Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

With the West Bengal Assembly bypolls around the corner, a recent analysis by the West Bengal Election Watch and Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has shed light on the profiles of candidates in the fray. The study reveals that among the 41 candidates contesting in the upcoming bypolls, seven have serious criminal cases pending, while another seven are crorepatis. <h2>Criminal cases: BJP tops the list</h2>The ADR analysis shows that out of the seven candidates with serious criminal cases, four are from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), two from the Trinamool Congress (TMC), and one from Congress. These cases range from non-bailable offences to electoral violations and financial fraud, with maximum punishments extending to five years or more. Offences in this category include serious crimes such as murder, kidnapping, and violations of the Prevention of Corruption Act or crimes against women. The bypolls will take place on November 13 in the constituencies of Coochbehar Sitai (SC), Haroa, Naihati, Medinipur, Taldangra, and Madarihat (ST). However, the affidavit for one candidate, independent contestant Pankaj Lohra from Madarihat (ST), could not be reviewed due to missing documents. <h2>Wealthiest candidates</h2>In addition to those with criminal cases, seven candidates declared assets exceeding Rs 1 crore. Congress leads in this regard, with three crorepati candidates, followed by the BJP with two, and the TMC and CPIM(L) with one each. According to the affidavits, the wealthiest candidate is TMC's <keyword id="23849799" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="sanat-dey" source="keywords">Sanat Dey</keyword> from Naihati, who has assets worth Rs 4.9 crore, including Rs 1.8 crore in immovable property. Following him is BJP's Ananya Roy Chakraborty, who is contesting from Taldangra, with assets totalling nearly Rs 3 crore. TMC’s Shyamal Kumar Ghosh, running for the Medinipur seat, declared assets of approximately Rs 1.69 crore. On average, the candidates’ assets are valued at around Rs 58.14 lakh. In contrast to the wealthiest candidates, Kashikanta Barman from the Kamatapur Peoples Party (United), contesting from Coochbehar Sitai (SC), has declared the lowest assets, amounting to just Rs 5,000. This wide range of wealth highlights the diverse financial backgrounds of candidates in the bypolls. (With inputs from agencies)

West Bengal bypolls to feature seven candidates with serious criminal cases including murder and kidnapping

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Thursday issued a slew of directions for speedy disposal of criminal cases against Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly (MPs/MLAs) and asked High Courts to register a Suo Motu case for effective monitoring and speedy disposal of such cases. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra said it was difficult for it to form a uniform guideline for trial courts across the country relating to speedy disposal of <keyword id="16453350" type="General" weightage="40" keywordseo="cases-against-mps" source="Orion">cases against MPs</keyword> and MLAs. The top court left it to the high courts to evolve such measures for effective monitoring of such cases. The bench directed that High Court Chief Justices shall register a suo motu case titled "In Re Designated Courts for MPs and MLAs" to monitor the early disposal of pending criminal cases against lawmakers. It directed that the suo motu case be heard by a special bench headed by the Chief Justice or a bench assigned by him or her. It was further directed that the Special Bench of the High Court may list the matter at regular intervals as felt necessary. The top court said the High Court may issue such orders and directions as necessary for expeditious and effective disposal of the cases. The bench further ordered that the Special Bench of the High Court may consider taking the assistance of the Advocate General or prosecutor to assist it. The apex court also directed that cases against MPs and MLAs that are punishable by death should be prioritised over other cases. Then cases punishable with imprisonment for five years or more will be given priority. It further said that the cases would not be adjourned by the trial court except for rare and compelling reasons. The top court said that the High Court may require a Principal District and Sessions judge to bear the responsibility of allocating the subject cases to such courts. The High Court may call upon the Principal District and Sessions judge to send reports on such intervals, it added. The concerned principal and session judge should ensure sufficient infrastructural facilities are available for the trial of such cases, as directed by the top court. The directions of the top court came on a PIL filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking speedy disposal of criminal cases pending against MPs and MLAs. Earlier, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a status report stating that there are 51 MPs and 71 MLAs, sitting and former, who stand accused by the agency of offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The report did not specify exactly how many of those are sitting MPs or MLAs and how many are former MPs or MLAs. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had also submitted a similar report stating that a total of 121 cases are pending trial against sitting and former MPs and MLAs. The number of MPs involved in those cases is 51, out of which 14 are sitting, 37 are former and 5 are deceased. The report further stated that 112 MLAs are involved in CBI cases, out of which 34 are sitting, 78 are former and 9 are deceased. The number of cases pending investigation against MPs and MLAs by the CBI is 37, according to the report the CBI submitted. Senior advocate Vijay Hansari, who was assisting the apex court in the case as amicus curiae, had highlighted a "glaring case of inordinate delay" in the trial of cases against lawmakers, submitting that many cases were pending for over five years. The apex court had sought a status report from Hansaria relating to the pendency and grant of sanctions for prosecution, the expected time for completion of the investigation and reasons for delay in the same. Hansaria had sought directions to ensure that courts dealing with cases against lawmakers should exclusively try such issues. The plea sought speedy disposal of cases against them and pointed out that while judges and babus were suspended for such activities, politicians were condoned by the law. As of now, convicted politicians have been banned from the polls for six years.

