The Bombay High Court at Goa disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed alleging that trees have been cut without any permissions under the Goa Preservation of Trees Act, 1984.

The Advocate General clarified before the High Court that no trees have been cut without any permissions under the Goa Preservation of Trees Act, 1984, and there is no intention to cut any trees without following the due process of law and obtaining necessary permissions.   

Further, the Advocate General submitted that in the context of the Smart City project at Panaji, applications were received from the user agency for the felling of the six trees.

Upon receipt of the applications, the Authorities inspected each of the six trees.The first four trees were found within the Right of Way (RoW). However, the inspection also revealed that they were not leaning or posing any danger. Therefore, the user agency was advised to take adequate measures to save the trees. Even the user agency agreed with this suggestion, and accordingly, no permission was granted to fell the first four trees referred to above. 

Regarding the fifth tree (Banyan tree), the inspection revealed that it was affected by the drain system, and one major trunk was leaning towards an adjoining building. The inspection also revealed that there was no space available for the tree to grow further, as it was found congested within the RoW. The Authorities concluded that the tree was vulnerable for all these reasons and could even be uprooted at any time. Still, considering the religious and heritage value of the tree, the user agency was apprised that translocation of this tree would be appropriate in the circumstances.

The Joint Inspection Report placed before the Court records that the user agency informed the Authorities that they have machinery and labour available for translocation, and translocation was possible at Campal ground, which is also government land, was chosen for translocation. Accordingly, permissions were granted to translocate the Fifth Tree (Banyan tree) to Campal ground.  

The Advocate General stated that this tree has already been translocated at the Campal ground pursuant to this permission. 

Mr Shirodkar made some submissions that this was not a proper translocation. However, as filed, the Petition is bereft of proper averments or suggestions for successful translocation.

Regarding the sixth tree (Rain tree), the inspection report revealed that it was found leaning towards the PWD quarters and standing in a ruinous state, posing a danger to vehicular traffic, the public and pedestrians. Accordingly, the joint inspection report opined that this sixth tree needs to be cut and removed urgently. The Tree Authority, accordingly, granted permission for the felling of this raintree. The learned Advocate General states that the rain tree has already been removed pursuant to this permission.  

This Petition has alleged that the trees were being felled without permission from the prescribed authorities. This premise was not substantiated in the Petition. Merely stating that these two trees were not marked is not sufficient. In any case, the Joint Inspection Report and the permissions granted for the felling of only one tree out of six applied for by the user agency clarify the   position to some extent. One of these trees was permitted to be translocated.

If the Petitioner has any grievances about the translocation order, perhaps it would still be open to the Petitioner to appeal the same before the Appellate Authority. In any case, it is open to the Petitioner to offer expert advice or suggestions so that the translocation is a success. If such suggestions are offered, the Division Bench of  Justice MS Sonak and  Justice Valmiki Menezes find no reason why the Authorities, who should also be interested in successful translocation, should not consider them so that the translocation project is a success. The apprehension about the felling of trees without permission stands allayed with the  AG’s statement made at the very outset.

A Delhi court has permitted former Congress councillor and lawyer Ishrat Jahan, an accused in the Delhi Riots case, to practice law outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD).

Ishrat Jahan was arrested in March 2020 in connection with a Delhi riots case for the alleged commission of offences under the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

A Special Court granted her bail on March 14, 2022 on the condition that she shall not leave the jurisdiction of NCR without prior permission of the court.

She challenged this order before Special Judge Sameer Bajpai on the grounds that the condition restricted her from practicing outside the jurisdiction of NCT of Delhi.

The Counsel appearing for the accused submitted that Jahan, a practicing advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, was keen on taking her law practice beyond NCR.

He contended that Jahan had not breached any of the bail conditions and that she always complied with the orders of the court.

The Special Prosecutor opposed the plea on the grounds that Jahan already had reasonable liberty and considering her prior conduct, she should not be granted any further relief.

The court observed that since the grant of bail, the investigating agency or the prosecution has not brought any fact to the notice of the court that the applicant has breached any condition of bail.

Modifying the bail condition, the Court directed Jahan to neither leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Court nor indulge in any kind of criminal activity.

