The Supreme Court saw a tense hearing in W.P.(C) 1231/2025 as the Chief Justice questioned Win Chemicals for directly approaching the apex court, bypassing the High Court. The CJI repeatedly asked counsel why the High Court was not approached.
New Delhi, March 17: The Supreme Court of India has instructed the Registry of the Delhi High Court to submit a detailed progress report concerning four pending suo moto revision petitions linked to the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots murder cases. This directive was issued during a hearing conducted on Monday by a Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Revanna is facing serious charges in at least four separate cases, including rape, sexual assault, and criminal intimidation. Last week, he approached the High Court, asking for copies of all digital evidence collected by the State Special Investigation Team (SIT). Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (16th Jan) ruled that Prajwal Revanna, a suspended […]
![[2002 Godhra Train Burning Incident] High Court Refuses Bail To Convict To Attend To Ailing Father](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Godhra-Train-Burning-Case-karsevak.webp?resize=440%2C247&ssl=1)
Faruk Mohammad Bhana, convicted for his role in the 2002 Godhra train burning that killed 59, had his request for temporary bail denied by the Gujarat High Court. The court noted that other family members could care for Bhana’s unwell father and highlighted his recent 8-day bail as a factor in the decision.
The Nanavati Commission Report reveals that 587 FIRs were filed regarding the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, resulting in 2,733 deaths. Despite some cases reopened and prosecutions occurring, justice remains delayed. Notably, Congress leader Jagdish Tytler faces charges after multiple closures. Current trials continue, reflecting ongoing struggles for accountability for past violence.
The Karnataka High Court today reserved its order on the plea to cancel the bail granted to Janata Dal (Secular) leader HD Revanna, accused of abducting a woman. Justice M Nagaprasanna expressed concern over the severity of the case and remarked that bail should not have been granted. The court heard arguments from both sides and reserved its decision.