CBI seeks LG's sanction to proceed against Satyendar Jain in 'extortion' matter
New Delhi (PTI): The CBI has sought sanction from the Delhi LG to file a case against former Jail Minister Satyendar Jain for allegedly extorting crores of rupees from various "high profile prisoners", including alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekar, to enable them to live comfortably in prison, officials said.
The CBI, while seeking mandatory sanction from Lieutenant General VK Saxena to proceed against Jain, has alleged that "a high level corruption and extortion racket" was being run in the jails of Delhi in connivance with then DG Prison Sandeep Goel and then Additional Inspector General of Prisons Mukesh Prasad along with associate officers, private persons and accomplices.
"They worked as a syndicate for the same," the CBI alleged in its letter to Saxena.
It said it has "source information" that Jain allegedly "extorted and received Rs 10 crore from jail inmate Chandrashekar in various tranches during 2018-21 either himself or through his accomplices, as protection money," to enable the alleged conman to live a peaceful and comfortable life in jail.
Chandrashekhar is lodged in a jail here on charges of money laundering and duping several people.
"Goel and Mukesh Prasad also extorted and received Rs 12.50 crore from jail inmate Sukesh Chandrashekar. The amounts were extorted and received by them in various tranches during 2019-22 either themselves or through their accomplices, as protection money, so as to enable inmate Sukesh Chandrashekar to live peacefully and comfortably in jail," it alleged.
The extortion was also carried out by Goel and Prasad from "other high profile prisoners lodged in jail as protection money" to allow them live in jall safely and comfortably, the agency alleged
The CBI alleged that Raj Kumar, the then Jail Superintendent, Central Jail-4, Tihar was a close associate of Goel and aided him in extorting money from Chandrashekar.
Jain, Goel, Prasad and Kumar "misused their official positions" as public servants and "extended undue favour and advantage" to Chandrashekar and other high profile inmates in the jails of Delhi "in lieu of valuable considerations from the inmates", the agency alleged.
AAP leader Jain is lodged in a Delhi jail in connection with a money laundering case.
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.
Bombay High Court strikes down Centre's plan to set up Fact-Check Unit
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has struck down the central government's plan to establish a fact-checking unit (FCU) under the Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2023. The decision comes in response to a petition filed by standup comedian Kunal Kamra, challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre's move.
Justice A.S. Chandurkar, delivering the final verdict, declared that the proposed IT Amendment Rules violated key provisions of the Indian Constitution, namely Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom of speech and expression), and 19(1)(g) (right to profession).
“I have considered the matter extensively. The impugned rules are violative of Articles 14, 19, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India,” Justice Chandurkar said in his judgment. He further remarked that terms like "fake, false, and misleading" in the IT Rules were "vague" and lacked a clear definition, making them unconstitutional.
This judgment followed a split verdict issued by a division bench of the Bombay High Court in January. The bench, consisting of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale, was divided in their opinions. While Justice Patel ruled that the IT Rules amounted to censorship and struck them down, Justice Gokhale upheld the rules, arguing that they did not pose a "chilling effect" on free speech, as the petitioners had claimed.
The matter was then referred to a third judge, leading to today's decision. The Supreme Court had previously stayed the Centre's notification that would have made the fact-checking unit operational, stating that the government could not proceed until the Bombay High Court ruled on the case.
Kunal Kamra and other petitioners had argued that the amendments posed unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. They contended that the provisions would lead to government-led censorship, effectively granting the government unchecked powers to determine what constitutes 'truth' online. The petitioners further claimed that such powers would turn the government into "prosecutor, judge, and executioner" in matters of online content.
With the Bombay High Court’s ruling, the Centre's move to create fact-checking units has been effectively halted, reaffirming the importance of protecting freedom of speech and expression in the digital space.