SC issues directions to HCs for speedy disposal of criminal cases against MPs, MLAs

New Delhi, The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday stayed the conviction of Congress leader <keyword id="5268" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="rahul-gandhi" source="Orion">Rahul Gandhi</keyword> in a 2019 defamation case over his Modi surname remark, restoring his status as an MP. A three-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, P S Narasimha and <keyword id="14272" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="sanjay-kumar" source="Orion">Sanjay Kumar</keyword> said no doubt that the utterances were not in good taste and that a person in public life is expected to exercise caution while making public speeches. "No reason has been given by the trial judge for imposing maximum sentence, the order of conviction needs to be stayed pending final adjudication," the bench said. The top court was hearing a plea by Gandhi challenging the Gujarat High Court verdict which dismissed his plea seeking a stay on his conviction in a defamation case over his "Modi surname" remark. Former Gujarat minister Purnesh Modi had filed a criminal defamation case in 2019 against Gandhi over his "How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname?" remark made during an election rally in Kolar in Karnataka on April 13, 2019.

 SC stays conviction of Rahul Gandhi in 2019 defamation case

MPs and MLAs taking bribes to vote or make a speech in the <keyword id="19910021" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="house" source="keywords">House</keyword> are not immune from prosecution, the Supreme Court said on Monday in a landmark, unanimous verdict that overrules its 1998 judgment protecting such lawmakers. Observing that bribery is not protected by parliamentary privileges, a seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y <keyword id="19985698" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="chandrachud" source="keywords">Chandrachud</keyword> held that a five-judge bench's interpretation in the 1998 verdict in the JMM bribery case was contrary to Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution. Describing the judgment as "great", Prime Minister <keyword id="19895781" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="narendra-modi" source="keywords">Narendra Modi</keyword> said in a post on X that it would "ensure clean politics and deepen people's faith in the system". Articles 105 and 194 deal with the powers and privileges of MPs and MLAs in the Parliament and the legislative assemblies. "Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures erode probity in public life," the CJI, who read the operative part of the verdict, said while pronouncing the verdict today. The bench also comprised Justices A S Bopanna, M M Sundresh, P S Narasimha, J B Pardiwala, <keyword id="19931190" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="sanjay-kumar" source="keywords">Sanjay Kumar</keyword> and Manoj Misra. In 1998, the five-judge constitution bench held in its majority verdict on the Narasimha Rao versus CBI case that parliamentarians have immunity against criminal prosecution for any speech made and vote cast inside the House under Articles 105(2) and 194(2). The seven-judge bench was reconsidering the 1998 judgement. While pronouncing the verdict, the CJI said Article 105 of the Constitution seeks to sustain an environment to have deliberations by the lawmakers in the House and this atmosphere is vitiated when a member is bribed to deliver a speech. Justice Chandrachud said the privileges claimed must have a nexus to the collective functioning of the House and must have a relationship with the essential functions of a legislator which he or she has to discharge. The seven-judge bench had reserved its judgement in the matter on October 5 last year. During the arguments, the Centre had submitted that bribery can never be a subject matter of immunity and a parliamentary privilege is not meant to place a lawmaker above law. The top court, in the course of the hearing, had said it will examine whether the immunity granted to lawmakers from prosecution for taking bribes to make a speech or vote in Parliament and state legislatures extends to them even if criminality is attached to their actions. On September 20, 2023, the <keyword id="19936355" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="apex-court" source="keywords">apex court</keyword> had agreed to reconsider its 1998 judgement, saying it was an important issue having a significant bearing on "morality of polity". The issue came under the apex court's lens in 2019, when a bench headed