A 65-year-old Dalit woman was left running around for eight months, and the Orissa High Court sharply reprimanded the police for claiming a “lost file.”
The Orissa High Court took a strong stance on the eight-month delay in filing an FIR against an elderly Dalit woman who was defrauded of ₹2.10 lakh in a land deal, completely rejecting the police’s excuse of “lost file.” New Delhi: A 65-year-old Dalit woman, who was defrauded of ₹2.10 lakh in a land deal, had to approach the Orissa High Court for justice. Despite a magistrate’s clear instructions, the police did not file an FIR in the fraud case for more than eight months. The High Court has issued a stern remark, criticizing the police for this significant delay. The court clarified that arguments such as “lost file” or “unavailability of court orders” can no longer be routine excuses to undermine the judicial process. In her June 12 order, Justice Savitri Ratho expressed deep concern over the local police’s attitude towards court orders. While hearing the case, he stated that it is possible for files to go missing, but unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. The judge explained that he has encountered numerous cases where local police do not comply with the orders of the family court or magistrate. Despite repeated reminders and extensions, police officers remain unmoved. The timeline for this case is astonishing. The magistrate had clearly ordered the registration of an FIR in the case on August 6, 2025. However, the case was registered at the Ranpur police station eight months later, on April 24. The court noted that in such cases, the police often make the same common excuse: that the court order or warrant was lost, or that the officer concerned had recently joined duty. The court found this explanation completely unacceptable. The court argued that every police station maintains separate registers to record orders and letters received from various courts and officials, making the claim of a missing file meaningless. In light of these negligences, the Orissa High Court has urged the state’s Director General of Police (DGP) to issue necessary guidelines to his officers to ensure respect for judicial orders and their prompt implementation. The root of this entire dispute stems from a fraud that occurred in May 2025. The 65-year-old petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, was duped into selling her land by the accused. Under the pretense of registering a sale deed with the sub-registrar, the accused extorted a hefty sum of ₹2.10 lakh from the elderly woman. However, they never executed the sale deed nor returned her money despite repeated requests. Fighting for her rights, the victim first approached the lower court, which took the matter seriously, registered an FIR, and ordered an investigation. When the police refused to listen to her complaint and took no action, she was forced to seek recourse to the High Court through advocate Umakant Sahu. On the other hand, representing the state government, Additional Standing Counsel Saroj Kumar Rout informed the court that an FIR has now been registered in the matter and Sub-Inspector Hasina Pradhan is investigating it. Despite this, the Orissa High Court continued to strongly criticize the eight-month delay in complying with the magistrate’s order and the irresponsible explanation given by the police. Rajan Chaudhary Courtesy: Hindi News
Transgender pleas shifted to top court as HC proceedings face nationwide stay
Petitions question new medical verification rules and changes to self-identification provisions introduced under the 2026 legislation The Supreme Court on Monday stayed proceedings in high courts related to multiple petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, which they alleged grossly diluted transgender rights. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana, while staying the pending proceedings before the high courts of Delhi, Rajasthan, Karnataka and Kerala, transferred the cases to itself on a plea made by the Centre through solicitor-general Tushar Mehta. “Issue notice…. Further proceedings before the high courts…shall remain stayed,” the CJI said. The CJI indicated that either the top court may hear the batch of petitions or consolidate them and transfer them to one of the high courts for adjudication. Mehta requested the transfer of proceedings from high courts to avoid conflicting verdicts. He said the apex court, too, had on May 4 issued notice on a PIL challenging the amendments to the Act, hence, the matter should ideally be dealt with by it. The batch of petitions before the high courts and the Supreme Court had mainly challenged the amendments to the Act in 2026, which limited the definition of transgender individuals to hijra, kinner, aravani, jogta, eunuch, as well as those with congenital sex variations. The 2026 Act seeks to amend the original 2019 Act, which had permitted an individual to identify themselves as a “transgender” under the legal framework of “self-identification”. However, the 2026 amendment has made it mandatory for a person to be declared transgender through a medical board verification process. Courtesy : The Telegraph Note: This news is originally published on https:/thetelegraph.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Calcutta HC grants Abhishek Banerjee interim relief in signature forgery case
