Legal News Wrap October 31: Supreme Court Delhi court India court news latest court news: Know all key developments from Supreme Court, High Courts & more | India News

The Supreme Court of India. (Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)

1. Attacking the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme of funding political parties in India, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted in the Supreme Court on Tuesday that “Not even 1 % of donations made to political parties through electoral bonds scheme in the last five years has been made to any opposition political party not in power either in the state or the Centre.” Bhushan, who appeared for the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), also told a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud that in the last five years, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had received over Rs 5000 crore as donations through electoral bonds. “This is almost ten times the permissible limit of expenditure allowed under the elections laws for a seat,” he submitted. These submissions were made by Bhushan on the opening day of the hearing on petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of the Electoral Bonds Scheme by a bench of 5 judges of the Supreme Court comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

Also read: DETAILS | Electoral Bonds Scheme hearing in SC: ‘Less than 1% money given to…’; Prashant Bhushan on political funding

2. The state governments of Tamil Nadu and Punjab have moved the Supreme Court alleging delay by the state governors in giving assent to bills passed by the respective state assemblies. While the DMK-led Tamil Nadu state government under MK Stalin has moved the top court alleging 12 of the bills passed by the state government were pending with the office of Governor RN Ravi, the latest controversy between the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)-led Punjab government under Bhagwant Mann and Governor Banwarilal Purohit pertains to three money bills that were proposed to be presented by the state government during a special session of the 4th Budget Session on October 20. The state governments, in their separate pleas, have sought the intervention of the top court for the timely disposal of bills pending for approval before their governors.

Also read: Tamil Nadu, Punjab governments move Supreme Court against governors for delay in giving assent to bills

3. The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre and sought its response on a plea filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid challenging various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). A bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi also said that it would hear similar pleas on the issue as well as the bail plea of Khalid, who is lodged under the UAPA facing conspiracy charges in Delhi riots 2020, on November 22. “Let them all be taken together,” the top court bench said. Khalid was arrested by Delhi Police in September 2020 in the 2020 Delhi riots case and he has challenged a Delhi High Court order refusing to grant him bail. He has sought bail on grounds that he neither had any criminal role in the violence nor any “conspiratorial connect” with any other accused in the Delhi riots case. The Delhi Police booked Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and several others the UAPA as well as several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots in the national capital resulting in the death of 53 persons and injuries to over 700.

Also read: Supreme Court seeks response of Centre on Umar Khalid’s plea challenging UAPA provisions

4. Opposition parties under the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) on Tuesday told the Delhi High Court that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the use of the INDIA acronym by a coalition of 26 political parties is not maintainable and denied that the opposition is using the national flag. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the opposition parties, told a bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela that the PIL filed by activist Girish Bhardwaj was “totally non-maintainable” and denied the claims of the petitioner that the opposition parties were using the national flag. The High Court, while hearing Bhardwaj’s plea, had earlier issued notices to the 26 political parties seeking their response on the plea and had also sought the response of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Centre. However, neither the Centre nor the opposition parties had filed their responses and the High Court while taking note of the same, gave them two weeks to file their responses and adjourned the hearing of the case to November 22. The ECI filed its response in the case and told the High Court that it does not have any legal authority to regulate political alliances.

Also read: PIL against use of INDIA acronym not maintainable, opposition parties tells Delhi High Court

5. The Delhi High Court on Tuesday adjourned hearing on Trinamool Congress (TMC) Member of Parliament (MP) Mahua Moitra’s defamation suit to December 5 after her counsel told the court that she is not pressing at this time any relief against media houses whom she earlier impleaded in her defamation suit in connection with ‘cash for query’ controversy. After hearing the submission from Moitra’s counsel, Justice Sachin Datta, directed her to amend her plea accordingly and fixed December 5 for further hearing. Moitra had filed the defamation case against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai and host of media outlets for making defamatory allegations against her that she asked questions in Parliament against Adani Group at the behest of businessman Darshan Hiranandani in return for cash. Moitra, in her plea sought direction to Dubey, Dehadrai and media platforms to take down the alleged defamatory allegations levelled against her and to refrain them from making these allegations against her. She also sought directions to various media platforms to take down the stories published against her making same allegations. Moitra, while calling allegations against her baseless and defamatory, has sought injunction and damage, contending that the allegations by Dubey, Dehadrai and others have caused serious damage to her dignity, reputation, respect and goodwill.

Also read: Cash for query controversy: TMC MP Mahua Moitra drops media houses as parties in her defamation plea in Delhi High Court