Ayen News

Category: Legal

  • SC Challenges Pre-Conviction Loss of Animal Ownership Under 2017 Rules

    NEW DELHI (Tuesday, March 10, 2026) — The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice to the Central Government on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017. The plea argues that the current rules allow for the “permanent deprivation” of livestock and pets before a person is even convicted of a crime, which violates fundamental property rights.

    The Legal Conflict: Rules vs. Parent Act

    The petition argues that the 2017 Rules exceed the mandate provided by the original Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960.

    • Rule 3 (The Challenged Provision): Currently, when an animal is seized on suspicion of cruelty (e.g., during transport for slaughter or due to neglect), Rule 3 allows the Magistrate to hand over the animal’s custody to an infirmary, pinjrapole, or SPCA. It often requires the owner to execute a bond to cover the cost of care. If the owner cannot pay, they may lose the animal permanently before the trial ends.
    • Section 29 of the PCA Act (The Parent Law): This section specifically states that a person can be deprived of animal ownership only upon conviction for an offense under the Act.
    • The “Ultra Vires” Argument: The petitioner contends that a “Rule” (subordinate legislation) cannot override the “Act” (primary legislation). By allowing pre-conviction forfeiture, Rule 3 is being challenged as ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the 1960 Act.

    Constitutional Grounds for the Plea

    A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta tagged this plea with an existing petition to examine if the rules violate the following:

    ArticleContext of the Challenge
    Article 14Right to Equality: Argues that the rule creates an arbitrary and unfair burden on livestock owners compared to other property owners.
    Article 300ARight to Property: Asserts that no person shall be deprived of their property (including livestock) save by the “authority of law.”
    Livelihood RightsFor many farmers and transporters, livestock is a primary source of income; losing them without a trial constitutes a violation of the right to earn a living.

    Significance of the Case

    This case addresses a long-standing tension between animal welfare activists and livestock owners/transporters.

    • Animal Welfare View: Immediate seizure is necessary to prevent further suffering and ensure the animal is treated while the case is pending.
    • Owner’s View: Seizure is often used as a tool for harassment, and requiring high “maintenance bonds” essentially forces the poor to forfeit their animals before they can prove their innocence.

    The Supreme Court has previously observed that “animals cannot be treated as mere property,” but this specific challenge seeks to ensure that due process is followed before ownership is permanently severed.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “SC seeks Centre’s response on plea challenging validity of rule on custody of animals” (March 10, 2026)
    • Deccan Chronicle: “SC Seeks Centre’s View on Validity of Animal Custody Rules” (March 10, 2026)
    • The Tribune: “Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response on plea challenging validity of rule on custody of animals” (March 10, 2026)
    • Gazette of India: “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017” (Notification Reference)

  • Delhi High Court Issues Notice on ED’s Plea to Expunge Remarks in Excise Case

    NEW DELHI (Tuesday, March 10, 2026) — The Delhi High Court has issued notices to former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, and 21 other respondents following a petition by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The central agency is seeking to expunge “unwarranted” and “adverse” remarks made by a trial court while discharging the accused in the CBI-led excise policy case on February 27.

    The ED’s Argument: “Condemned Without a Hearing”

    Representing the ED, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju argued that the Special Court’s observations were a result of “judicial overreach.”

    • Lack of Standing: The ED emphasized that it was not a party to the CBI proceedings. Therefore, the agency was never given an opportunity to present its evidence or be heard before the judge made disparaging remarks about its investigation.
    • Prejudice to PMLA Case: The agency contends that the trial court’s remarks—which touched upon money laundering and the “criminalization of electoral competition”—could seriously prejudice its independent and ongoing investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
    • Specific Paragraphs: The ED has moved to delete 18 specific paragraphs (including paras 1124 to 1132) of the discharge order, calling them “sweeping, unguided, and bald observations.”

    The High Court’s Observations

    Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while issuing the notice, offered a preliminary perspective on the nature of the trial court’s comments.

    • “General Observations”: Justice Sharma orally remarked that the trial court’s comments appeared to be “general observations” which many judges make when they feel an investigation has been “unfair,” and might not have been intended specifically for the case at hand.
    • Integrated Hearing: The court noted that since the entire discharge order is already being challenged by the CBI, the ED’s plea to expunge remarks will be heard alongside the main revision petition to avoid “piecemeal” adjudication.
    • Judicial Independence: When defense counsel protested against an interim stay on the remarks, Justice Sharma asserted, “Nobody can stop me from passing an order… I will pass an order that I think is right.”

    Context: The “Electoral Arena” Remark

    The ED is particularly aggrieved by the trial court’s observation that investigative agencies like the CBI or ED should not be permitted to enter the “electoral arena” based solely on allegations of illegal campaign funding, as it leads to the “criminalization of electoral competition.”

    Status of ProceedingsDateDetails
    Trial Court DischargeFeb 27, 2026Special Judge Jitendra Singh discharged all 23 accused, citing lack of “prima facie” evidence.
    CBI ChallengeMar 9, 2026HC stayed the trial court’s remarks against the CBI’s Investigating Officer (IO).
    ED Plea HearingMar 10, 2026HC issued notice to all 23 respondents to reply to ED’s plea to expunge remarks.
    Next HearingMar 19, 2026Both the CBI’s challenge and ED’s plea will be heard together.

    Sources

    • Live Law: “Condemned Without Hearing: ED Tells Delhi High Court Over Adverse Remarks In Excise Policy Case” (March 10, 2026)
    • Bar and Bench: “No one can dictate to me what order to pass: Delhi HC in ED plea to expunge remarks” (March 10, 2026)
    • Hindustan Times: “Delhi HC notice on ED plea on trial court order discharging Kejriwal, Sisodia” (March 10, 2026)
    • The Indian Express: “Excise policy case: ED says trial court judge had no business to make adverse remarks” (March 10, 2026)

  • Pre-Contract Scrutiny Essential to Save Public Funds: Former CJI UU Lalit

    NEW DELHI (Saturday, March 7, 2026) — Former Chief Justice of India UU Lalit has advocated for a specialized government agency to vet all infrastructure contracts before they are signed. Speaking at a conference in the national capital, he emphasized that rigorous early scrutiny could prevent massive arbitration disputes, potentially saving the public exchequer “thousands and thousands of crores.”

    The Call for Specialised Screening

    Justice Lalit delivered his remarks at the conference on “Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Norms for Construction and Infrastructure Sector: An Indian and International Perspective,” organized by the PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PHDCCI).

    • Primary Recommendation: Infrastructure and construction contracts should be screened by a dedicated agency within the respective ministry before “signing on the dotted line.”
    • The “Profit Tool” Concern: He noted a troubling trend where arbitration claims in infrastructure projects often exceed the original project cost.
      • Example: If a project cost is approximately ₹800 crore, claims frequently exceed ₹1,000 crore.
      • Justice Lalit observed that this creates an impression that arbitration is being used by contractors as a tool to maximize revenue rather than simply resolve genuine disputes.

    Key Drivers of Infrastructure Disputes

    Drawing from his experience in nearly 20 construction arbitrations over the last three years, the former CJI identified several recurring issues:

    IssueDescription
    Contractual GapsPoor drafting and a lack of precise norms for assessing claims at the tendering stage.
    Environmental HaltsRecurring disruptions like GR-III and GR-IV measures (due to Delhi’s air pollution) are rarely anticipated in contracts, leading to idle-resource claims.
    Inter-Departmental LagProjects involving multiple bodies—such as railway overbridges—often suffer from design changes after contracts are awarded.
    Inaccurate EstimatesInsufficient attention paid to project planning and coordination before the execution phase.

    Supporting Perspectives

    The inaugural session also featured former Supreme Court judge Justice Hema Kohli, who highlighted that as India undergoes massive investments in highways, railways, and logistics, the “legal architecture” must be as robust as the physical projects. She noted that in projects of such magnitude, disputes are not aberrations but “structural possibilities” that must be resolved with efficiency and predictability.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Early scrutiny of infrastructure contracts can save thousands of crores in disputes: Ex-CJI Lalit” (March 7, 2026)
    • Millennium Post: “Ex-CJI Lalit advocates specialized agency for contract screening” (March 7, 2026)
    • PHDCCI Official: Event Brochure – Dispute Resolution & Arbitration Norms (March 7, 2026)
    • Hindustan Times: “Arbitration shouldn’t be a revenue tool for contractors: Former CJI UU Lalit” (March 7, 2026)

  • Sangeetha Vijay Seeks Interim Order to Reside in Matrimonial Home Amid Divorce Proceedings

    CHENNAI (Saturday, March 7, 2026) — Sangeetha Vijay, the wife of actor and Tamizhaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) chief Vijay, has moved a court in Chengalpattu seeking an interim order to continue residing in her matrimonial home in Neelankarai (Casuarina Drive), Chennai. This follows her main petition for divorce, which was filed earlier this year under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

    The New Affidavit: Seeking Residential Security

    In her latest interlocutory application, Sangeetha cited her lack of alternative accommodation in India as a primary reason for the request.

    • Interim Request: She has requested the court’s permission to stay in the Neelankarai residence until the final disposal of the divorce case or until Vijay provides a “suitable alternative accommodation” that matches his social status.
    • Citizenship Factor: Sangeetha, a British citizen, stated in her affidavit that she currently does not own any other property in India.
    • Alleged Threats: The petition claims that Vijay’s legal representatives had previously indicated she would not be allowed to stay in the matrimonial home if she pursued a legal separation, creating an apprehension of being rendered homeless.
    • Ownership Claim: She has also asserted a claim of 50% ownership in the Neelankarai property, describing it as a joint asset.

    Grounds for Divorce

    The main divorce petition, which surfaced earlier this month, seeks the dissolution of the couple’s 26-year marriage on the following grounds:

    GroundDetail
    AdulteryAllegations that Vijay has been involved in an “adulterous relationship” with a prominent actress since April 2021.
    Mental CrueltyClaims of emotional neglect, verbal disdain, and “constructive desertion.”
    AlimonyRequest for “fair and reasonable permanent alimony” commensurate with Vijay’s substantial income and public profile.

    Vijay’s Response and Political Context

    The timing of the legal filing is particularly sensitive as Vijay prepares for the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections.

    • TVK Women’s Day Event: On Saturday, March 7, while attending a TVK event in Mamallapuram, Vijay broke his silence on the “problems” in his life. He urged his supporters not to be “hurt” by the controversies, stating, “I’ll take care of the problems. Don’t get hurt. Nothing to worry about.”
    • Viral Appearances: The legal development coincides with viral social media images of Vijay attending a wedding reception in Chennai with actress Trisha Krishnan on March 5, which intensified public speculation.
    • Court Date: The Chengalpattu District Court has issued a notice to Vijay and scheduled the next hearing for April 20, 2026.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Sangeetha seeks court’s nod to reside in matrimonial home” (March 7, 2026)
    • The Indian Express: “Vijay-Sangeetha divorce case: Wife seeks right to stay in matrimonial home; 5 things to know” (March 7, 2026)
    • Hindustan Times: “Vijay’s wife Sangeeta moves court for interim residence in Chennai amid viral pics with Trisha” (March 7, 2026)
    • Live Law: “Divorce plea filed by Sangeetha Vijay against TVK Chief Vijay; Next hearing on April 20” (March 7, 2026)
    • India Today: “Vijay’s wife’s plea seeking residential rights surfaces amid ongoing divorce row” (March 7, 2026)

  • High Court Acquits Gurmeet Ram Rahim in 2002 Journalist Murder Case

    CHANDIGARH (Saturday, March 7, 2026) — In a landmark ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in the 2002 murder case of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati. The decision comes more than seven years after a special CBI court convicted the sect head and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

    The High Court Verdict

    A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikram Aggarwal delivered the judgment on Saturday, allowing the appeals filed by the Dera chief against his 2019 conviction.