by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing an appeal filed by <keyword id="20405400" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="sita-soren" source="keywords">Sita Soren</keyword>, JMM MLA from Jama and daughter-in-law of party chief Shibu <keyword id="19968807" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="soren" source="keywords">Soren</keyword>. She was an accused in the JMM bribery scandal. The Gogoi-led bench had referred to a five-judge bench the matter, noting it had "wide ramification" and was of "substantial public importance". Sita Soren was accused of taking bribes to vote for a particular candidate in the Rajya Sabha election in 2012. She contended that the constitutional provision granting lawmakers immunity from prosecution, which saw her father-in-law being let off the hook in the JMM bribery scandal, be applied to her. She moved the apex court against the Jharkhand High Court order of February 17, 2014 refusing to quash the criminal case lodged against her. The three-judge bench had then said it will revisit the apex court verdict in the JMM bribery case involving Shibu Soren, a former Jharkhand chief minister and ex-union minister, and four other party MPs who had accepted bribes to vote against the no-confidence motion threatening the survival of the P V Narasimha Rao government in 1993. The Narasimha Rao government, which was in a minority, survived the no-confidence vote with their support. The CBI registered a case against Soren and four other JMM Lok Sabha MPs but the Supreme Court quashed it citing immunity from prosecution they enjoyed under Article 105(2) of the Constitution. SEE ALSO:<a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/realme-12-5g-with-dimensity-7050-chipset-to-launch-in-india-on-march-6/articleshow/108129873.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/realme-12-5g-with-dimensity-7050-chipset-to-launch-in-india-on-march-6/articleshow/108129873.cms" target="_blank">Realme 12+ 5G with Dimensity 7050 chipset to launch in India on March 6</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/xiaomi-14-to-launch-in-india-on-march-7-to-take-on-the-galaxy-s23-and-oneplus-12/articleshow/107841326.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/xiaomi-14-to-launch-in-india-on-march-7-to-take-on-the-galaxy-s23-and-oneplus-12/articleshow/107841326.cms" target="_blank">Xiaomi 14 to launch in India on March 7, to take on the Galaxy S23 and OnePlus 12</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/auto/news/upcoming-cars-launching-in-india-in-march-2024/slidelist/108095936.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/auto/news/upcoming-cars-launching-in-india-in-march-2024/slidelist/108095936.cms" target="_blank">Upcoming cars launching in India in March 2024</a>

No immunity for MPs, MLAs taking bribe to vote, make speech in House: SC

Supreme Court’s order weighs down heavily upon Kejriwal — Check out how many AAP MLAs have criminal cases

In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court on Thursday directed political <keyword id="15047" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Parties">parties</keyword> to upload on their respective websites the details of all pending criminal cases against candidates contesting polls, citing the alarming increase in criminalisation of politics in past four general elections. A bench headed by Justice R.F. Nariman said the parties would have to clarify on reasons for selecting candidates with pending criminal cases and upload this information on their websites. The top court also observed that political parties will have to submit a compliance report within 72 hours, to the Election Commission, after selecting candidates having pending criminal cases. The order from the top court came on a contempt plea filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, raising critical issues due to increase in criminalisation of politics. The plea claimed the directions given by the apex court in its September 2018 verdict, which specified guidelines to disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidates, is not being followed in letter and spirit. The top court also directed that political parties would have to publish this information on their social media platforms like <keyword id="6354576" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="facebook">Facebook</keyword> and <keyword id="6354616" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Twitter">Twitter</keyword> besides publishing this information in one local vernacular and one national newspaper. The apex court directed the poll body to apprise the court if it were to come across failure in compliance with its directions. --IANS ss/skp/