Justice Kausik Chanda granted the relief for three weeks and directed Banerjee to appear before the CID at its headquarters, Bhabani Bhaban, in Kolkata by 6 pm on Thursday for questioning. KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court on Thursday interim protection from coercive action to TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee in a signature forgery case linked to the party’s choice of Leader of Opposition in the West Bengal Assembly. The court also directed him to appear before the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) under the state police at Bhabani Bhaban by 6 pm to face the agency probing the case. It’s not yet known whether the nephew of the Trinamool Congress supremo and former Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee will appear before the CID at Bhabani Bhaban. He went to Delhi on Saturday and met the Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and is expected to return to Kolkata this afternoon. While hearing the case at the High Court on Thursday, Justice Kausik Chanda directed Abhishek Banerjee to appear before the CID at its Bhabani Bhaban headquarters in Kolkata by 6 pm on Thursday for questioning in the matter. The court also granted him protection from any coercive action for three weeks. The MP’s lawyer informed the court that Abhishek, the number two after Mamata in the Trinamool Congress, was scheduled to arrive in Kolkata from Delhi at around 4 pm. The court will hear the case again after two weeks. The CID has already served three notices separately to Abhishek asking him to appear before the investigating agency at Bhabani Bhaban but he didn’t face it showing medical ground and his busy schedules in Delhi till 9 June. He was brought under the scanner of the CID after serious allegations surrounding a meeting convened by Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee at her Kalighat residence to discuss the party’s choice for the Leader of Opposition post in the House. Abhishek wrote a letter armed with the meeting’s resolution signed by the party MLAs to the speaker Rathindranath Bose selecting Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay, veteran legislator from the Ballygunj constituency in the city, as the LoP in the Trinamool legislature party. The controversy erupted after claims surfaced that signatures of several MLAs were affixed to related resolution copy despite their absence from the meeting, sparking a political row in West Bengal and prompting an investigation into alleged forgery. Based on the complaint lodged by two rebel Trinamool Congress MLAs Ritabrata Bandyopadhyay from Uluberia Purba in Howrah and Sandipan Saha from Entally in the city, with the speaker an FIR was filed by the House with Hare Street police station. With the directive of the Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari, a special investigation team (SIT) under the CID was formed to probe the alleged signature forgery case. The SIT has already interrogated several MLAs who have reportedly admitted that their signatures were affixed to the resolution copy though they absent in the meeting at Kalighat residence of Mamata Banerjee landing Trinamool Congress leadership in trouble particularly at a time when the party is grappling with unprecedented internal crisis after it suffered a crushing defeat to BJP winning only 80 out of 294 seats in the recent assembly polls in the state. Subhendu Maiti Courtesy : TNIE Note: This news is originally published on https:/thenewindianexpress.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Centre seeks transfer to SC petitions filed in HCs against Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026
The SC had asked respondents to file replies after senior counsel AM Singhvi pointed out that the amendment took away transgender persons’ fundamental right to self-determination of gender “There are more than one High Court. There may be divergent views,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta cautioned. File Photo The Centre on Wednesday sought transfer to the Supreme Court multiple petitions pending in various high courts challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 which introduced certain contentious changes in the legal framework governing the recognition, rights and protection of transgender persons. “We have filed transfer petitions to transfer the challenge to Transgender Amendment Act here in this court. Can the transfer petition be listed on Friday? If notice also goes, we can ask high courts to wait,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. “Sometimes, we can have an advantage of high courts’ views also,” the CJI said, noting that parallel proceedings before high courts could be beneficial to it. On May 4, the Supreme Court had issued notices to Centre, states and union territories on petitions challenging the validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. It had asked the respondents to file their replies after senior counsel AM Singhvi pointed out that the amendment took away transgender persons’ fundamental right to self-determination of gender. The petitioners contended that transgender persons receiving hormonal therapy would face problems due to the amendment. He, however, didn’t press for stay of the amendment as it had not been notified. Passed by Parliament in March this year during the Budget Session, the law amended the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and redefined who qualified as a “transgender person”. It also strengthened penal provisions to address serious offences such as forced identity and bodily harm. President Droupadi Murmu had given her assent to the ‘Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026’ on March 30, 2026 Petitioners transgender persons Laxmi Narayan Tripathi, Zainab Patel and others – who have have challenged the validity of the amendment—alleged that it caused “irreparable constitutional injury” to the fundamental rights of transgender persons guaranteed under Articles 14 (right to equality), 15 (right to non-discrimination), 19 (right to freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution. Tripathi is the Acharya Mahamandaleshwar of the Kinnar Akhara, a Bharatanatyam dancer, author and social activist, Patel is the Director (Inclusion & Diversity) at KPMG India, and a Member of the National Council for Transgender Persons (Western Region). They wondered if the State, through legislation, could define who a person was by substituting biological or socio-medical classifications for a person’s lived and self-perceived identity. The PIL alleged that the amendment dismantled the principle of self-identification of gender recognised as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in the landmark verdict in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) versus Union of India (2014). Referring to the provision requiring the District Magistrate to issue a certificate of identity for a transgender person only after examining the recommendation of a medical board, the petitioners said it violated transgender persons’ right to privacy. “Parliament has, by the stroke of a legislative pen, repealed the statutory right that this Court held to be a fundamental right under Article 21. The impugned deletion does not even require elaborate constitutional analysis to expose its unconstitutionality: a provision that directly codifies a right declared fundamental by this Court cannot be omitted by ordinary legislation without violating Article 21 and the doctrine of non-retrogression of fundamental rights,” they submitted. The amendment has been criticised by LGBTQIA+ groups on the ground that they were not consulted before the introduction of the Bill. National Council of Transgender Persons (NCTP) members Kalki Subramanium and Rituparna Neog had resigned in protest. Former Delhi High Court judge Asha Menon who headed a committee set up by the Supreme Court to examine transgender rights has asked the Centre to withdraw the Bill. Article_Author Satya Prakash Courtesy : The Tribune Note: This news is originally published on https:/thetribune.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Centre fears ‘divergence of views’ among High Courts on new transgender law; asks SC to transfer cases to itself
“We will see,” Chief Justice Kant said in response The Centre urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 27, 2026) to transfer petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 from about four different High Courts to the apex court. Appearing before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Solicitor General Tishar Mehta said the High Court are returning to work from summer recess in the first week of June. SC flags ‘risk’ of misuse in transgender self-identification debate The Supreme Court is already seized of several petitions challenging the 2026 Act, but it is is only partially working during June. Mr. Mehta, appearing for the Union government, said the High Courts may pre-empt the apex court by separately taking up the petitions before them and pass order. Mr. Mehta said the apex court should shift the cases pending in these High Courts to itself in order to avoid “divergent views” on the same Act. The top law officer urged the Chief Justice to list the Union government’s plea for transferring these petitions to itself on May 29. “We will see,” Chief Justice Kant said in response. The petitions in the apex court have criticised the controversial 2026 law of removing the right to self-identity. The 2026 Act requires a government-appointed medical board’s favourable recommendation for a District Magistrate to certify someone as a transgender person. NHRC asks Centre to review changes to trans law, ‘revisit’ community concerns on self-identification The petitioners, including activists like Laxminarayan Tripathi and others, said the Act disregarded transgender identity as an “authentic human identity, freely chosen”. They have argued that the requirement for a medical certification for gender recognition violated the rights of transgender persons and amounts to “medical gatekeeping” by the State. The government had countered that the intention of the Act was to ensure that deserving people from the community get benefits. He said forcible sex change was criminalised. The Transgender Persons Amendment Bill and the question of identity The petitioners highlighted that the Act had abruptly stopped ongoing sex-change therapies and treatment, leaving many in the community in dire straits. The petitions have argued that the 2026 amendments pull the carpet from under the 2014 NALSA judgment that declared that the right to self-identity was a fundamental right. It had held that identity was determined by the person, and not by biology, birth assignment or through State verification. Section 3 of the 2026 Act has omitted the right to self-perceived gender identity. The Hindu Bureau Courtesy : The Hindu Note: This news is originally published on https:/thehindu.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Raped a Dalit woman under the pretext of a job, threatened her when she became pregnant; Kerala High Court denies bail to suspended Congress councilor!