    • Acquittal for Ram Rahim: The court set aside the lower court’s order, citing a lack of conclusive evidence to link the Dera chief to the conspiracy to kill the journalist.
    • Conviction Upheld for Others: While Ram Rahim was acquitted, the High Court upheld the life sentences of the other three accused: Kuldeep Singh, Nirmal Singh, and Krishan Lal. The court found sufficient evidence to maintain their roles in the direct execution of the crime.
    • Key Judicial Scrutiny: During the final hearings, the bench reportedly scrutinized forensic evidence, including a physical examination of a “soft-lead bullet” and its storage container, to address claims of tampering and procedural lapses.

    Background: The Killing of “Poora Sach” Editor

    The case is rooted in the brave reporting of Ram Chander Chhatrapati, who edited the local evening daily Poora Sach in Sirsa.

    • The Motive: In 2002, Chhatrapati published an anonymous letter written by a sadhvi (female follower) that detailed the systemic sexual exploitation of women inside the Dera headquarters.
    • The Attack: On October 24, 2002, two men on a motorcycle shot Chhatrapati at point-blank range outside his residence. He fought for his life for nearly a month but succumbed to his injuries on November 21, 2002.
    • The Investigation: Initially handled by the local police, the case was transferred to the CBI in 2003 following a High Court order. The agency eventually named Ram Rahim as the mastermind behind the hit.
    MilestoneDate
    Journalist MurderedOctober 2002
    CBI Takes Over CaseNovember 2003
    Special CBI Court ConvictionJanuary 17, 2019
    High Court AcquittalMarch 7, 2026

    Current Legal Standing of Ram Rahim

    Despite the acquittal, the 58-year-old Dera chief will not be released from Rohtak’s Sunaria Jail.

    1. Rape Convictions: He is currently serving a 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence (awarded in 2017) for the rape of two disciples.
    2. Ranjit Singh Murder Case: In May 2024, the High Court had also acquitted him in another 2002 murder case involving the sect’s former manager, Ranjit Singh.
    3. Sacrilege Cases: He remains an accused in multiple FIRs related to the 2015 sacrilege incidents in Punjab, which are still under investigation.

    Response from the Victim’s Family

    Anshul Chhatrapati, the son of the slain journalist who has led a 24-year legal battle, described the verdict as “disappointing.” He argued that “the shooters were mere tools” and that the actual mastermind has walked free. He confirmed that the family will challenge the High Court’s acquittal in the Supreme Court of India.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Dera Sacha Sauda chief acquitted in journalist murder case” (March 7, 2026)
    • The Hindu: “HC acquits Dera Sacha Sauda chief Ram Rahim in journalist murder case” (March 7, 2026)
    • Hindustan Times: “Dera chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim acquitted in murder case of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati” (March 7, 2026)
    • Live Law: “Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Dera Chief Gurmit Ram Rahim in 2002 Journalist Chhatrapati Murder Case” (March 7, 2026)
    • The Indian Express: “High Court acquits Ram Rahim in Chhatrapati murder case; family to move SC” (March 7, 2026)

  • Survivor Challenges Anticipatory Bail of Expelled MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in Supreme Court

    NEW DELHI (Saturday, March 7, 2026) — A plea has been moved in the Supreme Court of India challenging the anticipatory bail granted to expelled Congress leader and Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in a high-profile case involving allegations of rape and forced abortion. The survivor’s petition seeks to set aside the Kerala High Court’s February 12 order, arguing that the court conducted a “mini-trial” and made unwarranted remarks about her character.

    Grounds for the Supreme Court Challenge

    The survivor, represented by advocate Subhash Chandran K.R., has raised several critical legal and ethical points in her Special Leave Petition (SLP):

    • Objection to “Consensual” Remarks: The petitioner took strong exception to Justice Kauser Edappagath’s observation that the relationship appeared “prima facie consensual” because the victim had visited the MLA’s flat. The plea argues that past cordiality or voluntary visits do not constitute a “blanket license” for sexual assault.
    • Allegation of a “Mini-Trial”: The survivor contends that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by performing a detailed analysis of WhatsApp chats and evidence—a task meant for the trial stage—rather than focusing on the necessity of custodial interrogation.
    • Forced Abortion: The plea reiterates that the MLA coerced the survivor into a miscarriage by using threats of suicide and the unauthorized recording of intimate videos to blackmail her, which falls under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
    • Habitual Offender Claim: The petition highlights that Mamkootathil is facing three separate FIRs for similar offenses, with authorities reportedly identifying nearly ten potential survivors, indicating a systematic pattern of behavior.

