Firm compromises national security, it's shocking: Karnataka High Court
Bengaluru (K'taka) (PTI): The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere in the investigation against a company and its director after the court found out that they had compromised national security.
I do not find any merit to interfere or interdict the investigation against the petitioners, as any interference would amount to putting a premium on the acts of the petitioners for having compromised the security of the nation...," Justice M Nagaprasanna has said.
In his judgement on October 17, he dismissed the criminal petition filed by IB Track Solutions Pvt Ltd and its director Sudhendra Dhakanikote. The company is based here, and the petition sought to quash the case pending before the I- ACMM court based on a complaint by the directorate of revenue intelligence.
The company is engaged in procuring and supplying of e-seals with radio frequency identification (RIFD) technology which are placed on containers exported from India. The seals are manufactured by Leghorn Group SRL, Italy, and the Indian company is the authorised distributor. The e-seals are attached to containers used for exports and can be accurately read by a handheld device operated by a Customs officer at the port gates concerned.
The company participated in the scheme of the Union government for implementing e-seals of cargo by exporters. The Neptune e-seal distributed by the company was said to be unbreakable without physically breaking the stem of the seal. It was alleged that on certain occasions the seals though not tampered appeared to be tampered and corrective measures were immediately taken.
The directorate-general of analytics and risk management, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs issued a letter to the company not to sell the e-seals manufactured by the Italian company in October 2018. Subsequently, the contract with the Indian company was terminated and a case filed under the Information Technology Act and Indian Penal Code against the Indian company and its director.
The allegation was that the company had tampered the e-seals regularly and they were being scanned at a distance of few metres without being in locked condition and e-mails of the company indicated that they had switched off the tampering alerts that led the containers with tampered seals also to get exported.
The High Court quoted from the investigating officer's enquiry of Sudhendra Dhakanikote and said his statements shock the consciousness of the court.
Dismissing the petition, the court said, What passes through the container if not detected can definitely pose a serious threat to any of these to the nation. The answers given by the 2nd petitioner would shock the conscience of the court, at what he says that they did it in their business interest. Such business houses generating vested interest of business cannot be permitted to sacrifice the interest of the nation, as the security of the nation and its interest, economic or otherwise, is paramount in comparison to any vested interest of any business house in the nation. Any fact of security of the nation should not be permitted to be compromised come what may."
In June this year, the court quashed the case against David Mathai who it found was not a director of the company as alleged and he had no role to play in the affairs of the company.
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 dismisses pleas seeking review of 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage
New Delhi, Jan 9: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of pleas seeking to review its October 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
A five-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha and Dipankar Datta took up about 13 petitions related to the matter in chambers and dismissed them.
"We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We further find that the view expressed in both the judgements is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed," the bench said.
It said the judges have carefully gone through the judgements delivered by Justice (since retired) S Ravindra Bhat speaking for himself and for Justice (since retired) Hima Kohli as well as the concurring opinion expressed by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, constituting the majority view.
The bench also rejected a prayer made in the review petitions for hearing in an open court.
According to practice, the review pleas are considered in chambers by the judges.
The new bench was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the present CJI, recused from hearing the review petitions on July 10, 2024.
Notably, Justice P S Narasimha is the only member of the original Constitution bench comprising five judges which delivered the verdict, as former CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices S K Kaul, Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli have retired.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by then CJI Chandrachud on October 17, 2024, refused to accord legal backing to same-sex marriages and held there was "no unqualified right" to marriage with the exception of those recognised by law.
The apex court, however, made a strong pitch for the rights of LGBTQIA++ persons so that they didn't face discrimination in accessing goods and services available to others, safe houses known as "garima greh" in all districts for shelter to members of the community facing harassment and violence, and dedicated hotlines in case of trouble.
In its judgement, the bench held transpersons in heterosexual relationships had the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions.
It said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship could be only done through an "enacted law".
The five-judge Constitution bench delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
All five judges were unanimous in refusing the legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed it was within Parliament's ambit to change the law for validating such a union.
While former CJI Chandrachud wrote a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Kaul penned a 17-page judgement where he broadly agreed with the former's views.
Justice Bhat, who authored an 89-page judgement for himself and Justice Kohli, disagreed with certain conclusions arrived at by the former CJI, including on applicability of adoption rules for such couples.
Justice Narasimha in his 13-page verdict was in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of Justice Bhat.
The judges were unanimous in holding that queerness was a natural phenomenon and not an "urban or elite" notion.
In his judgement, the former CJI recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assurance of forming a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary to define and elucidate the scope of entitlements of such couples in a union.
The LGBTQIA++ rights activists, who won a major legal battle in 2018 in the Supreme Court, which decriminalised consensual gay sex, moved the apex court seeking validation of same-sex marriages and consequential reliefs such as rights to adoption, enrolment as parents in schools, opening of bank accounts and availing succession and insurance benefits.
Some of the petitioners sought the apex court to use its plenary power besides the "prestige and moral authority" to push the society to acknowledge such a union and ensure LGBTQIA++ persons led a "dignified" life like heterosexuals.
