SC to hear plea for transferring rape case against Chinmayanand from UP to Delhi court
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on March 2 the plea of a law student that the rape case lodged by her against former union minister Swami Chinmayanand be transferred to a Delhi court from Uttar Pradesh.
The top court, while agreeing to hear the plea on Monday, however, observed that there is a "problem in transferring the criminal proceedings".
A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde took note of the submission of senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the complainant woman, that the trial in the case be transferred as she feared for her life in Uttar Pradesh.
"There are threats to us in Uttar Pradesh," Gonsalves told the bench which also comprised Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant.
"We are not doubting (your contention) that you are in danger. But, the point is you apply for police protection," the bench said.
The lawyer said that the complainant has been provided a gunman for her security by the UP administration.
Earlier also a plea was mentioned for urgent hearing in the top court against the Allahabad High Court order granting bail to Chinmayanand in the case.
The high court had on February 3 granted bail to Chinmayanand, a former Union minister who was arrested in a case of sexual exploitation of the woman studying law at a college run by his trust at Shahjahanpur in Uttar Pradesh.
"Both parties crossed their limits and at this stage, it is very difficult to adjudicate as to who exploited whom. In fact, both of them used each other," the high court had observed while granting bail to Chinmayanand.
Chinmayanand, whose trust runs the Shahjahanpur law college where the woman studied, was arrested on September 20 last year under section 376-C of the IPC, a charge short of rape.
The section is applied when someone in authority takes advantage of his official position to "induce or seduce" a woman to have sex with him.
In a parallel case, the woman was charged with trying to extort money from Chinmayanand, whom she had accused of rape.
The high court had granted her bail on December 4 last year also.
The Supreme Court had stepped in after the 23-year-old law student went missing for a few days in August last year after posting a video clip on social media, alleging sexual abuse.
A special investigation team of Uttar Pradesh Police, formed on the directions of the apex court, arrested Chinmayanand about a month later.
The SIT also arrested the student after a complaint that she and her friends had tried to extort Rs 5 crore from Chinmayanand, threatening to make public videos showing her giving massages to him.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Patanjali issues another public apology following Supreme Court's criticism
New Delhi: In response to the Supreme Court's scrutiny over the size of its previous public apology, Patanjali Ayurved has issued a second, more prominent apology, signed by Yoga guru Ramdev and Patanjali’s managing director Acharya Balkrishna and acknowledging the ongoing legal matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
The apology expresses regret for any non-compliance or disobedience of the court's directives and extends apologies for holding a meeting/press conference on November 22, 2023. It also acknowledges mistakes made in publishing advertisements and expresses commitments to not to repeat such errors. Furthermore, the apology reads that Patanjali is commited to abiding by the court's instructions with utmost sincerity and upholding the majesty of the law.
On Tuesday, the court had directed senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Patanjali, to “cut out the ads and then supply it to us” without enlarging. “We want to see the actual size. This is our direction… we want to see that when you issue an advertisement, it does not mean we have to see it with a microscope,” the court said.
Patanjali had previously assured the court of refraining from making any misleading statements or advertisements against allopathy. However, subsequent actions, including a press conference by Ramdev and an advertisement issued by the company, led to a contempt notice being issued to Ramdev and Balkrishna for violating their undertaking.
