The Delhi High Court upheld the government’s decision to block the messaging platform Briar in Jammu & Kashmir, citing national security interests. The court acknowledged that in matters of national security, principles of natural justice can be bypassed. Briar’s open-source nature and potential use by terrorists were key considerations in the ruling.
A public interest litigation has been filed today in the Supreme Court against three newly amended criminal law bills in India. The petitioner seeks the formation of an expert committee to evaluate the legislation’s viability. The proposed bills aim to reform the country’s criminal laws, but the petition highlights various defects and discrepancies.(arguments: 50 words)
The Enemy Agents Ordinance, enacted to counter threats from individuals working against the state’s interests, is being emphasized in Jammu and Kashmir. The law grants extensive powers to detain and penalize those suspected of espionage or sabotage. Its application in the region aims to address security challenges, although it has faced criticism regarding potential abuse of power.
Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed, convicted for ISIS recruitment and plotting an attack, had his plea rejected by the Delhi High Court. His request for concurrent sentencing of his Delhi and Mumbai cases was dismissed, emphasizing the gravity of his offenses. The court highlighted the need for stringent action against terrorism, supporting national security.
The Supreme Court set to hear a plea challenging new criminal legislation, questioning its constitutionality and potential impacts on fundamental rights. The laws, known as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Act, have raised concerns about police powers and violations of citizen rights, leading to a significant judicial review.
The Delhi High Court rejected the parole application of Feroz Ahmed Bhatt, a convicted terrorist associated with Jaish-e-Mohammed, due to security concerns and the gravity of his offense. Despite his desire to meet his parents and get married, the court arranged a video call instead. The court cited the risks associated with his release and a previous case where a co-accused rejoined a terrorist organization after being released on parole.
Today, 24th April,Umar Khalid’s lawyer argued in court that the allegations against him do not amount to a terrorism offense, emphasizing the lack of evidence. The defense also highlighted media scrutiny and called for a fair legal process. Khalid’s bail request is under consideration, with the next hearing scheduled for May 7. The lawyer cited inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and urged the court to assess the evidence critically.
Yesterday, 8th April, The Supreme Court (SC) endorsed the release of 96-year-old terrorist convict Habib Ahmed Khan, emphasizing humanitarian concerns over prolonged incarceration akin to capital punishment. The court urged the Rajasthan government to consider remission from a human rights perspective, questioning the purpose of continued imprisonment given Khan’s deteriorating health and advanced age.
A Kerala court sentenced Riyas to 10 years in prison for promoting ISIS ideology and activities in India, imposing a ₹50,000 fine. The judgment highlighted his radicalization, dissemination of ISIS propaganda through social media, and involvement in criminal conspiracy. It emphasized the need for deterrence and public order maintenance in combating extremism. The case underscores challenges posed by digital radicalization and the importance of a strong legal framework for addressing such threats.