Panasam Akshara | Delhi HC
1. Betrayal of public trust not tolerated"Article 21 and golden goals of preamble shall be intact". Delhi High Court refuses to hear PIL giving directions to centre,law commission and Delhi government to confiscate 100%black money,benami property, disproportionate assets.Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramanian Prasad refused to hear and asked petitioner to approach Supreme Court.Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay asks to award life imprisonment in offences relating black money benami property ,money laundering, hoarding,human-drug trafficking and dishonest misappropriation of property by cheating fraud forgery.Petitioner stated the court should constitute an expert committee or direct law commission of India to examine anti-corruption laws of developed nations especially laws related to above topics and prepare a detailed report within three months.The plea interprets that corruption disturbs democracy and rule of law which might lead to violations of human rights,erodes quality living,allows crimes like terrorism, naxalism, radicalism, gambling, kidnapping and other threats to human life.It effects economically weaker section excessively by diverting funds intended for their development, undermines government ability to provide basic needs ,seeds inequality, injustice and discourage FDI. It states corruption as key role player in economic underperformance and an obstacle to poverty alleviation.As article 21 guarantee right to life it cannot be secured and golden rule of preamble can't be reached without curbing corruption.As a conclusion plea states Centre and state must implement stringent anti-corruption laws to give a strong message that it is determined to remove corruption,black money and money laundering . Centre must adopt steps to warn looters that betraying public trust is no longer tolerated. 2. Delhi riots larger conspiracy case:Umar khalid's bail plea Hearing adjourned till July 27. Special bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar was informed by Umar khalid's counsel that Senior Advocate Trideep Pais appearing for him contracted to COVID-19 and seeks two weeks accomodation.As bench opinioned to first conclude Khalid's plea, hearing in appeals by Imam and Rehman was also deferred to same day on request by parties.Khalid was denied of bail by Karkardooma Court in March,he was arrest on 13 September, 2020 and has been under custody since then.As per Imam's appeal,the special court has failed to recognise that the entire investigation was faulty and chargesheet attributes events to his speeches to be incident of violence which were nowhere related to him as per material relied upon chargesheet.It states that Imam has been arrested by investigating agency as part of targeted campaign to have multiple FIRs and investigations against him at the Delhi High Court has decided to hear they plea on July 27 filed by Umar Khalid,Sharjeel Imam and President of Jamia Millia Islamia Alumni Association Shifa-Ur-Rehman challenging the trial court's order that refused them bail in Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. FIR against them consists stringent charges including sections 13,16,17,18 of UAPA , section 25 & 27 of Arms Act and section 3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984.They are also charged with other offences mentioned under IPC,1860. 3. "What cannot be done directly,cannot be done indirectly ": Justice Mukta Gupta.
Court observes originating agency can only seek intimation of arrival or departure of per under 'LOC of intimation'.The court says citizen cannot be detained, arrested or prevented from leaving the country unless he/she is suspected to be involved in cognizable offence or is under trial.Further,in LOC of intimation authorities at airport or departure or arrival cannot restrain or detain person in context that intimation of their arrival is required to be given to agency serves as preventive LOC.It settles that what cannot be done directly,cannot be done indirectly says Justice Mukta Gupta in her order.As per the office memorandum,an LOC shall be issued only for cognizable offences and in other case,the agency can only request to be informed about arrival and departure of the subject.Delhi High Court while hearing a petition that gives direction for withdrawal of LOC issued by ED in a money laundering case,noted that the petitioner was not accused in the FIR as he was a minor at the time of alleged transactions in cases under IPC and even under PMLA. "Preventive LOC leading to detention was clearly unwarranted"bench said adding that it was only when petition was filed dententive LOC was converted to Intimative LOC.Court added that the petitioner shall not be detained at any port or arrival unless the first intimation given to originating agency.