The appellant was represented by Advocates Aadil Singh Boparai and Srishti Khanna.

Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, along with Advocates Chanya Jaitley and Ninaz Baldawala, appeared for the State.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted permission to jailed MLA Abbas Ansari, to attend the ‘fatiha’ (special prayers) of his father and former MLA Mukhtar Ansari, scheduled to be held on April 10.

Abbas is currently in judicial custody in connection with a criminal case. He moved the Apex Court seeking permission to participate in his father’s ‘fatiha’.

Appearing for Abbas, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal requested 4 days ad-interim for the accused, so that he could be with family in this hour of grief.

The Senior Counsel further contended that Abbas Ansari was currently 600 km away from Ghazipur, where the prayer was scheduled, adding that he would time to travel.

Representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, Additional Advocate General (AAG) Garima Prasad vehemently opposed the plea and submitted one preliminary objection to the prayer.

She said the accused was seeking interim bail in four FIRs. The FIRs were not on record, plus there was a speaking trial court order rejecting bail. Abbas was a gangster, she sad, pointing out that a severe law and order situation could occur at the funeral.

Noting that the petitioner could not attend his father’s funeral rites as he was in judicial custody, the Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan said that it saw no reason to deny the petitioner the permission to attend the Fatiha scheduled for tomorrow.

The Apex Court directed Abbas to start his travel today at the earliest and not later than 5 pm. It said after the rituals were over tomorrow, the petitioner should be shifted to a local jail in Ghazipur. The petitioner may be allowed to participate in the rituals after April 11, in judicial custody, it ordered.

The Bench further ordered that no weapons should be carried by anyone at the Fatiha or the petitioner’s residence.

Gangster-turned-politician Mukhtar Ansari, who was facing conviction in eight cases, passed away on March 28, after suffering cardiac arrest in Banda jail.

As per jail officials, Ansari was admitted to Banda Medical College earlier in the day after he was found lying unconscious in his barrack.

The jail officials immediately spotted him and took him to the district hospital, where he died during treatment.

Earlier on March 26, Mukhtar was found unconscious and was referred to the district hospital. He had complained of pain in the abdomen and constipation. He was discharged after treatment in 15 hours.

Advocate Randheer Singh Suman, lawyer of the former Bahujan Samaj Party MLA, had filed an application in a Barabanki court seeking proper medical examination alleging that ‘slow poisoning’ was being administered to Ansari by Banda prison staff where he was presently lodged.

Total 65 cases had been registered against Ansari out of which, 21 were pending in various courts. He was sentenced in eight cases and had remained behind bars since 2005 in different jails of Punjab and Uttar Pradesh.

Abbas Ansari, son of slain gangster-turned-politician Mukhtar Ansari, on Friday approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to attend his father’s funeral.

Since the Apex Court is on vacation on account of Holi, Abbas Ansari’s lawyer contacted the Vacation Officer, requesting him to list his case for hearing as soon as possible.

Gangster-turned-politician Mukhtar Ansari, who was facing conviction in eight cases, passed away on Thursday after suffering cardiac arrest in Banda jail. 

As per jail officials, Ansari was admitted to Banda Medical College earlier in the day after he was found lying unconscious in his barrack.  

The jail officials immediately spotted him and took him to the district hospital, where he died during treatment.  

The Uttar Pradesh police has imposed prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which bars large gatherings, across the state following Ansari’s death.   

Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police Prashant Kumar said that special deployment of police personnel has been done in Banda, Mau, Ghazipur and Varanasi districts.  

Earlier on March 26, Mukhtar Ansari was found unconscious and was referred to the district hospital. He had complained of pain in the abdomen and constipation. He was discharged after treatment in 15 hours.  

Advocate Randheer Singh Suman, lawyer of the former Bahujan Samaj Party MLA, had filed an application in a Barabanki court seeking proper medical examination alleging that ‘slow poisoning’ was being administered to Ansari by Banda prison staff where he was presently lodged.  

Total 65 cases had been registered against Ansari out of which, 21 were pending in various courts. He was sentenced in eight cases and had remained behind bars since 2005 in different jails of Punjab and Uttar Pradesh.  