Parties must publish candidates criminal cases on sites: SC

New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Centre to hold discussion with internet intermediaries, including Google, <keyword id="790242" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="WhatsApp">WhatsApp</keyword> and Facebook, to develop a strategy to restrict circulation of rape videos, child pornography and images. A bench headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant noted the submissions of advocate Aparna Bhat, appearing for Hyderabad-based NGO Prajwala. Bhat submitted a meeting, to deal with circulation of obscene content on social media platforms, is yet to be convened by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) involving all the stakeholders since December 2018. Solicitor Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, submitted before the court the meeting on this matter would take place soon and asked the court not to pass any order. Bhat cited the difference in opinion between the NGO and internet intermediaries on the matter - NGO reckon the content can be blocked at the outset, but internet companies say materials have to be brought to their notice to take action. Bhat said delay in action would eventually make the content go viral. She insisted that the issue of child pornography falls under POCSO (the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) and it's mandatory to report on it. Lawyer N.S. Nappinai, who is assisting the court as <keyword id="525739" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="amicus-curiae">amicus curiae</keyword>, suggested artificial intelligence tools could filter obscene content and help in its elimination. In 2015, the apex court had taken the suo motu cognizance of a letter written to the then Chief Justice H.L. Dattu alleging circulation of two rape videos and the video content was submitted in the court in a pen drive. The top court on Tuesday said it will ask MHA to schedule a meeting on this matter. The court asked Bhat to provide a status report to all parties to the case and scheduled the matter for further hearing after four weeks. In 2018, the apex court had said the Centre could lay down standard operating procedure (SoP) to block obscene content involving children.

Indian court wants Google, WA and FB to help stop child porn and rape videos

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> will hear SEBIs petition, in an open court, seeking review of its August 5 judgment, which directed the market regulator to share certain documents with Reliance Industries Limited (RIL). A bench headed by Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli said: "Considering the facts and circumstances on record and the submissions advanced in the review petition, we deem it appropriate to allow application for listing of the instant petition in open court. Let this review petition be listed in court on October 12, 2022." <keyword id="35210" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="SEBI" source="Orion">SEBI</keyword> has refused to entertain RIL's request to share the privileged documents on the grounds that under the Sebi (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, the accused company has no right to seek information from it. The <keyword id="6356229" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="apex-court" source="Orion">apex court</keyword>, in its judgement, had rejected this stand of the market regulator. RIL had claimed that documents will exonerate it and its promoters from criminal prosecution initiated in a case related to the alleged irregularities in acquisition of its own shares between 1994 and 2000. Last week, a bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna had recused from hearing RIL's petition seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against SEBI for failing to provide certain documents to the company. On August 5, a bench led by then Chief Justice N.V. Ramana had said: "The approach of SEBI, in failing to disclose the documents, also raises concerns of transparency and fair trial. Opaqueness only propagates prejudice and partiality. Opaqueness is antithetical to transparency." The top court had said the market regulator should show fairness and furnish documents sought by RIL, and SEBI has a duty to act fairly, while conducting proceedings or initiating any action against the parties. RIL filed a contempt petition as SEBI has not shared three documents -- the two legal opinions by former apex court judge B.N. Srikrishna and former ICAI president Y.H. Malegam's report which examined the irregularities. The company claimed SEBI cannot continue to resist the production of these documents and it had also sent a notice to the regulator saying if documents were not received by August 18, then it will establish that SEBI does not want to comply with the apex court's judgment. In 2002, Chartered Accountant S. Gurumurthy filed a complaint with SEBI alleging irregularities by RIL, its associate companies and their directors/promoters, including <keyword id="3820" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="mukesh-ambani" source="Orion">Mukesh Ambani</keyword> and his wife, Nita; <keyword id="9171" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="anil-ambani" source="Orion">Anil Ambani</keyword> and his wife, Tina; and 98 others. The complaint cited the issue of two preferential placement of non-convertible debentures in 1994. SEBI had alleged that RIL along with Reliance Petroleum had circuitously funded the acquisition of its own shares in violation of the Sections 77 and 77A of the Companies Act, 1956. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/markets/news/sebi-tightens-disclosure-norms-for-ipo-brings-mutual-fund-transactions-under-the-gambit-of-insider-trading-rules/articleshow/94577801.cms">SEBI tightens disclosure norms for IPOs, brings mutual fund transactions under the gambit of insider trading rules</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/jio-will-launch-5g-for-the-entire-country-by-december-2023-mukesh-ambani/articleshow/94579338.cms">Jio will launch 5G for the entire country by December 2023: Mukesh Ambani</a>

