Gujarat HC dismisses plea by Sanjiv Bhatt's wife seeking reasons for withdrawal of police protection
Ahmedabad, Feb 10: The Gujarat High Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt's wife Shweta Bhatt who had sought to know the reasons for the withdrawal of the family's police protection.
Rejecting her plea in "larger public interest", Justice Nirzar Desai said if the government was asked to produce such documents, the confidentiality of the methodology of providing and withdrawing police protection will be breached.
Protection had been granted to Bhatt and his family in the past because he was a witness in a case involving the then chief minister (Narendra Modi), and "that does not stand now because you (Sanjiv Bhatt) are in jail", the court said.
Sanjiv Bhatt, who was dismissed from service in 2015, has been behind bars since his arrest in September 2018 in a case of alleged planting of drugs to frame a man. At present, he is serving life sentence in a 1990 case of custodial death.
His and his family's security was withdrawn in July 2018 after a committee, headed by Additional Chief Secretary, Home, reviewed the threat perception.
In 2019, Shweta Bhatt knocked on the doors of the High Court to get back the security cover for the family citing some incidents such as an accident involving her vehicle.
Senior advocate Anand Yagnik, appearing for Bhatt, said the petition was limited to seeking the communication which contained the reasons for which the committee recommended withdrawal.
"It is the right of the petitioner to know the grounds and reasons for which the police protection was withdrawn. There has to be a reason behind it," Yagnik argued on Friday.
Public prosecutor Mitesh Amin opposed the demand, saying the police protection of more than 60 persons including judges had been withdrawn after the same review, and Bhatt had not been singled out.
"This report (carrying reasons) is confidential," he said.
When Yagnik insisted on his demand, Justice Desai intervened, saying, "If it's a matter of discretion of the government, you can not seek those notings (of meetings). You were a witness, that's why you were given protection at that time. Now that does not stand because you are in jail."
The court further observed that at a time when police have limited manpower, "if the state is directed to assign reasons for each and every withdrawal of police protection, police will be busy with this administrative work only".
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.
K’taka HC judge whose controversial remarks triggered controversy expresses regret before open court
Bengaluru: Karnataka High Court judge, Justice V Srishananda, on Saturday expressed regret in open court after facing backlash over his controversial remarks in his recent court hearings, reported Bar and Bench.
Two purported video clips from Justice V Srishananda’s court hearing that show him making inappropriate comments went viral across social media platforms.
On Saturday, Justice Srishananda invited members of the Advocates Association, Bengaluru, and senior lawyers to his courtroom at 2:30 PM, where he read out a note expressing regret for inappropriate comments.
Quoting Advocates Association President Vivek Subba Reddy, Bar and Bench wrote, “He expressed regret for the comments and clarified that it was not his intention to offend any community or members of the Bar. He also requested the association to relay this message to all members of the Bar.”
Reddy further stated, “We also advised him to encourage young lawyers in the courtroom and refrain from making any irrelevant remarks during hearings.”
Another senior lawyer present during the session confirmed to the legal news portal that Justice Srishananda also addressed comments directed at a woman lawyer, who was seen in one of the videos being reprimanded by the judge. The judge Justice Srishananda clarified that his remarks were not intended to target her (woman lawyer) specifically, but rather pertained to the appellant she was representing. “He explained that his comment was meant to imply that the appellant seemed to know a lot about the other party,” said the lawyer.
In addition, Justice Srishananda assured those present that he would avoid making such comments in the future.
The controversy came to light on September 19, when a video clip from an August 28 Court hearing surfaced on social media, showing Justice Srishananda referring to a Muslim-majority sub-locality in Bengaluru’s Goripalya as "Pakistan." Hours later, another video from the same courtroom emerged, in which the judge was seen making a gender-insensitive remark.
Following outrage over the viral videos, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, on September 20 took a suo motu cognizance and sought a report from the Karnataka High Court Registrar General in connection with the viral video.