On March 13, 2024, Ansari was awarded life imprisonment in a case related to acquisition of an arms license using counterfeit documentation in 1990.   

In June 2023, an MP/MLA court in Varanasi had sentenced the former BSP MLA to life imprisonment in the murder of Awadhesh Rai, brother of UP Congress president Ajay Rai. 

Ansari was sentenced to five and a half years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 10,000.  In October 2023, an MP/MLA court had convicted Ansari under the Gangster Act. He was sentenced to 10 years in jail and fined Rs 5 lakh for his involvement in the murder case of teacher Kapil Dev Singh in 2009.    

On October 15, 2023, the Enforcement Directorate took action against Ansari as part of a money laundering probe. Assets including land, a building, and bank deposits totalling over Rs 73.43 lakh were attached by the agency.  In April 2023, Ansari was convicted in another Gangster Act case, lodged against him for his involvement in the kidnapping of Vishwa Hindu Parishad office-bearer Nandkishore Rungta in 1996 and also in the murder of Bharatiya Janata Party MLA Krishnanand Rai in 2005.    

In December 2022, a Court in Uttar Pradesh’s Ghazipur District convicted former MLA Mukhtar Ansari and his aide (Bhim Singh) in a 26-year-old Gangster Case.    Earlier in September 2022, the Allahabad High Court had convicted him in two cases. In one of the cases, the High Court had found him guilty of intimidating a Jailer who was performing public duty by abusing him and pointing a revolver/pistol toward him, and threatening to kill him in 2003.    

In another case, the High Court had convicted Ansari to 5 years in jail in connection with a 23-year-old case registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.  Ansari had been elected as an MLA from the Mau constituency five times, including twice as a Bahujan Samaj Party candidate. He last contested the Assembly elections in 2017.

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday permitted the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to hold a rally 

on November 29 near Victoria House at Esplanade, the same place in central Kolkata where the ruling Trinamool Congress holds its annual ‘Shaheed Divas (Martyrs’ Day)’ rally on July 21.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya upheld the single bench order and dismissed the petition filed by the West Bengal government against it.

The High Court observed that the advisory said applications need to be made 2/3 weeks prior to the programme. Here, the application has been made 23 days prior. 

Noting that the advisory was not a statute, the Bench said the same cannot be taken as a rigid rule and that there was discretion vested with the authorities. 

It said procession meetings and rallies were regular features of the state of West Bengal and particularly Kolkata. Many instances were there where rallies have been held without any permission. There were instances where such rallies paralysed the city’s traffic and the police were unable to control the same.

On November 23, the West Bengal government had approached the High Court against the single-judge Bench judgement.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha of the High Court had pulled up the Kolkata Police on On November 20 for denying permission for the BJP rally at Kolkata twice without any apparent reason and by way of computer-generated responses. 

The Bench not only allowed the BJP to conduct the rally on November 29, but also made some negative observations about the denial of police permission on this count.

It observed that in an independent country, anyone had the freedom to go anywhere. The single-judge Bench further raised questions about the justification of denial of police permission for the same.

The November 29 mega rally was supposed to be attended by Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

The proposed rally of the BJP has been organised to highlight alleged irregularities by the state government in implementing the centrally-sponsored 100-day job scheme under MGNREGA.

Besides Shah, the party has also invited Union Minister of State for Rural Development Giriraj Singh and the State Minister Niranjan Jyoti.

(Case title: Jagannath Chattopadhyay vs State of West Bengal) 

The Delhi High Court has granted permission to environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta, who was booked by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a case under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), to travel to Switzerland and Germany.

The single-judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad passed the orders on the grounds that the founder of Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment (LIFE) has roots in the society and has been practising law in Delhi for the past 21 years.

It further took into account the fact that Dutta was a recipient of Right to Life.

Dutta sought permission to visit Geneva in Switzerland from November 23 to 25 and Germany from December 3 to 8.

The environmental lawyer had challenged the Look-Out Circular (LOC issued against him by the CBI. The agency has accused Dutta of receiving foreign contribution from US-based nonprofit public interest organisation Earthjustice to stall coal projects in India.

