CBI court rejects discharge pleas of former police officers DG Vanzara, NK Amin
Ishrat Jahan encounter case
NEW DELHI: A CBI special court on Tuesday rejected the discharge pleas of former police officers DG Vanzara and NK Amin who are accused in the Ishrat Jahan alleged fake encounter case.
The court had last month concluded hearing arguments of the two accused retired police officers, the CBI and Ishrat's mother Shamima Kauser, who had challenged Vanzara's discharge plea.
Former Gujarat DIG Vanzara has sought discharge on the ground of parity with the former DGP of the state P P Pandey, who was discharged in the case in February this year for want of evidence against him.
In his plea, Vanzara had also claimed that the charge sheet filed by the central agency was "concocted" and there was "no prosecutable material" against him.
The former Gujarat Anti-Terrorist Squad chief said statements of the witnesses were "highly suspicious".
Amin, who retired as the superintendent of police, sought his discharge on the ground that the encounter was genuine and that testimonies of witnesses produced by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) were not reliable.
Ishrat's mother sought to oppose Vanzara's plea and told the court that her daughter was "murdered following a conspiracy between high-ranking police officers and others holding powerful and influential positions".
She said Vanzara played a "direct and key role" in the conspiracy behind the "staged encounter".
Jahan, a 19-year-old woman from Mumbra near Mumbai, and three others -- Javed Shaikh alias Pranesh Pillai, Amjadali Akbarali Rana and Zeeshan Johar -- were killed by the police in an "encounter" on the outskirts of Ahmedabad on June 15, 2004.
At that time, the police had claimed that the four had terror links and plotted to kill the then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi. A Special Investigation Team, set up by the Gujarat High Court, however, concluded that the encounter was "fake".
Following this, the court transferred the case, initially handled by the state police, to the CBI.
In the first charge sheet filed in 2013, the CBI named seven police officials, including IPS officers Pandey, Vanzara and G L Singhal, as accused.
All were booked for kidnapping, murder and conspiracy, among other charges.
Vanzara was also named an accused in the alleged fake encounter case of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, a suspected gangster, and his aide Tulsiram Prajapati. He was discharged by a court in Mumbai last year.
courtesy : timesofindia.indiatimes.com
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.
SC directs high courts to frame rules on court managers
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday directed all high courts to either frame or amend rules on the functioning of court managers and submit it to the respective states for approval within three months.
The concept of court managers was first proposed by the Thirteenth Finance Commission (2010-2015) with the aim of providing assistance to judges in performing their administrative duties.
Court managers were to be appointed in both district courts and high courts.
A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai, Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran said the high courts should frame or amend rules taking cue from Assam Rules of 2018.
"We further direct that upon receipt of the rules framed or amendments thereof by the high courts, the respective state governments shall finalise and grant approval to the same within a further period of three months," the bench said in its verdict on the issue.
The top court said the high courts and the state governments had the liberty to make suitable modifications or changes to suit their peculiar needs.
It clarified that the minimum rank of court managers should be of a class-II gazetted officer for the purpose of basic pay, allowances and other service benefits.
"We direct that all the high courts in the country shall frame or amend the rules providing for recruitment and conditions of service of court managers, by taking the Assam Rules of 2018 as the model rules, and submit it to the state government for approval within a period of three months from the date of this judgment," the bench said.
Court managers appointed in high courts should work under the directions and supervision of the registrar general or registrars of the high court, it added.
The bench said court managers appointed in district courts should work under the supervision of the registrars or superintendents of the courts concerned.
"While determining the duties, functions and the responsibilities of the court managers, the rules committee of the high courts shall ensure that their duties, functions and responsibilities do not overlap with that of the registrars of the high court/district courts," it said.
The bench said court managers, who are already working either on contractual or consolidated pay basis or on adhoc basis, should continue to offer services and be regularised subject to their passing the suitability test which will be provided in the proposed rules.
Those court managers are who already working would be entitled to regularisation from the date of their initial appointment, it added.
The bench directed that the process of regularisation of court managers will be completed within three months from the date of approval of the rules by the respective states.
"We clarify that the respective registrar generals of the high courts and the chief secretaries of the state governments shall be personally responsible for adhering to the aforesaid timelines," it said.
The bench referred to the apex court's August 2018 verdict which discussed about the need of sound infrastructure in subordinate courts.
The role and importance of court managers, the bench said, was also discussed in the verdict.
The bench said a direction was also given that already functioning court managers must be regularised by the states as their assistance was found essential for a proper administrative setup in courts.
In its February 2022 report, the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) underlined various aspects of judicial administration, including the role of court managers.
The report recommended the appointment of court managers to handle non-judicial functions, allowing judges to focus on their core judicial responsibilities.
According to affidavits filed in the top court, some high courts had finalised the rules for court managers approved by the respective states.
The bench said rules prepared by some high courts were pending approval of the state concerned and added, "It is further noticed that few of the high courts are yet to even frame the rules."
The bench said perusal of the existing rules showed no uniform practice was adopted by the high courts and states in framing and implementing the rules regarding court managers.
"We are at pains to say that even though the SNJPC in its report had recommended and this court in the judgment dated August 2, 2018 in the present proceedings had specifically directed the rules to be framed for determining the service conditions, the duties, etc., of court managers, various high courts and various state governments have not yet complied with the said direction," it said.
