Charge sheet filed against granite baron Veeramani in POCSO case, HC to hear CBI probe plea on Nov 30

Kochi, Sep 26 (IANS) The Kerala High Court on Saturday raised questions over the state government’s decision to order a preliminary enquiry instead of registering an FIR on the Enforcement Directorate’s recommendation for a probe under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the CMRL-Exalogic case involving former Chief Minister and Leader of Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena Vijayan, her husband and former minister P.A. Mohammed Riyas, who is currently an MLA.

Justice A. Badharudeen said the court would examine the legal question of whether the State Police had the discretion to conduct a preliminary enquiry after receiving information from the ED under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), or whether it was bound to register an FIR.

The court directed the ED to produce in a sealed cover the communication sent to the State Police Chief and posted the case for detailed hearing on September 29.

The ED strongly opposed the delay in registering the FIR. Its counsel told the court that the agency had shared information regarding the alleged commission of offences with the State Police Chief during its investigation and that the material disclosed offences requiring investigation by the State Police or the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.

The ED maintained that there was no discretion available to the State Police to conduct a preliminary enquiry after receiving such information and that an FIR should be registered.

The court specifically asked whether the State Police had any option other than registering an FIR when information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA is forwarded to it.

The Advocate General, K. Jaju Babu, defended the government’s decision to order a preliminary enquiry.

He argued that there was no requirement to register an FIR immediately and that the police could first verify the information.

He also questioned the maintainability of the petition, contending that it was like a public interest litigation but had been filed with a vested interest.

The petitioner argued that the Crime Branch SIT constituted by the government did not include the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau despite the ED alleging offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The ED said its investigation had uncovered transactions that required examination as possible predicate offences. The agency had subsequently written to the State Police Chief under Section 66(2) of the PMLA seeking action under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The State government had ordered a 30-day preliminary enquiry by a nine-member Crime Branch SIT after obtaining legal advice. The government has maintained that the Supreme Court’s rulings permit a preliminary enquiry in appropriate cases before registration of an FIR.

The High Court also referred to the requirement of a predicate offence for PMLA proceedings and questioned the ED on the legal basis of its action.

The ED explained that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office had initially registered proceedings over Companies Act offences and that, during its investigation, the ED came across material indicating possible offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The case assumes significance as the High Court had in June allowed the ED’s PMLA investigation into the CMRL-Exalogic transactions to continue, holding that the absence of an FIR relating to a scheduled offence did not prevent the ED from exercising its inquiry powers under the PMLA.

The latest hearing has now put the legality of the State government’s decision to conduct a preliminary enquiry before registration of an FIR at the centre of the dispute.

–IANS

sg/skp

Dehradun, June 30 (IANS) The 24-hour suspension on the Char Dham Yatra was officially lifted on Monday, officials confirmed, allowing the pilgrimage to resume after a temporary halt due to relentless rainfall and heightened risks of landslides in Uttarakhand.

Garhwal Divisional Commissioner Vinay Shankar Pandey told IANS, “The 24-hour ban on the Char Dham Yatra has been lifted.”

However, he added that all District Magistrates along the Yatra route have been instructed to regulate vehicle movement based on the prevailing weather conditions in their respective areas.

The temporary suspension had been imposed on Sunday as a precautionary measure to protect the lives and property of pilgrims and residents amid severe weather.

Authorities had issued advisories urging pilgrims to remain where they are and avoid travelling to Kedarnath, Badrinath, Gangotri and Yamunotri until conditions improve.

The suspension followed a severe cloudburst near Silai on the Barkot-Yamunotri road in Uttarkashi district that left at least nine road construction labourers missing.

At least two labourers lost their lives, and seven others are still missing after a devastating cloudburst. The incident occurred near an under-construction hotel in the Silai area along the Yamunotri National Highway, washing away a labourers’ campsite where 29 workers had taken shelter.

While 20 people were rescued, nine were reported missing. Later, it was confirmed that two people were dead. The search for the seven others is still underway.

The Yamunotri National Highway was blocked at multiple points near Silai Band, severely affecting the route. Authorities at NH Barkot were alerted to manage the situation, and the debris was cleared.

Elsewhere in the state, the National Highway near Nandprayag and Bhaneropani was also blocked due to debris, while the Sonprayag-Munkatiya road in Rudraprayag — an essential route for Kedarnath pilgrims — was closed because of landslides.

Heavy rain continues to lash several districts, including Chamoli, Pauri Garhwal, Dehradun, Rudraprayag, and others.

As rivers swell dangerously close to banks, the administration has issued a fresh advisory urging people living near riverbanks to remain alert and take all necessary precautions.

–IANS

sd/dpb

New Delhi, Nov 3 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Tuesday orally observed that the right to protest cannot be exercised by occupying a designated protest site indefinitely, stressing that such places must be allotted for specified periods to ensure that other groups also get an opportunity to exercise their constitutional rights.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana made the observations while hearing a batch of petitions arising from the October protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

“You cannot occupy a site for all time to come. There are other protesters. Where will the farmers go? Where will the workers go? Where will the trade unions go? Where will the homeless go? Everybody has a right to protest,” the apex court remarked.

It further observed that protest sites must be made available to different groups for designated periods, adding that no organisation could claim an exclusive right over a public space merely because it had occupied it first.

“There may be one site or two, but everybody has a right to protest. You cannot exclude other people merely because you have occupied the site,” the CJI-led Bench said.

During the hearing, the top court called for a balance between the right to protest and the right to carry on trade and business, particularly keeping in view the livelihood concerns of daily-wage workers, street vendors and small shopkeepers.

Referring to the impact of protests on traders and daily-wage workers, the Supreme Court observed that the right to protest had to be balanced against the right to trade and earn a livelihood.

“If shops are closed because of protests, where will the shopkeepers and street vendors earn their livelihood? We are not talking about trade merely in terms of commercial establishments. We are talking about the source of livelihood of a daily-wage worker. Where does that person go for their daily bread?” the apex court asked.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, submitted that permission for the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) protest in July had been granted for only one day, but the protesters continued occupying the site for 17 days.

He further submitted that the protesters had subsequently marched towards Parliament without obtaining the requisite permission, adding that public places and institutions such as Parliament and the Supreme Court could not be used for demonstrations without authorisation.

The Supreme Court also issued notice on a plea filed by the Kirana Committee Delhi seeking a halt to protests during the festive period. However, it directed the traders’ associations to implead the organisers of the anti-CEC protests as parties to the proceedings, observing that their grievances could not be fully adjudicated in their absence.

The hearing also witnessed arguments over the use of facial recognition technology by the Delhi Police to identify protesters. Advocate Prashant Bhushan raised concerns over the use of facial recognition technology by the police to identify protesters.

SG Mehta countered the submission, arguing that a person participating in a protest at a public place could not claim the same expectation of privacy as in a private setting.

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed that the government had claimed that certain individuals identified during the protests had criminal antecedents, while questioning whether identifying protesters through NCRB data was permissible under the existing legal framework.

Senior advocate Hariharan submitted that merely because a person had a criminal record, it did not take away his or her right to participate in a peaceful protest. The Solicitor General termed the argument misconceived.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy further submitted that the concern was not limited to the identification of protesters but also involved the collection and storage of their personal information. Responding to the submission, SG Mehta said the police did not initiate action merely on the basis of a match generated by facial recognition software and independently verified the identity of the person concerned before taking any action.

–IANS

pds/vd