The Delhi High Court today has decided to treat Subramanian Swamy’s petition regarding Rahul Gandhi’s Indian citizenship as a public interest litigation (PIL). The case will be sent to the PIL roster bench, but no comments have been made on the merits of the case. Swamy alleges violations by Rahul Gandhi and requests the Ministry of Home Affairs to review the cancellation of his Indian citizenship.
![[Nithari Killings Case] SC Agrees to Hear CBI's Appeal Against High Court's Acquittal of Surendra Koli](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-75-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, On14th August, The Supreme Court agreed to consider a plea challenging the acquittal of Surendra Koli in the 2006 Nithari serial killings case. The CBI filed a new plea against the Allahabad High Court’s decision and included it with other pending petitions. Koli and Moninder Singh Pandher faced charges of rape and murder in this shocking case.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the mandatory FASTag implementation for vehicles, reinforcing its legality and public interest. The decision asserts that FASTag is essential for smoother traffic flow and environmental conservation. The ruling emphasizes modernizing toll collection methods and citizens’ adaptation to systems for the greater good.
![[Hindu Samaj Party Leader Kamlesh Tiwari Murder Case] SC Grants Bail To Accused Syed Asim Ali](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-2024-07-16T183438.870.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court today dismissed a plea seeking permission for detained politicians to campaign virtually during elections, upholding the Delhi High Court’s decision. The bench criticized the petition for targeting a specific politician and noted “mala fide intent.” The plea, filed in the public interest, was considered unnecessary, with the High Court warning of potential risks if such provision were allowed.
Today, On 12th July, The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering case linked to the liquor policy controversy. Kejriwal is barred from visiting the Chief Minister’s Office and interacting with witnesses. The Court referred the legality of his arrest to a larger bench and highlighted the importance of judicial scrutiny in such cases.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta today requested adjournment for the bail plea hearing of former TN minister Senthil Balaji. The Supreme Court agreed, rescheduling the matter for July 12. Balaji was arrested by the ED in a money laundering case. The case has faced multiple rejections in lower courts, with the Madras High Court denying his bail petition in February.
The Calcutta High Court today rejected a plea to halt metro station construction in Kolkata’s Maidan area due to concerns about uprooting trees near Victoria Memorial. The court found the petitioner’s claims insufficient, emphasizing the project’s public interest and innovative aspects. RVNL assured efforts to minimize ecological impact and obtain necessary approvals.
The Gujarat High Court declined to intervene in protests by residents of a housing complex in Vadodara against a Muslim woman’s flat allotment, stating it’s not a public interest matter. The woman, employed by the Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Skill Development, faces opposition and discrimination. Residents demand her relocation to another housing scheme to avoid potential “threat and nuisance.”
Today, On 15th May, The Supreme Court set guidelines for government land acquisitions to ensure fairness and transparency. The ruling emphasizes procedures to respect property rights. The decision affects land acquisition practices nationwide. In a specific case, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation’s land acquisition was deemed illegal, highlighting the significance of adhering to the established principles.
The Bombay High Court raised concerns about the Election Commission of India’s acquisition of open land for EVM storage, questioning the legality of the process and emphasizing the need to follow established procedures. Additionally, the court expressed apprehension that allowing such actions could set a precedent for further lawlessness. Two individuals opposed the proposed land use, prompting the court to schedule further consideration of the matter.