Sending a clear message that the 2G spectrum allocation of 2008 is a scam and not the result of a government policy decision, the Supreme Court today quashed the grant of 122 UAS licences and allocation of spectrum to 12 private companies. Even as the trial in the 2G case progresses in a Patiala House trial court in Delhi, a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly held...
More »SEARCH RESULT
Total Matching Records found : 193
Supreme Court strikes down Arms Act provision for mandatory death penalty by J Venkatesan
Bench says it runs counter to constitutional law and ultra vires Constitution The Supreme Court on Wednesday declared unconstitutional Section 27 (3) of the Arms Act, which provides for mandatory death sentence to an accused charged with an offence under this provision. Section 27(3) says: “Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of Section 7 and such use or act results in the death of...
More »Graft cases against public servants: Supreme Court raps PMO for delay in okaying A Raja prosecution
-The Economic Times The Supreme Court has pulled up the Prime Minister's Office for taking 16 months to decide on an application from Janata Party PresidentSubramaniam Swamy to prosecute then telecom minister A Raja. However, a bench comprising Justices AK Ganguly and GS Singhvi appeared to absolve Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of any personal blame on the ground that he could not be expected to go into details of every case before...
More »Clean chit to PM, not PMO by Samanwaya Rautray
The uneasy head that wears the Prime Minister’s crown has been given a clean chit but not the bureaucrats. The Supreme Court today acknowledged that a Prime Minister could not be expected to look into “minute details” of every case placed before him but launched a blistering attack on officials of the PMO and the law ministry for failing to apprise Manmohan Singh of the gravity of the charges against A....
More »SC public servant trial thrust
-The Telegraph The Supreme Court today said a public servant facing corruption charges need not be heard before the competent authority decides on sanctioning prosecution. “…the person for whose prosecution the sanction is sought is not required to be heard before a decision in the matter. What is required to be seen is whether the facts placed before it, which, in a given case, may include the material collected by the complainant...
More »
