Former Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Atmaram Nadkarni on Saturday criticised the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for keeping money laundering accused in prison for long without trial.

Nadkarni said that ED should not take ages to investigate cases as the accused wait for trial inside the jail.

"ED in investigation cannot take ages. After probing you need to release the person," he said.

He said that ED's powers are very subjective and therefore, it functions according to 'his master's voice' and his blood boils when the system is used for extraneous purposes.

"Powers of ED are subjective and it depends. His master's voice which actually works and that is how ED works. I am openly saying it. Because you need somebody to say it openly and it is most unfortunate that people are not saying it and I have said it even when I was Additional Solicitor General. So I am saying it now also, it is high time in a civilized jurisprudence, after 3 years Supreme Court has now referred this matter (for review of PMLA judgment). It is high time we wake up to this reality. Yes criminals need to be tackled and seize everything but do not allow things to be used for extraneous purpose and my blood boils when I see it," he stated.

He also said that the Supreme Court has now started releasing money laundering accused on bail though the High Courts are still not doing it.

"It is unfortunate that the judiciary and the Supreme Court had to release them but still High Courts are not following it," he said.

Of course it all depends on case to case basis, he added.

He also said that the judiciary knows well that it is control which breeds corruption.

"See corruption is the worst cancer affecting the country. But it is control which breeds corruption. The judiciary knows it but does not acknowledge that control breeds corruption, that is it," he said.

Nadkarni was speaking at a panel discussion on the topic 'PMLA and its Facets.' The discussion was held at the First International Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Legal Conference in Goa.

Specifically on PMLA, Nadkarni said that most legislators were not aware of its implications when it was passed by the parliament during the rule of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2002.

He also highlighted that the Act was enforced when United Progressive Alliance (UPA) came to power and P Chidambaram became the Finance Minister.

Incidentally, Chidambaram also became a victim of PMLA after he was arrested in a money laundering case in 2018, he pointed out.

"When parliament passed it they did not know what would be the implication of its enforcement. Everyone just raised their hands. The Act was passed when BJP govt was there and it was implemented when P Chidambaram was the finance minister and at one time he also became a victim of PMLA," he said.

The former ASG also said that ED often attaches property and the same is never released. Sometimes even ancestral properties not related to the offence are attached.

"Property once attached is never released. Only in cases of three politicians properties were released. ED has attached ancestral properties also," he flagged.

In such situations, the only resort is judiciary. Therefore, he expressed hope that the judiciary would become pro-active in such cases.

"So the hope of the common man is only judiciary and not the statutory. I hope the judiciary becomes super active now on this," Nadkarni said.

[Live coverage below]

Public confidence in the judiciary has to be seen in the broader context of the democratic institutions of India and the rule of law in society the Supreme Court's Justice BR Gavai said on Saturday.

"Democracy is not just about the rule of the people by the majority. In the view of Dr BR Ambedkar, institutional safeguards are necessary for the working of a democracy. The judiciary is a crucial institution that maintains the rule of law, acts against the excesses of the State, and protects the citizens from violation of their rights."

A trust deficit in the judiciary threatens the very foundation of the institution, Justice Gavai told the gathering.

"Another theoretical reason why public trust in the judiciary must be kept intact is that a trust deficit might push people to seek justice outside the formal judicial system. This might be through informal ways of vigilantism, corruption, and mob justice. All of this can lead to the erosion of law and order in society. Similarly, it can lead to public hesitation in filing cases and appealing decisions."

The judge was speaking at a two-day annual conference organised by the Gujarat High Court for judicial officers in the State.

In his inaugural address, Justice Gavai spoke on the topic - Trust Deficit - Eroding the Credibility of Judicial Institutions? Ways and Means to Combat the Truth Decay.

Speaking on prolonged delay in justice delivery, Justice Gavai stated that victims also suffer because delays prolong their trauma and hinder closure, ultimately undermining their confidence in the judicial system.

"Additionally, the longer a case drags on, the more difficult it becomes to ensure fair trials, as evidence may deteriorate, memories fade, and witnesses may become unavailable or unreliable. Overall, delays erode trust in the judicial system, creating perceptions of injustice and inefficiency," he emphasised.

Delays impose financial and mental strain on litigants and tarnish the judiciary's image as an active institution. Therefore, this issue must be addressed to restore public trust in the courts, he added.

If an innocent person remains an undertrial for an extended period and is later acquitted, it can still create a social stigma against them, thus violating their fundamental right to dignity, remarked Supreme Court judge, .

