All In One AI Hub – स्मार्ट AI Tools, Tech News & Online Earning

Tag: Supreme Court News

  • Tirupati Laddu controversy: Question on the role of external officer in SIT, Supreme Court stays high court order

    Tirupati Laddu controversy: Question on the role of external officer in SIT, Supreme Court stays high court order


    On Friday (September 26, 2025), the Supreme Court stayed the order in which an officer outside the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Supreme Court (SIT) on behalf of the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was described as a violation of the court orders to allow an officer out of the special investigation team (SIT) to investigate adulteration in ghee used in the famous Tirumala Tirupati temple's 'Laddu Prasadam' (religious offerings) of the famous Tirumala Tirupati temple.

    The Andhra Pradesh High Court had said that while investigating the 'adulterated ghee' used to prepare Prasadam, the CBI director violated the Supreme Court's instructions. Chief Justice B.K. R. Gawai and Justice K. The bench of Vinod Chandran said that the investigating agency is monitoring this investigation himself. In such a situation, if a particular officer is asked to cooperate in the investigation, then there is nothing wrong in it.

    The defendant protested against the argument of Solicitor General

    The bench asked, 'If SIT wants to appoint a particular officer, then what is wrong with this?' Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, said that the CBI director personally held a meeting with SIT members, reviewed the matter and allowed J Venkat Rao to remain the investigating officer in a limited role.

    Mehta said, “He is just a record.” The defendant's lawyer protested against this argument of the Solicitor General, saying, “Investigating officers are not just a record.” The defendant originally moved the High Court.

    Violation of Supreme Court to allow other officers

    His lawyer said that the structure of the SIT was clearly specified in the Supreme Court order and should be a senior officer of the CBI Director, two officers nominated by Andhra Pradesh Police and a senior officer of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). He argued that allowing any other officer to participate in it is a violation of the Supreme Court order.

    The Chief Justice asked, 'Has the SIT finished the investigation monitoring? She is appointing only an investigating officer, who is working under her control. Stationing the order of the High Court, the bench asked the defendant to file a reply on the petition of the CBI Director.

    Dispute started with an order of High Court

    The dispute has arisen by an order of the High Court, stating that the CBI Director. By allowing an officer named Venkat Rao to investigate the case, he has worked contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court, as Rao is not formally part of the Special Investigation Team (SIT).

    Also read:- Custodial Death Case: Supreme Court strict stance, CBI and MP government on delay in arrest

    ]

    Source link

  • Custodial Death Case: Supreme Court strict stance, CBI and MP government on delay in arrest

    Custodial Death Case: Supreme Court strict stance, CBI and MP government on delay in arrest


    The Supreme Court has adopted a strict attitude due to non -arrest of two police officers accused in the death of a youth in custody. The investigation of this case of Madhya Pradesh was handed over to the CBI in May by the court. Now the court has given the CBI and the Madhya Pradesh government time till October 7 for the arrest of both. The court has said that after this, the directors of DGP and CBI of the state can be summoned personally.

    The case of murder of a young man named Deva Pardhi is of Myana police station in Guna district of Madhya Pradesh. On July 14 last year, Deva was detained on charges of theft. Along with him, his uncle Gangaram was also detained by the police. It is alleged that 24 -year -old Deva succumbed due to beating in custody.

    Supreme Court ordered arrest

    The FIR was lodged after the initial confirmation of the allegations in the magistrate investigation, but the action was carried forward in a loose manner. The names of the policemen involved in the case in the FIR were also not fully written. Police in-charge Inspector Sanjit Mavai and Umri Outpost in-charge Sub-Inspector Uttam Singh Kushwaha were neither suspended, nor arrested.

    Deva's mother Ansura Bai approached the Supreme Court. On 29 April, the Supreme Court ordered the arrest of both the officers. On May 15, the case was handed over to CBI. The CBI arrested some people including Inspector Jubera Khan, Sub-Inspector Devraj Singh Parihar, accused of involvement in the incident, but Mavai and Kushwaha are still absconding.

    Police officers running absconding now suspended

    Ansura Bai has filed a contempt petition alleging that the order of the Supreme Court is not following. In the hearing held on Thursday (September 25, 2025), it was revealed that the two police officers who have been absconding for several months have now been suspended. Angered by this, the court directed to put the case again for the next day.

    Next hearing in court on this date

    In the hearing held on Friday (September 26, 2025), the CBI said that it has declared a reward of 2-2 lakhs on the arrest of Mavai and Kushwaha. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the CBI and the Madhya Pradesh government and gave them time till October 7.

    The matter will be further heard on 8 October. The court has asked the investigating officers of the case to appear personally that day. Also, the protection of Gangaram, a witness in the case of judicial custody, has also been ordered.

    Also read:- Bengaluru: Woman beaten and beaten on the allegation of saree, the video went viral and the police arrested

    ]

    Source link

  • 'After the statement of witnesses, the case is wrong, the hearing of sensitive cases should be done everyday': Supreme Court

    'After the statement of witnesses, the case is wrong, the hearing of sensitive cases should be done everyday': Supreme Court


    The Supreme Court has said that in particularly sensitive cases, the practice of day-to-day hearing has been completely abolished and the courts should adopt it again. The court, considering the right to hearing quick hearing, as being inherent in Article 21 of the Constitution, said that all the High Courts should set up a committee to seriously discuss this issue for the benefit of the concerned district court.

    Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. The bench of V. Vishwanathan said that it is necessary to understand the current social, political and administrative scenario, including the police methods, to return to the old practice of hearing on day-to-day basis.

    Thirty years old practice completely ended

    The bench said in its order of 22 September, 'Nearly thirty years old practice of day-to-day hearing in especially important or sensitive matters has been completely abolished. We believe that the time has come that the court should adopt this practice again.

    This order of the Supreme Court has come on the petition of the CBI, in which in September last year, the order of granting bail to an accused was challenged by the Calcutta High Court in a rape case. The bench said that one of the major factors responsible for the delay in justice system is not to continuously hear criminal cases.

    Hearing continues day by day after witnesses statement

    The bench said that even in such cases, the court consider the evidence 'in pieces' using the discretion and the cases continue to last for several months or years. The bench said that the legal status is that once the statement of the witnesses, the court concerned should continue hearing day by day until all the witnesses have the statements, except the witnesses who have left the government lawyer.

    The bench said that the Chief Justice of the High Court can instruct his administrative party to issue a circular to the concerned district judiciary, in which it is also mentioned that every investigation or hearing should be done quickly. The bench said that the hearing of the case should be completed by 31 December.

    Also read:- Patra Chala Money Laundering case: PMLA court action, summons issued on second supplementary charge sheet of ED

    ]

    Source link