If you don't like the toolkit, ignore it: SC Rejects Plea Seeking NIA Probe Into Alleged Congress Toolkit

Today, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking a probe by the National Investigation Agency into the alleged Congress toolkit case. The bench ruled that the toolkit should be ignored if someone doesn't like it. According to the bench, the petitioner has to avail a remedy other than that provided under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

If the allegations are confirmed in the investigation, the petitioner requested the cancellation of the registration of the Congress party. However, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah raised concern regarding the maintainability of a petition under Article 32 against political propaganda.

According to NDTV, expressing displeasure over the petition, Justice DY Chandrachud said such frivolous petitions "cannot be heard". "The time has come that the Supreme Court does something about such petitions" he added. Thereafter, the petitioner sought permission from the court to withdraw the petition.

The BJP had earlier claimed that Congress had created a toolkit for social media, which was used to project the new variant of corona virus via social media as 'Indian Swaroop' or 'Modi Swaroop'. The BJP has accused Congress of trying to tarnish the image of India and Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the global level by the use of this toolkit. However, Congress has categorically rejected these allegations.

Comments

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another. Also Read: Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.” The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...

Lawgic Simplified

Search This Blog