The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Trideep Pais with Advocates Abhishek and A Reyna Shruti

Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia with Abhigyan Siddhan represented the Union of India.

Special Public Prosecutor Ripu Daman Bhardwaj with Advocates Kushagra Kumar and Abhinav Bhardwaj represented the CBI.

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Tamil Nadu government to grant permission to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for holding route marches either on November 19 or 26. 

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta further directed the state to communicate its decision before the Court by November 15. 

On November 3, the Bench had refused to issue notices on a batch of petitions challenging the Madras High Court order, which granted permission to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to conduct route marches in all requested locations across Tamil Nadu. 

While hearing the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by the Tamil Nadu government and the State Director General of Police (DGP), the Apex Court sought to know from the petitioners whether an intra-court appeal was available in the High Court or not. 

It observed that if a single judge had committed an error, there was a forum available in the High Court itself. Was it not possible for the Division Bench to correct the error of the Single Bench, it asked.

While adjourning the matters to November 6 at the request of the State of Tamil Nadu to produce documents to show that the SLPs were maintainable, the top court of the country observed after the hearing that it would ask some uncomfortable questions on the merits of the matter to the Tamil Nadu government if it found that the SLPs were maintainable.

Representing the State of Tamil Nadu, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted at the outset that the High Court was now ‘deciding’ whether or not to ‘allow’ people to hold processions. He alleged that it was entirely malafide, adding that the respondents had filed for contempt and the petitioners were in difficulty.

Regarding an intra-court appeal, the Senior Advocate contended that the contempt should not be decided till an intra-court appeal was filed. 

The Apex Court told them to raise the issue before the Division Bench.

The Counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu contended that when a public order was involved, it was a criminal matter, there was no intra-court appeal.

The Bench said that it would go by the roster. It asked whether the matter was heard by a Judge hearing criminal matters. If it was heard as a criminal writ, the appeal will not lie. But if it was heard as a civil writ, an appeal will lie, noted the Apex Court.

Asking whether the Judge had the authority to deal with Writs on the criminal side, the Bench observed that the writ was not under Section 482 of CrPC, but under Section 226.

The Tamil Nadu government then sought time till Monday to produce the orders. Sibal said if the appeal did not lie, the petitioner will be in great difficulty.

The Respondents before the Apex Court, who were the Writ Petitioners before the High Court, were represented by Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar and Senior Advocate Madhvi Divan.

The High Court of Delhi has given permission to journalists Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy to travel abroad from July 25 to August 15 on the grounds that owing to their professional understanding and ties to India, they do not pose a flight risk.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh on Tuesday, while disposing of a petition filed by the journalist couple, directed the petitioners to provide details of their itinerary to the Court Registrar.

The High Court further directed the mediapersons to furnish an undertaking stating that they shall return not later than August 30. Other conditions will be added in the order, it added.

Justice Singh took note of the fact that a Coordinate Bench of the High Court had permitted the couple to travel abroad on June 1, 2022.

Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan submitted that the Roys wished to travel abroad for business purpose and also for the personal reason to visit Prannoy Roy’s brother.

The respondent vehemently opposed the plea on the grounds that investigations were pending against both Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy.

The application was moved by the Roys in their plea challenging the look out circular, which was issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) pursuant to registration of two FIRs agaisnt them on June 2, 2017 and August 19, 2019.

(Case title: Dr Prannoy Roy & Anr vs Union of India & Ors)

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Andhra Pradesh High Court to hear a petition on January 23 related to a Government Order (GO) restricting the police from granting permission for public meetings and rallies.

The directions were issued by the Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha on a writ petition filed by the Andhra Pradesh government, challenging the interim order passed by the Vacation Bench of the High Court on January 12, staying the GO on public meetings. 

The Apex Court, while directing Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court Prashant Kumar Mishra to look into the matter personally, said that since the matter was listed before the High Court, it would not interfere as of now.

The top court of the country further said that it had kept open the rights and contentions of parties.

The Vacation Bench of the High Court had stayed the January 2 GO  on the grounds that prima facie, it was contrary to the procedure prescribed under Section 30 of the Police Act.

The state government contended before the Apex Court that it had been plagued by the multitude of fatalities caused during political rallies and roadshows. 

In order to reduce the fatalities, the Andhra Pradesh government had advised the State Police Department to refrain from granting permissions for such public meetings, said the petition.

It added that the Vacation Bench ought not to have taken up the matter because the notification of the High Court dated January 5, 2023 regarding listing of matters before the Vacation Bench clearly stated that no policy and administrative matters shall be taken up during vacation.

As per the plea, the GO was clearly an administrative and policy matter and hence, any order passed by the Vacation Bench regarding the GO, let alone staying its operation, was without jurisdiction, since it is passed by a coram non judice.

The Delhi Government on Tuesday informed the Delhi High Court that it has permitted functioning of all the weekly markets from August 9, 2021, in respond to a plea filed by “Saptahik Patri Bazar Association.”

A single-judge bench of Justice Rekha Palli disposed off a petition as the grievances of the petitioners has been addressed. The court also reiterated its previous observation that “the petitioners to ensure that the vendors operating in these weekly markets, if not vaccinated already, should get vaccinated at the earliest.”

Advocate Satyakam, Additional Standing Counsel, Government of NCT of Delhi informed the court that The Delhi Government have taken a decision, permitting all authorised weekly market as per the Order dated August 8, 2021 passed by the Delhi Disaster Management Authority.

The Court was hearing a plea which had sought directions to;

• Quash order dated June 13, 2021 of Delhi Disaster Management Authority to the extent the same treats ‘Weekly Markets’ in a different class from other markets and puts restrictions on their full resumption.

• Direct the Delhi Government to resume all ‘Weekly Markets’ in all zones of Delhi with all precautions and Covid appropriate behaviour at their old designated places.

• Direct the Delhi Government to provide financial assistance of Rs.15,000 to all street vendors  who organise ‘Weekly Markets’ within their jurisdiction.

Also Read: Delhi High Court defers hearing on plea seeking reduction of Covid-19 vaccine prices

The petition was filed by an association of Delhi Street Vendors duly registered under Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860. The association is comprised of various poor mobile street vendors who hold ‘Weekly Markets’ in several parts of Delhi once a week.

According to the plea, petitioners were aggrieved by the inaction of Delhi Government, who despite the directions issues by the Delhi High Court in Order dated June 3, 2021, in W.P(C): 5759/2021, where the Delhi Government was directed to decide on the petitioner’s representation within a period of 10 days, further directing them to take a compassionate view of the matter, finding out a way to address the grievance of the petitioner, have failed to take any decision on representation dated May 19, 2021, which had sought either complete resumption of ‘Weekly Markets’ or in the alternative financial assistance be provided for the Poor Street Vendors.

The petition stated that the Delhi Government  have given permission to open all markets, malls and other commercial complexes, but have discriminated against the petitioner by ordering that they shall only organise one ‘Weekly Market’ per week per zone. The petitioner claimed that the said directions, on the face of it, are discriminatory, arbitrary, whimsical and without application of mind.

Also Read: Delhi HC dismisses plea against 100% seating capacity in Delhi Metro, DTC buses

The plea further stated in the order dated June 13, 2021 of Delhi Disaster Management Authority, it has been directed that All markets, markets complexes and malls shall be permitted to open between 10 AM to 8 PM whereas for the Weekly Markets, which are otherwise also organised only once in a week, the order directs that “Only one authorized weekly market (up to the limit of 50% of allowed vendors at normal time) per day per zone in all three Municipal council/New Delhi Municipal Council/Delhi Cantonment shall be allowed subject to strict compliance of SOP and all instructions/guidelines issued by GOI/GNCTD from time to time to contain spread of COVlD-19.” The said order further directs that “No weekly market shall be allowed to function on roadside.”

The Writ Petition was filed through Advocate Rajat Wadhwa and Advocate  Kartik Kumar Aggarwal.

On the previous date of hearing the court had granted the Delhi Government 10 days time to seek instruction and file a response, the court had also directed the DDMA to consider the grievances of the petitioner. The court also observed that the petitioners take steps to get themselves vaccinated at the earliest