In the case in hand, the procedural safeguards are complied with. Insofar as the contention that the courts should lean in favour of upholding the personal liberty, we are conscious that the Constitution and the Supreme Court are very zealous of upholding the personal liberty of an individual. But the liberty of an individual has to be subordinated within reasonable bounds to the good of the people. Order of detention is clearly a preventive measure and devised to afford protection to the society.
When the preventive detention is aimed to protect the safety and security of the nation, balance has to be struck between liberty of an individual and the needs of the society.
Observing that the object of preventive detention is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept and to prevent him from doing so, in Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India and others (2005) 8 SCC 276, it was held as under:- Continue reading “Personal Liberty and Judicial Review of Preventive Detention.”
Dispute between India and Pakistan
India had approached the UN court alleging that Pakistan had violated Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 by failing to inform India of Kulbhushan Jadhav’s arrest and by refusing consular access to him.
On the other hand, Pakistan argued that Vienna Convention on Consular Relations was not applicable to persons detained on charges of espionage.
Pakistan claimed that its forces arrested Jadhav from Balochistan province on March 3, 2016, after he allegedly entered from Iran.However, India maintains that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he had business interests after retiring from the Navy.
India submitted that Jadhav’s conviction was based on extracted confessions and that the military court had not followed due process by denying him Consular Access under Vienna Convention.
Pakistan disputed Jadhav’s Indian identity. There was no proof of him being retired from armed forces. He was in possession of an Indian passport with a Muslim cover name, Qureshi submitted. He cited articles written by Indian journalists Karan Thapar, Praveen Swami and Chandan Nandy to state that Jadhav was a spy planted by India in Pakistan on an espionage mission.
Factual background and Issues:
Arrest and detention by Pakistan of an individual named Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav — Mr. Jadhav accused of involvement in espionage and terrorism activities — Criminal proceedings instituted — Mr. Jadhav sentenced to death by military court in Pakistan.
Jurisdiction of the Court:
Dispute relates to interpretation and application of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations — The Court has jurisdiction under Article I of Optional Protocol to Vienna Convention on Consular Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes.
Admissibility of India’s Application:
Continue reading “Jadav is entitled to Consular Access; held by INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE”
The question before Supreme Court:
The issue arising in the case is whether resignations submitted by Members of the Legislative Assembly at a point of time earlier than petitions for their disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution should have priority in the decision making process or whether both sets of proceedings should be taken up simultaneously or the disqualification proceedings should have precedence over the request(s) for resignation.
The order of Supreme Court:
The imperative necessity,at this stage, is to maintain the constitutional balance and the conflicting and competing rights that have been canvassed before us. Such an interim exercise has become prudent in view of certain time frame exercise(s) that is in the offing in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, particularly, the no-trust motion against the present Government, which we are told is due for being taken up on 18th July, 2019.
In these circumstances, the competing claims have to be balanced by an appropriate interim order, which according to us, should be to permit the Hon’ble Speaker of the House to decide on the request for resignations by the 15 Members of the House within such time frame as the Hon’ble Speaker may consider appropriate.
We also take the view that in the present case the discretion of the Hon’ble Speaker while deciding the above issue should not be fettered by any direction or observation of this Court and the Hon’ble Speaker should be left free to decide the issue in accordance with Article 190 read with Rule 202 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Karnataka Legislative Assembly framed in exercise of the powers under Article 208 of the Constitution. The order of the Hon’ble Speaker on the resignation issue, as and when passed, be placed before the Court.
We also make it clear that until further orders the 15 Members of the Assembly, ought not to be compelled to participate in the proceedings of the ongoing session of the House and an option should be given to them that they can take part in the said proceedings or to opt to remain out of the same. Continue reading “Karnataka Assembly Speaker prevented from ordering disqualification”
Recall of witness
There cannot be a strait jacket formula providing for the grounds on which judicial discretion under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised. The exercise of discretion has to take place on a case-to-case basis. The guiding principle for a Judge under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether prejudice would be caused to the party seeking deferral,if the application is dismissed.
While deciding an Application under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C.,a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused,and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence.The following factors must be kept in consideration:
• possibility of undue influence on witness(es);
• possibility of threats to witness(es);
• possibility that non-deferral would enable subsequent witnesses giving evidence on similar facts to tailor their testimony to circumvent the defence strategy; Continue reading “Criminal Trial must be held on day to day basis.”