SC Declines To Interfere In Nageswar Rao’s Appointment As CBI Interim Chief

Must Read

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Follow us

The Bench of the Supreme Court of Justices Arun Mishra and Naveen Sinha today dismissed the petition filed by Common Cause and RTI activist Anjali Bharadwaj calling into question M Nageswar Rao’s appointment as interim CBI director.

No Requirement Of Interference

The bench said there was no need for interference as full – time CBI director has already been appointed. The bench also declined to accept the petitioner’s prayer for directions to bring more transparency to the appointment process. The case went through a dramatic journey with three judges, including CJI Gogoi, recusing them from hearing it before reaching the bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra.

Appointment Of Directors

On January 24, CJI Gogoi rejected the statement that he was going to be part of the High Powered Committee to select the new CBI Director. The matter was next assigned to the bench headed by Justice A K Sikri, who recused on January 24, citing that he had participated in the Committee meeting, which had removed Alok Verma as CBI Director, leading to Nageswar Rao’s appointment as interim chief. The case was then assigned to the next senior judge, Justice N V Ramana, who also recused on January 31, saying that he had attended the wedding of the daughter of Nageshwar Rao before and that he was also familiar with his son – in – law.  After that, on February 2nd, the High Powered Committee appointed Rishi Kumar Shukla CBI Director. Then the bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra heard the matter.

Background Of Petition

The petition states that Nageshwar Rao’s appointment was not made as mandated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act on the basis of recommendations from the high – powered selection committee. The order of 10 January 2019 stated that Rao’s appointment was approved by the Cabinet Appointment Committee ‘ as per the previous arrangement. ‘ That earlier arrangement, however, i.e. The Supreme Court quashed the order of 23 October 2018 making him interim CBI Director on 8 January in the case of Alok Verma. The government, however, still invoked its earlier quashed order to make Nageshwar Rao Interim Director of the CBI, the petition contended.

Non-Transparent Process

RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj is a PIL co-petitioner who also alleges that in the appointment of CBI Director, the government did not follow a transparent process. According to the petitioners, without the recommendations of a high – powered committee, the government can not charge the CBI Director. The government’s order to charge him with CBI Director is therefore illegal and, according to the petition, against the appointment procedure under Section 4A of the DSPE Act.

It states:

“India’s government has tried to stifle the independence of the CBI institution by arbitrarily and illegally appointing the CBI Director. Furthermore, the lack of transparency in the appointment process prevents any meaningful public scrutiny and allows the government to exercise undue influence in the appointment process, particularly at the shortlisting stage, thereby undermining the CBI institution.”

Directions For Specific Mechanism

In addition to seeking to quash the appointment of Rao, it also seeks directions for establishing specific mechanisms to ensure transparency in the appointment process of the CBI Director. The petition states that the government launched the process of appointing Director, CBI as Alok Verma’s tenure was scheduled to end on January 31, 2019. Anjali Bhardwaj applied for information on the appointment process under the RTI Act in December 2018. “The government responded to each of these RTI applications with the same summary response in an attempt to obfuscate and withhold information about the appointment process,” the petition says.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -