We saw how the common man was suffering: Supreme Court refuses to stay proceedings against Gautam Gambhir in COVID medicines hoarding case

Today the Supreme Court has refused to grant a stay on proceedings against BJP MP Gautam Gambhir for hoarding and black marketing of COVID-related drugs, during the second wave. "We saw how the common man was suffering. This cannot be done. Do you want us to go into merits?" questioned the bench. Gambhir then withdrew his plea.

Earlier in June, the Drug Controller had stated before the Delhi High Court that Gambhir's Foundation had committed an offense under Rule 61 and 18 C of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act as it was in possession of unauthorised stocks of Fabiflu.

On May 24, the Drug Controller was directed by a division bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh to probe into hoarding of essential COVID drugs by Gautam Gambhir and medical oxygen by AAP MLAs Priti Tomar and Praveen Kumar and to submit a report within a week.

The High Court was hearing a PIL asking for the lodging of an FIR on allegations that politicians were able to obtain and distribute COVID-19 medicines in huge quantities despite the fact that people were running around to get them.

The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah was not inclined to accept the submission of Kailash Vasudev (Gautam Gambhir's Advocate) that his client did "public service" and is now facing the consequences.

According to NDTV, "We had our eye on the ground to see what was happening... People running helter-skelter... that is not on and we cannot allow that," Justice Chandrachud said.

CLICK HERE TO READ ORDER.

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