    Case Context: The Legal Battle So Far

    Rahul Mamkootathil, once a rising star and former State President of the Youth Congress, has seen a rapid fall from grace following these allegations.

    EventDateStatus/Details
    First FIR (Nemom PS)Nov 28, 2025Allegations of rape, forced abortion, and IT Act violations.
    Expulsion from CongressDec 2025Party expelled him following multiple complaints.
    Third Case ArrestJan 11, 2026Arrested in a third case; spent over two weeks in custody.
    HC Anticipatory BailFeb 12, 2026Granted in the first case with conditions (surrender of phone/passport).
    SC Challenge FiledMar 6, 2026Survivor moves the apex court against the Feb 12 order.

    Current Situation in Kerala

    The case has caused significant political ripples in Kerala. While the High Court noted that “law and morality are not equivalent,” the survivor’s legal team argues that the court’s skepticism of a “mature woman’s” claims reflects a regressive judicial approach. Meanwhile, Mamkootathil remains out on bail but is barred from leaving the state and must appear for interrogation as directed.

    Sources

    • Bar and Bench: “Rape survivor moves Supreme Court against anticipatory bail granted to Kerala MLA Rahul Mamkootathil” (March 7, 2026)
    • The Hindu: “Woman complainant moves SC against pre-arrest bail to Rahul Mamkootathil” (March 7, 2026)
    • Live Law: “Kerala MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil’s Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Challenged In Supreme Court” (March 7, 2026)
    • Hindustan Times: “SC plea challenges anticipatory bail to Kerala Congress legislator in rape case” (March 7, 2026)

  • Thane MACT Awards ₹37.55 Lakh to Family of 25-Year-Old Killed in 2022 Crash

    THANE (Saturday, March 7, 2026) — The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Thane has ordered a compensation of ₹37.55 lakh for the family of a young man who lost his life in a road accident four years ago. The tribunal applied the “pay and recover” principle, directing the insurance provider to compensate the family first and later seek reimbursement from the vehicle owner due to a technical breach of the insurance policy.

    Details of the 2022 Accident

    The case dates back to October 15, 2022, involving a fatal collision between a motorcycle and a heavy goods vehicle.

    • The Victim: The deceased was a 25-year-old man who worked as a delivery executive and was the primary breadwinner for his family.
    • The Incident: While riding his motorcycle on the Mumbra-Panvel Highway, a speeding truck collided with him from behind, resulting in his immediate death.
    • The Claim: His parents and younger siblings filed a claim seeking ₹50 lakh, citing his age, future earning potential, and the emotional trauma caused by the loss.

    The Tribunal’s Ruling

    MACT member R. V. Mohite passed the order on March 2, which was made public this Saturday.

    ComponentAmount Awarded
    Loss of Dependency₹34.80 lakh (based on age and income)
    Loss of Estate₹1.65 lakh
    Funeral Expenses₹1.10 lakh
    Total Compensation₹37.55 lakh

    “Pay and Recover” Clause

    The tribunal noted that the truck involved had a breach of insurance terms (specifically regarding the driver’s license validity at the time of the crash).

    • Directive: Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. has been ordered to pay the full amount to the claimants within two months.
    • Recovery: The insurance company is then legally authorized to recover the disbursed amount from the truck’s owner.

    Legal Context for Claimants

    This ruling reinforces the protectorate nature of the Motor Vehicles Act, ensuring that families of victims do not suffer due to administrative lapses between owners and insurers.

    1. Interest Rate: The award includes an interest rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition until the final realization of the amount.
    2. Apportionment: The tribunal directed that a significant portion of the amount be kept in Fixed Deposits (FDs) in the names of the parents to ensure long-term financial security.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Thane MACT awards Rs 37.55 lakh compensation to kin of man killed in motorcycle accident” (March 7, 2026)
    • The Times of India: “MACT Thane orders ₹37 lakh for family of youth killed in 2022 truck hit” (March 7, 2026)
    • Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority: Monthly Digest of MACT Orders (March 2026)

  • High Court Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati Murder Case

    CHANDIGARH (Saturday, March 7, 2026) — In a major legal victory for Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted him in the 2002 murder case of Sirsa-based journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati. The decision comes more than seven years after a special CBI court had sentenced the sect head to life imprisonment for the crime.