"For defendants, prolonged trials can result in extended pre-trial detention and an infringement of their right to speedy trial. This not only harms accused who are later found innocent but also exacerbates overcrowding in prisons, adding strains on both accused persons and the state. If an innocent person is undertrial for a long time and later acquitted, it also creates a social stigma against that person, violating his fundamental right to dignity," he added.

Justice Gavai also reflected on the factors that can contribute to a trust deficit in the courts, stating that the first factor or challenge - common to all institutions - is corruption.

"A trace of corruption, whether through bribery, partiality, or undue influence, can undermine the foundation of the legal system. A corrupt act by any judge can not only erode public trust, but also perpetuate injustice. The High Courts have taken strict action on instances of corruption in the district judiciary. But these instances dilute the credibility of the judiciary."

Justice Gavai pointed out that another critical factor contributing to the erosion of public trust is the dilution of the separation of powers, which serves as a cornerstone of democratic governance.

"The judiciary must stand independent from both the executive and the legislative. Any encroachment upon the judiciary’s autonomy, whether through political interference, legislative overreach, or executive interference, undermines the very concept of impartial justice."

Addressing the perceived lack of transparency, Justice Gavai emphasised that when judicial decisions lack clear reasoning, it breeds skepticism. He asserted that the public has the right to understand not just the outcomes but also the reasoning behind them, stating, "the appearance of justice must be as visible as justice itself."

Further speaking on reasons behind the trust deficit, the Supreme Court judge raised the lack of accessibility and the complexity of our legal system.

Justice Gavai emphasised that when a judge expresses opinions about women or other historically marginalised groups, whether on the bench or in public forums, it raises concerns about their impartiality in cases involving those communities.

A judge’s conduct both on and off the bench must be in consonance with the highest standards of judicial ethics, Justice Gavai remarked.

In his speech, he also addressed the issue of fake news, noting that while social media has increased connectivity and access to information, it has also contributed to the spread of misinformation.

He pointed out that clickbait journalism often sensationalises routine judicial actions, presenting them out of context as "big breaking news." In some cases, facts are not reported accurately, he pointed out.

[Watch Here]

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently held that the failure of an accused to submit their mobile phones to the investigating agency cannot be termed as non-cooperation [Avuthu Srinivas Reddy Versus The Station House Officer].

Justice VRK Krupa Sagar made the observation while granting bail to former Member Parliament N Suresh Babu and businessman Avutu Srinvasa Reddy in a case related to the alleged attack by YSR Congress Party workers on the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) office in 2021.

The State had opposed the bail saying that the accused had failed to produce and handover their mobile phones. The police want the phones to recover WhatsApp chats and collect Google timelines of the crime, the Court was told.

However, the Court said the investigation agency cannot feel deterred in securing further electronic evidence simply because it could not take hold of the mobile phones from the accused.

It also referred to a Delhi High Court verdict holding that an accused cannot be coerced to reveal the passwords of his gadgets and online accounts in view of the protection guaranteed to him under Article 20(3) (right against self-incrimination) of the Constitution of India. 

“In the light of the above principles, the failure of accused in submitting their mobile phones while in custody cannot be termed as non-cooperation from the accused,” the Court said.

It added that while the material produced before it did indicate some sort of presence of the accused outside the TDP office, their continued detention must be justified by the prosecution.

“The contention of the State is that there are other accused who are still at large and there is larger conspiracy which is to be unearthed. Those contentions show that qua these accused, investigation stood completed. They were arrested on 04.09.2024 and were remanded to judicial custody on 05.09.2024 and for the last one month, they have been in judicial custody,” the Court said.

It further noted that about 34 accused in this case have already been released on bail either by the High Court or by the trial court.

The occupation, the residences of the petitioners and their availability for all these years indicate that they are not likely to avoid the process of law, it added.

“All these facts being considered in the light of the nature of the crime committed, this court finds any continued detention unnecessary. Hence, prayer is granted,” the Court ordered while granting bail to the accused.

Senior Advocates Siddarth Dave, P Veera Reddy and P Sudhakar Reddy represented the petitioners.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra and Public Prosecutor C Lakshmi Narayana represented the State. 

[Read Order]

The Delhi High Court recently rejected a plea by a man seeking quashing of a cruelty case filed against him by his wife, despite the fact that he had arrived at a settlement with the wife by paying ₹45 lakh to her.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh refused to quash the case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after noting that that even after settling the dispute, the husband did not comply with the terms of settlement and subjected his wife to torture and cruelty.

Further, the Court noted the wife's argument that the man had already taken back the amount given to her at the time of settlement and also took away her hard earned money which she earned by running an independent boutique

Therefore, the wife’s cause of action still persists, the Court said.

