Former locomotive pilot, PU Venkatesan, was convicted of criminal contempt for making scandalous allegations against judges. The Madras High Court sentenced him to six months in prison for displaying no remorse and verbally abusing the judges. His behavior was found to be contemptuous towards the entire justice system. This followed a Facebook post and subsequent letters making reckless allegations.
On Wednesday (24th April): Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai agreed not to make public accusations about BJD MP Pinaki Mishra’s alleged conspiracy against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in light of an ongoing CBI inquiry, following a Delhi High Court warning. The court emphasized the seriousness of such allegations and recorded Dehadrai’s undertaking to refrain from further statements on the matter.
On Wednesday(24th April),The courtroom drama unfolded at the Delhi Rouse Avenue court during the Delhi excise policy case hearing. Defense lawyers walked out after the court allowed the CBI to proceed with arguments on framing charges, despite objections. Special CBI Judge expressed astonishment, and the hearing has been adjourned until May 7 for document submissions.
![[2018 Defamation Case] Rahul Gandhi's Case Hearing Postponed To May 2: Uttar Pradesh](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/image-174.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today (22nd April): The Uttar Pradesh court has rescheduled the hearing for the 2018 defamation case against Rahul Gandhi to May 2. The case involves Gandhi’s alleged remarks about BJP leader Amit Shah during a press conference in 2018. The court’s decision to postpone the hearing indicates a delay in the resolution of the case.
Today (18th April): The Supreme Court is set to hear a plea to tally Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) votes with Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips during elections. The petition aims to ensure accuracy and integrity in the electoral process and seeks expanded verification of all EVM votes with VVPAT records. This plea challenges the current guidelines and emphasizes the need for stringent punishment to prevent manipulation.
![[Breaking] Delhi HC's Justice Amit Sharma Recuses from Umar Khalid's Bail Plea in Delhi Riots Case; Will Hear on July 24](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/14khalid.jpeg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
On Tuesday (9th April): The Delhi Police opposed Umar Khalid’s bail plea, alleging he spread false information on social media and incited violence during the 2020 Delhi riots. They presented evidence of his communication with various individuals to manipulate the narrative. Khalid’s request for bail hinged on lack of evidence against him, with the court set to decide on the matter.
Today ( 6th April) A complaint has been filed against Sunita Kejriwal and other leaders for sharing court proceedings on social media, violating Video Conferencing Rules. The complaint alleges a planned conspiracy to manipulate court proceedings and mislead the public. It also targets Aam Aadmi Party members and opposition parties for sharing the recordings.
Today (4th April): The Calcutta High Court has accepted Tata Steel’s writ petition challenging the denial of a loan waiver from the Steel Development Fund (SDF), where the loan amount totaled Rs 2,751.17 crore. This follows the Union Ministry of Steel rejecting their appeal, sparking the recent filing and first hearing for this case.
The Supreme Court has directed States and Union Territories to retain their panel lawyers for at least six weeks after a change in government to prevent unnecessary adjournments in court proceedings. The directive aims to ensure the smooth functioning of courts and avoid inconvenience to litigants. This order followed a hearing of a bail plea by an individual accused of cheating in an examination conducted by the Uttarakhand government.
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a PIL seeking live streaming of court proceedings, citing the availability of video conferencing facilities. The division bench rejected the plea, emphasizing the existing provision of video conferencing. While some other high courts have embraced live streaming, the Rajasthan High Court will continue providing video conferencing facilities.