The special SC/ST court had already denied Prasobh anticipatory bail after a police complaint was filed. Kochi—The Kerala High Court on Tuesday denied anticipatory bail to suspended Palakkad Congress city councilor Prasobh M in the alleged rape case of a Dalit woman. Justice A. Badruddin dismissed Prasobh’s appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision. Prasobh is accused of sexually exploiting a Dalit woman by promising her a job. A case was registered against him at the Palakkad Town South police station under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on charges of rape and intimidation. According to the prosecution, Prasobh, despite being married, maintained a relationship with the victim for over a year and a half. He repeatedly had physical relations with her, promising her a job and lifelong support. When the relationship became public, the accused threatened the woman and used caste-based slurs. She was even threatened when she became pregnant. The victim told the court that she met Prasobh when his father, who owned a tea stall, abused her. Prasobh persuaded her not to file a complaint and then remained in constant contact with her. He lured the woman into a sexual relationship with the promise of a good job. After a police complaint was filed, the Special SC/ST Court denied Prasobh anticipatory bail in April. The trial court stated that a prima facie case was made out against the suspended councilor. Following this, Prasobh approached the High Court. Senior advocate Sasimangalam S. Ajit Kumar and other lawyers represented Prasobh in the High Court. They argued that even if the allegations were considered true, the relationship was consensual. He also argued that the elements of the crime under the SC/ST Act were not met, and that the prohibition on anticipatory bail under this law did not apply. However, Justice Badruddin rejected these arguments, stating that the trial court’s decision was correct. The High Court clarified that the case primarily lay under the SC/ST Act. Therefore, the suspended councilor was denied relief. Geetha Sunil Pillai Courtesy: Hindi News
Dalit woman sexual exploitation case: Kerala High Court rejects anticipatory bail for expelled Congress councilor M.A. Prasobh
The Kerala High Court has taken a tough stand in the case of sexual exploitation of a Dalit woman on the pretext of a job and lifelong companionship. Expelled Congress councilor M.A. Prasobh was denied anticipatory bail. The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dealt a major legal blow to expelled Congress councilor M.A. Prasobh. The court rejected his anticipatory bail plea in the case involving the sexual exploitation of a Dalit woman on the pretext of a job and lifelong companionship. A bench headed by Justice A. Badruddin upheld the previous order of the Special SC/ST Court, which had rejected the former councilor’s pre-arrest bail application. The lower court had clearly held that a prima facie case was made out against the accused. The case was registered at the Palakkad Town South Police Station. The serious allegations surfaced, causing significant political embarrassment for the Congress in Palakkad, leading to the expulsion of the accused from the party. This issue has also been politically sensitive. Even during the assembly election campaign, the CPI-M used this incident as a major political weapon against the Congress. According to the prosecution, despite being already married, M.A. Prasobh remained in contact with the complainant for approximately one and a half years. It is alleged that he repeatedly engaged in physical relations with her by falsely promising her employment and lifelong support. The victim, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, claims in her complaint that she became pregnant during this relationship. When the affair became public, she was threatened and abused. Based on the victim’s complaint, the police have registered a case against Prasobh under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These include rape, sexual exploitation by false pretenses, and criminal intimidation. He has also been charged with stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Pleading for anticipatory bail in the High Court, the defense lawyer argued that even if all the allegations are accepted as true, this appears to be a case of a completely consensual relationship between two adults. The defense also argued that the SC/ST Act had been misused in this case, and therefore, the statutory bar on bail under the Act should not apply. They claimed that the special court did not record any clear finding substantiating the rape allegation and denied bail solely on the basis of the SC/ST Act. However, the complainant’s lawyer strongly opposed the bail plea, stating that the accused had emotionally and sexually abused the woman over a prolonged period. The victim stated in her complaint that she first met Prasobh when his father, who runs a tea stall, allegedly abused her. The woman alleges that after that incident, Prasobh persuaded her not to file a police complaint. He then gradually won her trust by promising her a job and security, trapping her in his net. Now, after the Kerala High Court rejected her anticipatory bail plea, the expelled councilor’s troubles have increased significantly. As the investigation progresses, the threat of arrest hangs over M.A. Prasobh. Rajan Chaudhary Courtesy: Hindi News
Kerala High Court Upholds Reproductive Autonomy of Transgender Man by Allowing Egg Cryopreservation
