SC agrees to hear plea of disqualified Karnataka MLAs seeking to contest bypolls for Assembly seats
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear the plea of 17 disqualified Karnataka MLAs who are seeking to contest bypolls for 15 Assembly seats in the state.
A three-judge bench headed by justice N V Ramana said it would hear on September 25 the plea in which the disqualified MLAs have sought interim relief to contest the by-elections.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the disqualified MLAs, told the bench that as per disqualification orders of then Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar, these persons cannot contest elections for the remaining period of this Assembly which will end in 2023.
Meanwhile, the counsel representing Election Commission (EC), told the bench that bypolls for 15 vacant Assembly seats have been notified and court should not stay the elections.
The EC's counsel also said the Speaker's order disqualifying these MLAs cannot deprive them of their right to contest bypolls.
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.
Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera in Assam Police FIR
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday granted anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with an FIR registered by the Assam Police.
The case arose from a complaint filed by Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, over allegations made by Khera that she possessed multiple passports.
A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice AS Chandurkar delivered the judgment after reserving orders on Khera’s petition challenging the dismissal of his anticipatory bail plea by the Gauhati High Court.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s findings were not based on a proper appreciation of the material on record and appeared to be erroneous, particularly in shifting the burden onto the accused.
The bench further held that the High Court erred in making observations regarding an offence under Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, noting that the FIR did not contain any such allegation. It stated that such conclusions could not have been drawn merely on the basis of submissions made by the Advocate General.
