Group items tagged

The Supreme Court on Wednesday made it clear that it cannot give direction to make DNA profiling mandatory in the country, for unidentified bodies. Instead it left the issue to the Centre, observing that it is for the government to explore whether magistrates can be empowered to order DNA profiling. The bench comprising Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar said it cannot give any direction but asked the government to consider the issue if there's any possibility of asking magistrate courts to order such profiling, which will help families to claim unidentified bodies. "You file an affidavit whether a circular can be issued to state governments for asking magistrates to order DNA profiling of unidentified bodies," the Bench said as it asked Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra to inform the court within four weeks. In an earlier hearing, on November 16, 2009, the bench was not keen on issuing notice to the Centre on a PIL filed by a Haryana-based doctor Shamsher Malik, who sought a direction to the government for making DNA profiling of unidentified bodies mandatory.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre on a writ petition for a direction to the Centre to release all 5,800 conversations of Niira Radia tapped by government agencies. A Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and S.S. Nijjar was hearing the petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation and posted the matter for further hearing on February 2, along with the petition filed by industrialist Ratan Tata on the same issue. The CPIL also wanted the court "to frame guidelines that protect public whistle-blowers." The petitioner said: "Public interest requires that the conversations in the Radia tapes be brought into the public domain so that the citizens' right to know is effectuated by informing them how every aspect of their government as well as institutions such as the media, are being subverted.

The Supreme Court today said it will hold final hearing on a day-to-day basis from April 19 on Tata Group chairman Ratan Tata's plea to bar online portals and electronic media from airing his phone conversation with corporate lobbyist Nira Radia tapped by the income tax department. A bench of Justice GS Singhvi and Justice AK Ganguly will examine the issues raised by Tata including the questions of right to privacy and right to freedom of speech and expression as envisaged under the Constitution.

In the season of phonetaps, comes a startling admission by the Enforcement Directorate that while probing charges of money laundering, it intercepted phone conversations between members of the Singhania group, that runs Kanpur-based LML, and their lawyers. The tap was done just days before a court order was due in the case. The recorded conversations, said ED's counsel additional solicitor general Harin Rawal, raise questions regarding the Allahabad High Court order that stayed the ED probe. In their order, on June 9 last year, a vacation bench of Justice Rakesh Sharma and Justice Shyam Shankar Tiwari had called the ED's investigation "wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the mandate of FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act)". In the first of his two opinions, on June 21, 2010 - which form the basis of the government's Special Leave Petition filed in the Supreme Court last September challenging the HC stay - Rawal said: "To put it briefly, a couple of days prior to the interim order being rendered by the Honourable Division Bench, a conversation is recorded that would clearly be a reasonable basis to believe that the Honourable Division Bench has passed an interim order on considerations which are other than legal or judicial."

In a setback to veteran Congress leader and former governor of Andhra Pradesh N D Tiwari, the Supreme Court on Monday held that he has to undergo DNA test in a paternity case. However, it maintained that the test findings would not be made public until it is required to do so. A Bench comprising Justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha refused to stay the Delhi High Court order asking the 85-year-old leader to undergo DNA test and directed him to suggest by Friday the procedure preferred by him for the DNA test. Tiwari who has held the post of chief minister of undivided Uttar Pradesh and later of Uttarakhand contended that it would be a violation of his Right to Privacy and would cause him public humiliation if he is directed to undergo the DNA test.

The packed courtroom waited, but N.D. Tiwari didn't come. Despite a high court order, the Congress veteran didn't turn up to give his blood sample for a DNA test to ascertain whether Rohit Shekhar, a 31-year-old lawyer, is his biological son. Rohit and his mother Ujjawala were present in court today with a doctor who had come to take Tiwari's blood sample. Tiwari's lawyer Bahar Barqui moved an application before joint registrar Deepak Garg, saying Indian and international laws were clear that no individual could be "forced" to give DNA sample.

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday lifted its gag order on the media that restrained the latter from broadcasting and publishing former Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh's taped conversations with top politicians and Bollywood stars. File photo of Amar Singh (Pic: BCCL) A two-judge bench comprising Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly dismissed Amar Singh's petition to prevent the broadcasting and publishing of his taped conversations, and vacated its interim order passed on February 27, 2006 restraining the media from making contents of the conversation public.

MUMBAI: A local metropolitan magistrate's court on Tuesday restrained the media from either publishing or telecasting images related to the CCTV footage of the July 13 triple blasts. Magistrate N J Shende in his order observed, "If identity of the witnesses is disclosed to the public at large, it may hamper the smooth investigation of the case and may cause threat to such persons." "I am of the opinion, in view of the provisions enumerated under Section 44 (of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act), in order to safeguard the life of the people and witnesses, the application is allowed," said Shende.

In pursuance of a path-breaking order by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in December last, the Delhi Police are gearing up to upload First Information Reports on the Internet within 24 hours to facilitate supply of their copies to the accused or any person connected with the case. As directed, the FIR copies will be made available online by February 1. It is learnt that the police are at present working out the modalities for implementation of the court order. They are, however, yet to decide where exactly the FIRs will be posted and through what mechanism as the Cyber Highway project under which the police stations are to be interconnected is yet to be implemented. It could be either through a link on the Delhi Police official website or a separate one. Discussions in this regard are under way. Whatever the modalities, if the FIRs are made public through the Internet, even the complainants who on several occasions struggle to get a copy of the FIR would have quick access to it through the Internet.