"This Court does not find any reason to quash the impugned FIR as the cause of action still persists and the settlement as arrived by the parties was never abided by the petitioner and he subjected his wife to torture and cruelty, a condition necessary to attract the framing of charges under 498A of the IPC. In view of the same, it is held that the petitioner has been unable to put forth any propositions warranting exercise of inherent powers of this Court as the petitioner’s conduct still includes the criminal nature of the offence for which he was charged with under the aforesaid FIR," the Court said.

Pertinently, the Court said that even though it has wide inherent powers to quash under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash cases, the same should be used sparingly and only in those cases where no harm may be caused to the society.

Offences pertaining to the matrimonial relationships must not be quashed in a routine manner, especially if the victim of the said offence has opposed the said quashing by denying the settlement, the single-judge underscored.

The couple got married in 2012. The wife lodged a first information report (FIR) in 2015 alleging harassment by the husband and family.

The couple settled their dispute as per a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in 2016. 

As per the MOU, the parties decided to mutually file for divorce on the condition that the husband pays ₹45 lakh to the wife and that the wife withdraws the domestic violence case against him. 

The couple resumed cohabitation leading to a child being born. In 2017, the wife left her marital house again due to alleged physical and mental cruelty meted out by the husband pertaining to dowry demand.

In 2022, the trial court framed charges against the husband for offences of cruelty and harassment, voluntarily causing hurt and criminal breach of trust.

The wife submitted that the husband is a habitual drinker and used to abuser her physically and verbally for not bringing enough dowry. She further submitted that the settlement under MOU had become null and void since divorce had not taken effect.

Further, she claimed that the petitioner had already taken back the amount given to her at the time of settlement.

The husband countered by stating that the wife is playing fraud on him by making false and vexatious statements and wriggling out of the terms of settlement. Further, he submitted that the wife's allegations have not been substantiated.

The Court took note of a medical certificate indicating that the wife was subjected to serious physical abuse by her husband.

The Court observed that even after the MOU, subsequent events suggested that the husband and his family members continued to harass the wife physically and mentally.

“The instant case is a textbook example of how the affluent people try to flout the law by coercing the aggrieved party to settle the dispute, despite the offense being criminal in nature and approach the Courts citing such settlement deed,” the Court observed while dismissing the husband's petition.

The husband was represented by advocate Sahil Gupta. 

Additional Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan appeared for State. Advocate Archit Singh appeared for the wife.

[Read Order]

The Kerala High Court recently urged the Kerala government to take steps to establish hospital-based authorisation committees in the State to ensure quicker decisions on applications seeking permission for organ donation between non-relatives [Jillet & anr v State of Kerala & ors].

The Court explained that Rule 11(4) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 (Rules) required the State to set up hospital-based authorisation committees for organ donations in hospitals conducting 25 or more transplants annually.

Such hospital-based committees were one of three kinds of authorisation committees envisioned under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 2012 - the other two being the State Authorisation Committee and additional authorisation committees in various districts.

In an order passed on October 14, Justice VG Arun expressed surprise over the fact that in Kerala, all applications for permission to donate organs are being considered only by the district level authorisation committee, since hospital based committees are yet to be notified. This was leading to indefinite delays in getting such approvals, the judge noted.

The Court also flagged concern over the failure to include persons with experience and knowledge in different fields in authorisation committees. Inclusion of such members is intended to bring about a balance in the committee, the Court highlighted.

Therefore, the Court has now asked the State to take corrective measures on both counts.

"It is imperative for the State Government to constitute Hospital Based Committees and ensure induction of the members in accordance with Rules 12 and 13. The needful in this regard ought to be done without further delay, so that the laudable objectives of the Act are not defeated," the Court said.

The order was passed in a case where an application for a kidney donation was rejected by both the district and State committees.

The case concerned an autorickshaw driver who was a chronic kidney patient in need of renal transplant surgery, and a willing organ donor. The donor said that he had volunteered to donate his organ to the patient out of affection.

Since they were not near relatives, they approached the district level committee with an application seeking approval for the organ donation.

However, the committee rejected their application, suspecting commercial motives behind the donation, a decision which was also upheld by the appellate authority.

Consequently, the patient and the donor (petitioners) filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the rejection.

The Court noted that while the 2012 Act was designed to prevent commercial dealings in human organs, it also meant to enable altruistic donations.

In this case, the Court opined that the absence of any photos of the patient and the proposed donor together should not automatically lead to suspicions that the two were strangers and that the organ donation was motivated by commercial interests.