In a significant development concerning transgender rights and reproductive autonomy in India, the Kerala High Court recently permitted a transgender man to cryopreserve his eggs by allowing him to approach an Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) bank of his choice. The order was passed in the case titled Hari Devageeth v. Union of India by Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen on May 15, 2026. The Court directed that the ART bank concerned should take steps to retrieve the petitioner’s oocytes and cryopreserve them for future reproductive use. The decision came in a writ petition filed by a transgender man who challenged the refusal of a private hospital to permit egg cryopreservation on the ground that transgender persons fall outside the statutory framework established under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. The case raised important constitutional and legal questions concerning the reproductive rights of transgender persons, the scope of healthcare protections under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the interpretation of statutory provisions regulating assisted reproductive technologies in India. While granting relief to the petitioner, the High Court also left open the constitutional challenge to Section 21(g) of the ART Act, which restricts ART services to women between the ages of 21 and 50 years and men between 21 and 55 years. The petitioner before the Court was a person assigned female at birth who identified as a man. According to the pleadings, the petitioner had undergone breast removal surgery as part of gender affirmation procedures but had not yet undergone complete sex reassignment surgery, including hysterectomy or removal of ovaries. Before proceeding further with gender-affirming procedures, the petitioner sought to preserve his reproductive potential by cryopreserving his eggs. However, KIMS Hospital allegedly refused permission for the procedure, citing restrictions under the ART Act and the absence of a legal framework expressly recognising transgender persons within assisted reproductive services. This refusal prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking constitutional protection of reproductive choice and healthcare access. The litigation quickly evolved into a broader debate regarding the rights of transgender persons to parenthood, reproductive healthcare, and equal treatment under Indian law. It also highlighted gaps within existing legislation governing ART services, surrogacy, and adoption, all of which largely continue to operate on binary gender assumptions. The matter attracted significant attention because it brought into focus the intersection between gender identity, medical autonomy, constitutional dignity, and reproductive justice. Senior Advocate Anand Grover appeared on behalf of the petitioner and argued that denial of cryopreservation violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights. The Union Government opposed the plea, contending that existing statutory frameworks consciously excluded transgender persons from availing such services. Although the High Court’s detailed judgment is awaited, the operative order permitting cryopreservation has already emerged as an important judicial intervention in the evolving jurisprudence surrounding transgender rights in India. Arguments of the Parties: The petitioner argued that the refusal to permit egg cryopreservation amounted to a direct infringement of his constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and healthcare. It was submitted that although the petitioner identified as a man, he had been assigned female at birth and retained reproductive organs capable of producing oocytes. Therefore, prior to undergoing further gender-affirming surgical procedures, he wished to preserve his eggs for possible future reproduction. The petitioner clarified that he had not undergone complete sex reassignment surgery and had only undergone breast removal surgery. Since the uterus and ovaries remained intact, it was argued that the petitioner retained the biological capacity to reproduce. Counsel submitted that transgender men are capable of experiencing pregnancy and reproduction, and therefore, denying them access to fertility preservation services solely because of gender identity would be discriminatory and unconstitutional. A central argument advanced by the petitioner was that reproductive choice forms an essential component of personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The plea asserted that the right to make decisions regarding reproduction, parenthood, and fertility preservation is inseparably connected with bodily autonomy, dignity, and privacy. The petitioner contended that denial of cryopreservation effectively deprived him of the possibility of biological parenthood in the future. Once gender-affirming procedures such as hysterectomy or removal of ovaries are performed, the ability to retrieve oocytes would permanently cease. Therefore, refusal to permit cryopreservation would cause irreversible harm to the petitioner’s reproductive future. The petitioner also relied upon the protections available under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and the accompanying Rules of 2020. It was argued that the statutory framework expressly prohibits discrimination against transgender persons in matters relating to healthcare access. Consequently, exclusion from ART services merely because the petitioner was a transgender man amounted to unlawful discrimination prohibited by statute and constitutional principles of equality. Another important submission made on behalf of the petitioner was that the ART Act did not contain any explicit prohibition against cryopreservation of eggs by transgender persons. According to the petitioner, while the legislation regulates eligibility for assisted reproductive procedures, it does not impose an absolute bar on fertility preservation. Therefore, the authorities could not rely upon legislative silence to deny healthcare