Industrialist Ratan Tata on Thursday accused the government of adopting a "lackadaisical" manner in protecting the right to privacy, citing his case as an apt example. "Today my concern is that government is not giving serious consideration and attention to the issue. There may be other CDs which can be leaked and brought into public domain. There is a lackadaisical approach on the part of the government," senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Tata in the Supreme Court, contended. Tata's concerns prompted the Bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly to remark that though the government " have the right to tap but they also have the duty to protect it and ensure that it is not leaked". "They have to safeguard it (the tapes) effectively. In the fast-changing time and developing technology, privacy is virtually disappearing and is being diluted," the court observed.

Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, obtained phone records of a whistleblower professor's conversations with journalists without his consent or the sanction of a court or investigative agencies, to charge the faculty member with violating service rules. IIT Kharagpur obtained call details of conversations between computer science professor Rajeev Kumar and journalists from two leading English dailies, drawing allegations of violation of both law and privacy. Other than a customer, only government probe agencies and courts - and not employers in general - can demand call details or records from telecom service providers in India. Service providers also swear to ensure customer privacy in their license agreement with the government.

" Men whose wives have relationships with other men can go ahead and file a criminal complaint against the 'other man'. The Bombay high court on Monday dismissed a petition that sought the deletion of offence of adultery from Indian law. A bench of Justices B H Marlapalle and U D Salvi upheld the Constitutional validity of provision of Section 497 of Indian Penal Code, which makes adultery punishable. The petition was filed by a Worli businessman against whom a complaint of adultery was filed last year. His counsel Nitin Pradhan argued that making adultery punishable was a violation of a person's fundamental rights like the right to life, right to privacy and the right to have sexual relationships with a person of one's choice in a changing society where there was greater acceptance of consensual relationships. "

On Wednesday, acting Chief Justice of the high court AK Sikri, while hearing an unrelated case, had asked traffic police to desist from publishing names and photographs of violators on its social networking site as it involved breach of privacy. The court had said that it "may take cognizance" of such action in future.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre and the Telecom Ministry on a petition for a direction to frame guidelines for telephone tapping without infringing on the right to privacy of citizens. A Bench of Justice G. S. Singhvi and Justice A. K. Ganguly issued notice on the public interest litigation petition filed by advocate Ravinder Kumar, seeking direction that interceptions which were purely private in nature should be kept out of the ambit of tapping. The Bench directed the matter to be tagged with the petition filed by industrialist Ratan Tata, which alleged that publication of his private conversations with corporate lobbyist Nira Radia tapes had infringed his right to privacy.

NEW DELHI: Responding to concerns about breach of privacy due to intercepted phone calls being made public, government told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that it has taken steps to devise ways to destroy taped conversations that are private

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated that its order gagging the media from publishing and telecasting the tapped conversation of former Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh with top political leaders and Bollywood stars may be lifted. "We don't have to vacate the injunction as there is nothing surviving in your petition since it was done on forged documents," observed a Bench comprising Justice G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly. "Your incursion of privacy is established but your cure lies against Reliance which intercepted your calls. You have other remedy." "

Delhi High Court today issued a notice to a film producer on a plea from corporate lobbyist Niira Radia against the movie's release on the ground that it depicts her private life in a "scandalous" manner. Kush Bhargava, a Lucknow-based Congress leader, is the producer of Monica - The Politics of Murder, which stars Ashutosh Rana and includes Yashpal Sharma and Kittu Gidwani in the cast. It is scheduled to be released tomorrow.

Industrialist Ratan Tata has questioned in the Supreme Court the lackadaisical attitude of the Centre in allowing free distribution and publication of his private conversations with lobbyist Nira Radia recorded by the Directorate General of Income Tax without taking any steps to retrieve the stored material or to find out the source of leakage. Mr. Tata, who filed a writ petition alleging that the publication of the tapes had infringed his right to privacy, in his supplementary affidavit said that the power of the law enforcement agencies to record telephone conversations itself "constitutes a serious encroachment upon the right of privacy guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution." He made it clear that the present petition was not designed to somehow keep back from publication any conversation to which he allegedly was a party for any oblique purpose. It was filed to seek redress of a wholesale violation of the constitutional rights of a large number of persons, including the petitioner and including a host of corporate entities by the indiscriminate publication of wiretrap material procured by questionable means.

A US judge ordered Twitter to hand over data of three users in contact with the controversial website WikiLeaks, rejecting arguments the move violated freedom of speech and privacy. President Barack Obama's administration obtained a court order last year seeking information from the Twitter accounts as it considers action against WikiLeaks, which has released a flood of secret diplomatic documents. One of the accounts belongs to an Icelandic lawmaker, Birgitta Jonsdottir. Iceland's Foreign Ministry in January summoned the US ambassador to express "serious concern" about the Twitter order. Magistrate Judge Theresa Buchanan, based in the Washington suburb of Alexandria, Virginia, rejected the argument made by the three Twitter users' that the order would have a "chilling effect" on freedom of speech. Read more: http://www.zeenews.com/news692795.html#ixzz1Gx5lH0D1