"It is extremely difficult, rather impossible, to provide proof of feelings like love and affection. Absence of photographs featuring the donor and recipient cannot also be the reason for negativing the donor's version that he had volunteered to donate his organ out of love and affection," the Court said.

The Court also pointed out that organ recipient was an autorickshaw driver whose transplant operation was being crowd-funded.

This led the Court to question the theory that there was a commercial element to the proposed organ donation. It, therefore, set aside the rejection of the application and asked the district level organ donation authorisation committee to take a fresh decision.

The petitioners were represented by Advocates C Achacko, CM Charisma, and Babu VP, while Senior Government Pleader Deepa Narayanan appeared for the State. Advocate Thomas J Anakkallunkal appeared for the Rajagiri Hospital.

[Read Judgment]

The Delhi High Court recently declined to interfere with a show cause notice issued against Okiniwa Autotech, an Indian electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing company, by which the Indian government had proposed the blacklisting of the company [Okinawa Autotech International Private Limited v. Union of India].

A Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, observed that a writ court can interfere with show cause notices only in rare and exceptional cases, such as when the notice is issued without jurisdiction or where there is an abuse of law.

In this case, the Court was not convinced by Okinawa's claim that the show-cause notice was issued with bias or with a 'predetermined mind' to blacklist.

It, therefore, rejected Okinawa's challenge to the September 11 show cause notice issued by the Union Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises.

"This Court does not find any reasons to interdict the Show Cause Notice at this stage. In any case, the appellants can raise all its contentions before the authority while filing the reply to the Show Cause Notice, taking all the objections that are possibly available with them," the Court said.

Okinawa was earlier de-registered by the Ministry in October 2023 after the government concluded that the EV company had failed to comply with requirements of the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Electric Vehicles in India, Phase II (FAME-II Scheme) and Phased Manufacturing Program Guidelines (PMP Guidelines).

The scheme and guidelines were introduced as part of efforts to promote electric and hybrid vehicles in India. Manufacturers that availed subsidies under this initiative were required to indigenise parts of their vehicle models in accordance with guidelines issued from time to time.

Okinawa Autotech's electric scooter was first to get the FAME-II subsidy incentive in 2019. However, in the wake of allegations that the company flouted guidelines under this scheme, the government initiated proceedings to take back the subsidies earlier granted.

Okinawa eventually challenged its 2023 de-registration before a single judge of the Delhi High Court, which is pending adjudication.

Meanwhile, the Ministry issued a show cause notice against Okinawa, proposing the action of blacklisting the company.

Okinawa challenged the show cause notice. After a single-judge dismissed the said challenge, Okinawa filed an appeal before the High Court's Division Bench.

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora led the arguments for Okinawa, which contended that the show cause notice should not have been issued while its challenge to the deregistration was still pending adjudication.

Okinawa pointed out that the show cause notice was predicated on the deregistration order against it and the alleged violation of the FAME-II and scheme and PMP guidelines.

It also contended that since the same authority who ordered the deregistration has issued the show cause notice, there is a naturally an element of bias against Okinawa. The authority may have issued the notice with a predetermined mind while proposing to blacklist Okinawa, the EV company argued.

The Central government denied the allegations of bias. Among other arguments, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N Venkataraman submitted that Okinawa is not the only company facing action after the genuineness of their subsidy claims were doubted. Proceedings to recover subsidy were initiated against five other companies as well, the ASG argued.

The Court eventually rejected Okinawa's arguments. It observed that there is nothing to restrict the same authority from issuing the show cause notice, and there this aspect would not imply that there is personal bias.

"Moreover, the appellant would be afforded an opportunity to file its reply which would be considered by the Competent Authority in accordance with law," the Court added.

The Court further held that the pendency of Okinawa's plea challenging its de-registration would not be an impediment to the issuance of show cause notice for blacklisting. It proceeded to reject Okinawa's appeal.

"It is made clear that the observations made herein shall not tantamount to any expression on merits of the case. The rights and contentions of the parties are left open," the Court clarified.

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, with Advocates Manish Bishnoi, Anurag Bhatt, Lokesh Pathak, Vaibhav Vijayvargiya and Ankur Gupta appeared for Okinanwa.

ASG N Venkataraman, Central Government Standing Counsel Anurag Ahluwalia, with Advocates Amish Tandon, Anushree Kulkarni, Vaishnavi, Amit Acharya,  Kaushal Jeet Kait, Hridyanshi Sharma appeared for the Central Government.