access. Senior Advocate Anand Grover argued that reproductive rights must be interpreted in a gender-inclusive manner consistent with constitutional morality and the recognition of transgender identity affirmed by the Supreme Court of India in landmark transgender rights jurisprudence. It was submitted that constitutional protections cannot be denied merely because statutory frameworks have failed to evolve alongside contemporary understandings of gender identity and reproductive health. The Union Government opposed the plea and defended the existing legislative framework governing assisted reproductive technology and surrogacy in India. The Centre argued that the ART Act specifically permits assisted reproductive procedures only for a “commissioning couple” or a single woman. Under the statutory definition, a commissioning couple refers strictly to a legally married man and woman. According to the Government, transgender persons and single men were intentionally excluded from the categories of persons eligible to avail ART services. Since cryopreservation of oocytes forms part of ART services regulated under the statute, the petitioner could not claim
Allahabad HC defers hearing on plea seeking probe into Rahul Gandhi’s alleged disproportionate assets
Division bench of Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Zafeer Ahmad passed the order on a BJP worker’s plea, directing documents be sealed. LUCKNOW: In order to avoid an open court hearing while exercising utmost caution with documents attached to the case file, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday deferred the hearing on a plea seeking a probe into the alleged disproportionate assets (DA) of Congress MP and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, till May 12. The division bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Zafeer Ahmad, passed the order on a writ petition filed by Karnataka BJP worker S. Vignesh Shishir, while directing that the documents related to the case be kept in a sealed envelope. The petitioner moved the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on April 25, 2026, and the bench took up the case for its first hearing on May 6, 2026. Interestingly, both judges heard the matter in their chamber. After Wednesday’s hearing, they issued directions to seal the entire copy of the writ petition before them, and it was ordered to be kept in the custody of the Senior Registrar of the High Court. The judges further directed the Senior Registrar to place the case file before the bench on May 12 at 2:15 pm for a further hearing in chambers. “The seal shall be opened by the Bench Secretary of this Court on the next date of listing,” the judges ordered. Significantly, prior to the commencement of the hearing, the petitioner moved an application urging the bench to direct the authorities concerned to preserve the records of the present writ petition in safe custody. The petitioner has levelled serious allegations against the Congress leader, claiming that he has allegedly amassed substantial wealth from unknown sources. The petitioner has made the Government of India, CBI, ED, CBDT, Uttar Pradesh Police and the Director of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office, New Delhi, parties to the petition, and has sought directions from the court for an inquiry into the matter. The hearing was deferred after counsel for the central and state agencies sought time to obtain written instructions. After the first hearing, the bench recorded in its order that the petitioner had argued at length, following which counsel for the opposite parties requested a short adjournment to obtain written instructions from their respective governments and agencies. Agreeing to this request, the bench posted the matter for the next hearing on May 12. Namita Bajpai Courtesy : TNIE Note: This news is originally published on https:/thenewindianexpress.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Sultanpur court denies forensic voice test request against Rahul Gandhi
A Sultanpur court rejected a plea seeking a voice sample of Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case filed by a BJP leader, posting the matter for May 11, with the complainant planning to challenge the order Sultanpur (UP): A local MP/MLA court on Saturday rejected a plea seeking a voice sample of Rae Bareli MP Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case filed by a BJP functionary against the Congress leader, and posted the matter for the next hearing on May 11. The plea, filed by BJP leader Vijay Mishra through his counsel Santosh Kumar Pandey, had sought Gandhi’s voice sample for a forensic test to compare it with an audio clip. After the petition was dismissed, Pandey said they would file a revision plea before the sessions court against the order. The court rejected the plea after hearing the arguments of both sides, including Gandhi’s counsel Kashi Prasad Shukla. The matter dates back to 2018 when Mishra, a local BJP leader, filed a defamation suit over Gandhi’s alleged objectionable remarks targeting Amit Shah while campaigning for the Karnataka Assembly elections. After five years of legal proceedings, the court issued a warrant against Gandhi in December 2023. The Rae Bareli MP surrendered before the court in February 2024, and was granted bail on two sureties of Rs 25,000 each by a special magistrate. On July 26 last year, the Congress leader recorded his statement before the court, claiming innocence and calling the case a political conspiracy. Earlier this year, multiple hearings were postponed due to a strike by lawyers and the ill-health of Gandhi’s counsel. Courtesy : Telangana Today Note: This news is originally published on https:/telanganatoday.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights