, and a designated Union Cabinet minister, opted for Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Gyanesh Kumar. Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, as the opposition member, represents the Congress party on the three-member panel.

In addition to the Prime Minister and the Congress leader, Union Home Minister Amit Shah attended the meeting. However, Chowdhury criticized the Centre for a law that replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Minister on the selection committee.

“The Chief Justice of India should have been part of this committee,” Chowdhury remarked, expressing discontent over a law enacted last year that reduced the meeting to a mere “formality.”

Chowdhury further commented, “The government holds the majority on the panel. Their preferences prevail,” highlighting concerns over the selection process.

He disclosed that he received 212 names for review the previous night before the noon meeting. “How can one examine so many candidates in a single day? Then, I was provided with six shortlisted names just before the meeting. With the majority on their side, they selected the candidates they desired,” Chowdhury added.

SC gives notice on online gaming lawsuit to Karnataka

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a plea by the Karnataka government, challenging the Karnataka High Court judgment, which struck down provisions of law prohibiting betting and wagering in online games.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, A.M Singhvi, and Shyam Divan, represented the gaming companies’ associations, submitted before a bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian that the issue was whether it was game of skill or chance or gambling.

The Karnataka government contended that cybercrime has become a major issue and cited filing of 28,000 cases in the last three years, while emphasising the need for a law against online gaming to maintain public order. It further argued that people have died by suicide and the online gaming has ruined many families, therefore it was necessary to deal with its ill effects.

online games/IANS

The state government’s plea said: “The Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021 made criminalised wagering, betting or risking money on the unknown result of an event.”

On February 14 this year, the high court struck down the government’s ban and the legal provision which criminalized playing games of skill, including online games, and betting.

The top court issued notice to online gaming industry body All India Gaming Federation and skill-based gaming firms. It directed to tag this matter with a similar matter, where the Tamil Nadu government has challenged the judgment by the Madras High Court.The Karnataka High Court had said that the Act was unconstitutional and there cannot be any ban on online games of skill. The state government contended before the apex court that the high court had grossly erred in not taking into account the material produced by it in connection with cases registered by the police authorities.

 

 

Gyanvapi case: Varanasi court gives verdict in favour of Hindu petitioners

Posted on by
Reply

Varanasi, Sep 12 (IANS) The Varanasi court on Monday said that the Hindu petition for worship in Shringar Gauri was maintainable and the five Hindu women’s plea seeking right to worship in the Gyanvapi complex will be heard.

District judge A.K. Vishvesha dismissed the petition filed by the Muslim side citing the Places of Worship Act and questioning the maintainability of the petition.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the Hindu side said, “The court rejected the Muslim side’s petition and said the suit is maintainable. The next hearing in the matter will be on September 22.”

“Muslim petitioners are likely to approach the Allahabad High Court in appeal,” petitioner Sohan Lal Arya said, but added that they will continue to contest the case.

A view of district court in Varanasi

Well known Sunni cleric Maulana Khalid Rashid Firangi Mahali said that their legal team would study the verdict and act accordingly.

He expressed concern over the fact that the Places of Worship Act 1991 was being set aside and such cases were being raised.

“We will fight the matter legally,” he added.

In May, the Supreme Court had assigned the case to the Varanasi district judge’s court, shifting it from a lower court where it was being heard till then.

The Supreme Court had ordered that “Keeping the complexity and sensitivity of the matter in view, the civil suit before the civil judge in Varanasi shall be heard before a senior and experienced judicial officer of the UP judicial service.”

A month before the Supreme Court’s intervention in the case, the Varanasi civil court had ordered the filming of the Gyanvapi mosque, based on the petition by the Hindu women who claimed that there are idols of Hindu Gods and Goddesses in the Gyanvapi mosque complex.

Varanasi: A view of the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi on Thursday, May 19, 2022. Supreme Court ordered that if the ‘Shivling’ found in the mosque complex, the area should be protected but muslim people should not be stopped from offering Namaz. (Photo: Wasim Sarvar/IANS)

A report of the filming at the mosque was then submitted to the Varanasi court in a sealed cover, but the Hindu petitioners controversially released details just hours later.

The report claimed a ‘Shivling’ had been found in a pond within the mosque complex used for ‘wuzu’ or purification rituals before Muslim prayers.

The judge hearing the case at the time had ordered the sealing of this pond.

This filming inside the centuries-old mosque was challenged in the Supreme Court by the Gyanvapi mosque committee.

The petitioners said the filming goes against the Places of Worship Act of 1991, which maintains the religious status of any place of worship as of August 15, 1947.

“Such petitions and sealing of mosques will lead to public mischief and communal disharmony, will affect mosques across the country,” the mosque committee had argued.

The mosque committee made similar arguments before the Varanasi district judge’s court in the ‘maintainability’ case, while lawyers for the Hindu petitioners claimed the law does not bar their case and that they could establish in court that the mosque premises was actually a temple as on the day of Independence.

UGC halts mushrooming, misleading ‘universities’

Posted on by
Reply

Following the supreme Court directive, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has put an end to often misused nomenclature ‘university’ by private educational institutes and asked them either to drop the word immediately.

In its directive dated Nov. 29, 2017, UGC secretary PK Thakur wrote to 29 such institutes asking them to respond by 4 pm on Thursday, Nov.30, 2017. Out of these 29, 22 institutes do not have ‘University’ tag in the name notified by the Government, while others have been asked to change the name soon.

Some of the misleading varsities in nomenclature include Symbiosis International University in Pune, Christ University in Bengaluru, Jain University, Maharishi Markandeshwar University and Lingaya’s University, which are given the status of deemed to be university status.

Thakur told them to immediately discontinue with the name of the Deemed to be University using the word ‘University’ and revert back to the name notified by the Government of India.

With this Christ University has to change its name to Christ institute while Manipal University should revert to its original registered name as Manipal Academy of Higher Education and TERI University as TERI School of Advanced Studies.

The Supreme Court on Nov. 3, asked the UGC to stop deemed-to-be universities from using the word “University” in their names. Accordingly, the UGC on Nov. 10 directed 123 Deemed-to-be-Universities to drop the word ‘University’ from their names, which is in violation of the Section 23 of the UGC Act.

Terming non-compliance of the orders very serious, the UGC said,”It has been decided to give a last chance to the Institution Deemed to be University to immediately discontinue with the name of the Deemed to be University using the word ‘University’ and submit an alternative proposal as requested vide above UGC letter. Failure to comply with these directions would amount to violation of the UGC (lnstitutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2016 and necessary action would be initiated against the Institution Deemed to be University in accordance with Clause 22.0 of these Regulations which may include recommending wathdrawal of the declaration notifying the institution as an Institution Deemed to be University to the Central Government.”

PM hails SC judgement on Triple Talaq

Posted on by
Reply

The Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, has hailed the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on Triple Talaq. Calling the judgement historic, the Prime Minister said that it grants equality to Muslim women and is a powerful measure for women empowerment.

“Judgement of the Hon’ble SC on Triple Talaq is historic. It grants equality to Muslim women and is a powerful measure for women empowerment”, the Prime Minister said.

JEE Counselling for IITs Stopped Over PIL

Posted on by
Reply

The IIT-JEE (Advance) 2017 counselling process for IIT admissions has been restrained by the Supreme Court following a PIL alleging that the bonus marks were wrongly awarded to candidates.

The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and A M Khanwilkar passed orders restraining counselling for admissions to the IITs which was supposed to begin on Friday. The plea by some students had pointed out that there were was an error in the Hindi version of the question papers of chemistry and mathematics.

Grace marks were given to all candidates irrespective of whether the student attempted the question or not. They pleaded that this was unfair and affected their prospects. The bench has also restrained high courts from entertaining any petition related to the issue.

Out of 36,000 seats in 97 institutes, 29,425 candidates have accepted the allotted seats so far. The joint admission board of the IITs told the court that a committee of experts had decided to give bonus marks and any delay at this after evaluating all options.

The board was also apprehensive that a judicial intervention at this stage would create hurdles to the entire admission process.