[Read judgment]

Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Karol on Saturday revealed a grim story of a woman who is made to stay outside her house during her menstruation cycle.

Justice Karol also showed a photograph taken by him in 2023 showing the woman putting up under a tent.

"This photograph I took in a remote villag. This photograph is of a lady who is forbidden to enter her house for those five days when she is suffering a bodily change. This is the India we are living in. We have to reach out to these people," the top court judge said.

While the judge did not reveal where the picture was taken, he referred to remote areas of Bihar and Tripura where the court system has not yet reached.

He was speaking at the first International Supreme Court Advocates on Record (SCAORA) Legal Conference.

The judge was speaking in context of social justice and women's rights when he showed the picture to the audience.

He had earlier given examples of courts' interventions, particularly on women's rights and disabled persons.

Those examples are of people who had access to justice, were predominantly educated and living in metros, the judge said.

While pointing to the divide in access of justice and "metro-centric approach" of the justice system, Justice Karol said,

"India is not Delhi. India is not Bombay. We are the custodians and guardians of the Constitution of India. We, the people, and you and I, have to play a major role in reaching out to those who do not either have access to justice or do not know really what justice is, or are not even aware of the systems which are in place."

Justice Karol called for reaching out to those living in remote areas of India.

"Have you ever thought of the teeming millions living in the rural areas of India? Have you spoken their language? Have you reached out to them? Have you understood them?"

The judge also spoke about the Constitution as a living document and said it serves as a pivotal instrument in advancing both social and economic justice

"The essence of something living is having the ability to change and adapt. The amount of change that India has undergone in the nature of both social transformation and economic progress has been immense throughout. For one and all committed to the idea of India, the Constitution has been the sole basis of all actions," he added.

The judge said that by embodying an ethos of inclusivity and compelling the State to rectify historical injustices, the Constitution fosters an environment conducive in sustainable economic development and social equality.

Social and economic justice are inextricably linked and dependent on each other, the Judge said.

"Inequality is not simply a lack of resources, but a more profound experience of dearth, relative to others," he added.

[Live coverage of event below]

Supreme Court judge Justice PS Narasimha on Saturday batted for the establishment of an Arbitration Council of India as recommended by Justice BN Srikrishna Committee's report on institutionalising arbitration in India.

The Srikrishna Committee report had suggested the establishment of an Arbitration Promotion Council of India as an autonomous body having representation from various stakeholders for grading arbitral institutions in India.

Justice Narasimha opined that while the arbitration bar in the country is one of the best in the world, the shortcoming in the Indian arbitration landscape is the lack of a mechanism to monitor the enforcement of arbitral awards.

"We have excellent talent in Arbitration Bar of India, at par with the best in the world. We will look at contribution of legislature, judiciary and third which I will speak about is need for institutionalisation that is needed to nurture and develop arbitration guidelines for institutional integrity. Courts (elsewhere in the world) have adopted this third limb, which is completely absent from our arbitration culture and is necessary for efficiency. Where have we faltered on the third limb? No monitoring is happening as to enforcement of arbitral awards and adoption of best practices," Justice Narasimha highlighted.

An arbitration culture that prioritises adherence to timelines is extremely important, he added.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 has mandated a set of rules but there is no regulating body to monitor the enforcement and implementation of such rules, he further lamented.

He drew a comparison to the United Kingdom, where 80 per cent of arbitration is institutional. However, the judge clarified that merely making a transition to institutional arbitration will do no good unless there is a regulatory body.

"After Srikrishna committee report and having seen its working and adoption in our country, I think it is not merely transition to institutional arbitration that will be a problem solver but we need a guiding body for institutional memory to ensure arbitration culture develops in the country. There are several problems in the absence of such a body - most arbitrations are ad hoc, there are not enough guidelines. Arbitration council has to be put in place. Institutional memory and introduction of the culture and accreditation and timelines are extremely important," Justice Narasimha said.

The judge was delivering the keynote address at the 15th Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre (NPAC) Conference on the theme 'India and Global Arbitration: Opportunities and Challenges for 2025–2030.' Senior Advocate Aravind Datar also spoke at the event.

While emphasising that the 1996 Arbitration Act is by itself not enough for the procedural growth of arbitration, Justice Narasimha also referred to his 2023 judgment in the NTPC Limited case to highlight how courts have time and again laid down the procedure for dealing with provisions under the model law for arbitration.

In NTPC, the top court had commented on the approach to be adopted while dealing with cases under Section 11(6) (appointment of arbitrators) of the Arbitration Act and held that court cannot act mechanically in such matters.

[Live Coverage of the NPAC event]