    The High Court Verdict

    A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikram Aggarwal delivered the judgment on Saturday morning, allowing the appeals filed by the Dera chief against his 2019 conviction.

    • Grounds for Acquittal: While the detailed judgment is awaited, the bench observed that the prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy charges against Ram Rahim beyond reasonable doubt.
    • Mixed Outcome: Notably, the court upheld the conviction and life sentences of the other three accused—Kuldeep Singh, Nirmal Singh, and Krishan Lal—ruling that the evidence against the actual shooters remained solid.
    • Legal Parity: The defense argued that Ram Rahim was not named in the initial 2002 chargesheet and that the “conspiracy” theory was built years later based on unreliable witness testimonies.

    Background: The 2002 Murder

    The case stems from the killing of Ram Chander Chhatrapati, the editor of the evening daily Poora Sach.

    • The Trigger: Chhatrapati was the first to publish an anonymous letter from a sadhvi (female follower) alleging widespread sexual exploitation of women at the Dera headquarters in Sirsa.
    • The Attack: On October 24, 2002, two men on a motorcycle shot Chhatrapati at point-blank range outside his home. He succumbed to his injuries four weeks later.
    • The 2019 Conviction: A special CBI court in Panchkula had found Ram Rahim guilty as the “main conspirator” who orchestrated the hit to silence the journalist.
    Case MilestoneDate
    Murder of ChhatrapatiOctober 2002
    CBI TakeoverNovember 2003
    Rape Conviction (20 Years)August 2017
    CBI Court Murder ConvictionJanuary 2019
    High Court AcquittalMarch 7, 2026

    Current Legal Status

    Despite this acquittal, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh will remain in Sunaria Jail, Rohtak, due to his other convictions:

    1. Rape Cases: He is serving a 20-year rigorous imprisonment for the rape of two female disciples.
    2. Ranjit Singh Murder Case: Although he was acquitted by the High Court in the Ranjit Singh murder case in May 2024, the CBI has challenged that acquittal in the Supreme Court.

    Reaction from the Victim’s Family

    Anshul Chhatrapati, the son of the slain journalist who fought the legal battle for 24 years, termed the verdict a “major setback.” He confirmed that the family would move the Supreme Court of India to challenge the acquittal, stating, “The main culprit has been let off; our struggle for justice will continue in the highest court.”

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh acquitted in journalist murder case” (March 7, 2026)
    • The Hindu: “Dera chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim acquitted in journalist murder case” (March 7, 2026)
    • Live Law: “Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Dera Chief in Chhatrapati Murder Case” (March 7, 2026)
    • The Indian Express: “High Court acquits Ram Rahim in Chhatrapati murder case; son to move SC” (March 7, 2026)
    • Hindustan Times: “Dera chief acquitted in 2002 journalist murder case by Punjab and Haryana HC” (March 7, 2026)

  • Rohit Pawar Files Discharge Plea in MSCB Bank Case Citing Closure of Main Offense

    MUMBAI (Friday, March 6, 2026) — Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) MLA Rohit Pawar has moved a discharge application before a special PMLA court in Mumbai. The application, filed through his legal counsel, seeks to drop all money laundering charges linked to the alleged Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank (MSCB) scam.

    The Legal Argument: Lack of “Predicate Offense”

    The core of Rohit Pawar’s discharge plea rests on a fundamental principle of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA): for a money laundering case to exist, there must be an active underlying (predicate) criminal offense.

    • The EOW Closure: In early 2024, the Mumbai Police Economic Offences Wing (EOW) filed a Closure Report (C-Summary) in the original cheating and fraud case, stating that no cognizable offense was made out against the accused directors and officers of the MSCB.
    • The Defense’s Stance: Advocate Kushal Mor argued that since the primary case by the EOW—which served as the basis for the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) probe—has been closed and accepted by the court, the ED’s money laundering case cannot legally stand.
    • Supreme Court Precedent: The plea cites the landmark Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment, which ruled that if a person is acquitted or discharged in the predicate offense, the PMLA proceedings must also be quashed.

    Context: The MSCB Sugar Mill Allegations

    The investigation involves the alleged fraudulent sale of Sahakari Sakhar Karkhanas (SSKs) or cooperative sugar mills.

    Investigation DetailDescription
    The AllegationMSCB officials allegedly sold sick sugar mills at “throwaway prices” to private entities linked to influential politicians without following open auction procedures.
    The Rohit Pawar LinkThe ED’s probe focuses on Kannad SSK, which was purchased by Baramati Agro (a company controlled by Rohit Pawar) for approximately ₹50 crore.
    ED’s ClaimThe agency alleged that the auction was rigged and that Baramati Agro utilized “proceeds of crime” to acquire the asset.
    Current AssetsIn early 2024, the ED provisionally attached assets worth ₹50.20 crore belonging to Kannad SSK.

    What Happens Next?

    The special court has directed the Enforcement Directorate to file its formal response to Rohit Pawar’s discharge application.

    • Hearing Date: The matter is likely to be heard later this month.
    • Wider Impact: This case is closely watched as it involves several high-profile Maharashtra politicians across party lines. If the discharge is granted, it could set a precedent for other co-accused in the multi-crore bank scam.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank ‘scam’ case: Rohit Pawar moves discharge application” (March 6, 2026)
    • The Times of India: “MSCB Case: Rohit Pawar seeks discharge citing EOW closure report” (March 6, 2026)
    • Hindustan Times: “ED attachments and the Baramati Agro link in MSCB scam” (January 15, 2026)
    • Bar and Bench: “PMLA Court seeks ED’s reply on Rohit Pawar’s discharge plea” (March 7, 2026)

  • Delhi Court Grants Bail to Last Accused in Turkman Gate Demolition Violence

    NEW DELHI (Friday, March 6, 2026) — A Delhi Sessions Court has granted bail to Shahnawaz Alam, the final accused person remaining in judicial custody in connection with the stone-pelting incident that occurred during a demolition drive near the Faiz-e-Elahi Mosque in Turkman Gate this past January.

    The Ruling: Principle of Parity

    Additional Sessions Judge Bhupinder Singh allowed the bail application, emphasizing that the legal principle of parity must apply.

    • The Order: In the ruling dated February 28, the court noted that there were no distinguishing circumstances between Alam’s role and that of the 19 other accused who had already been granted bail earlier in the month.
    • Conditions: Alam was released on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of a similar amount.
    • Judicial Observation: The court observed that since the investigation against the co-accused was at a similar stage and they had been granted relief, keeping the last accused in custody would be inconsistent with judicial fairness.

    Context: The Turkman Gate Incident

    The violence erupted in mid-January 2026 during a demolition exercise conducted by civic authorities near the historic Turkman Gate area.

    Event DetailDescription
    LocationVicinity of Faiz-e-Elahi Mosque, Turkman Gate, Old Delhi.
    TriggerResistance to a demolition drive against alleged unauthorized structures.
    The ViolenceA minor scuffle escalated into heavy stone-pelting, resulting in injuries to several police personnel and municipal workers.
    Legal ActionDelhi Police registered an FIR under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for rioting, obstructing public servants, and damaging public property.

    Current Status of the Case

    With Shahnawaz Alam’s release, all 20 individuals arrested in the immediate aftermath of the January riots are now out on bail. However, the Delhi Police are continuing their technical investigation, using CCTV footage and facial recognition to identify other “instigators” who may have fled the scene during the initial crackdown.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Turkman Gate violence: Delhi court grants bail to last accused in judicial custody” (March 6, 2026)
    • The Indian Express: “Old Delhi Demolition Violence: Final accused gets bail on parity” (March 6, 2026)
    • Bar and Bench: “Delhi Court grants bail to 20th accused in Turkman Gate stone-pelting case” (March 5, 2026)
    • Millat Times: “Relief for Turkman Gate residents as last youth in custody gets bail” (March 6, 2026)