SC to hear SEBI's review petition against RIL on Oct 12

New Delhi, Mar 7 () With over 35 lakh cheque bounce cases pending in district courts, the Supreme Court has decided to evolve a "concerted" and "coordinated" mechanism for expeditious disposal of such cases.The apex court has registered a suo motu case (on its own) in this regard and sought responses from the Centre and other stakeholders, including the Reserve Bank of India.A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justice L N Rao, which passed the order while dealing with a plea related to dishonour of two cheques in January 2005, noted that a dispute of this nature has remained pending for 15 years in various courts and taken judicial time."Despite many changes brought through legislative amendments and various decisions of this court mandating speedy trial and disposal of these cases, the trial courts are filled with a large number of pendency of these cases," the bench said in its March 5 order."A recent study of the pending cases, reflects pendency of more than 35 lakh, which constitutes more than 15 percent of the total criminal cases pending in district courts. Further, there is a steady increase in the docket burden," the bench said.The top court has issued notices to the Centre, registrar general of all high courts, director general of police of all states and union territories, member secretary of the National Legal Services Authority, RBI and Indian Bank Association, Mumbai, and asked them to file their response on the issue."These are some indicative aspects in addition to what may come on board after hearing the relevant duty-holders. To work out mechanism for expeditious and just adjudication of cases relating to dishonour of cheques, fulfilling the mandate of law and reduce high pendency, various duty-holders like banks, police and legal services authorities may be required to take measures and prepare schemes," the bench said."Thus, we find it necessary to hear them for evolving a concerted, coordinated mechanism for expeditious adjudication of these cases as per the legal mandate," it said.The bench, which appointed senior lawyer Siddharth Luthra and advocate K Parameshwar as amicus curiae to assist it in the matter, has listed the case for hearing on April 16.The bench noted that dishonour of cheque was criminalised in 1988 and the legislative intent was to "ensure faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business on cheques.""It was to provide a strong criminal remedy in order to deter the high incidence of dishonour of cheques and ensure compensation to the complainant," the bench said, adding, "Subsequent amendments in the Act (Negotiable Instrument Act) and the pronouncements of this court reflect that it was always perceived that these cases would be disposed speedily so as to preserve the object of criminalisation of the act."The bench noted that as per the legal mandate, endeavour must be made to conclude the trial in cheque bounce case within six months from the date of filing of complaint."One of the major factors for high pendency is delay in ensuring the presence of the accused before the court for trial. As per recent study, more than half of the pending cases, i.e. more than 18 lakh cases, are pending due to absence of accused," the bench said.It said a mechanism may be developed to ensure the presence of the accused even by way of coercive measure, if required, including attachment of property.It observed that banks, being an important stakeholders in cheque bounce cases, have the responsibility of providing requisite details and facilitate an expeditious trial."The Reserve Bank of India, being the regulatory body, may also evolve guidelines for banks to facilitate requisite information for the trial of these cases and such other matters as may be required. A separate software-based mechanism may be developed to track and ensure the service of process on the accused in cases relating to an offence under Section 138 of NI Act," it said."With ensuring the credibility of cheques, it is equally important that cheques are not allowed to be misused giving cause to frivolous litigation. The Reserve Bank of India may consider developing a new proforma of cheques so as to include the purpose of payment, along with other information mentioned above to facilitate adjudication of real issues," it said.The top court also said there is a need of developing a mechanism for pre-litigation settlement in cheque bounce cases and National Legal Services Authority may evolve a scheme for settlement of dispute at pre-litigation stage. ABA SJK ABHABH

You Searched For "sc on criminal cases" and got 9 results

West Bengal bypolls to feature seven candidates with serious criminal cases including murder and kidnapping

BI India Bureau

SC issues directions to HCs for speedy disposal of criminal cases against MPs, MLAs

ANI

SC stays conviction of Rahul Gandhi in 2019 defamation case

PTI

No immunity for MPs, MLAs taking bribe to vote, make speech in House: SC

PTI

Supreme Court’s order weighs down heavily upon Kejriwal — Check out how many AAP MLAs have criminal cases

BI India Bureau

Parties must publish candidates criminal cases on sites: SC

IANS

Indian court wants Google, WA and FB to help stop child porn and rape videos

IANS

SC to hear SEBI's review petition against RIL on Oct 12

IANS

SC to evolve mechanism for expeditious disposal of cheque bounce cases

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides