Archive : 上海夜生活RED

Malafide Exercise Of Power By Police Under Erstwhile BJP Government; Bhima Koregaon Accused Challenge Transfer Of Investigation To NIA [Read Petition]

first_imgNews UpdatesMalafide Exercise Of Power By Police Under Erstwhile BJP Government; Bhima Koregaon Accused Challenge Transfer Of Investigation To NIA [Read Petition] Nitish Kashyap19 Jun 2020 5:48 AMShare This – xAdvocate Surendra Gadling and Activist Sudhir Dhawale, both accused of having maoist links and inciting the caste based violence that took place at Koregaon Bhima on January 1, 2018 have filed a writ petition challenging the order of transfer of investigation in the case from Pune police to the National Investigation Agency passed by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. Petitioners who…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginAdvocate Surendra Gadling and Activist Sudhir Dhawale, both accused of having maoist links and inciting the caste based violence that took place at Koregaon Bhima on January 1, 2018 have filed a writ petition challenging the order of transfer of investigation in the case from Pune police to the National Investigation Agency passed by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. Petitioners who have been in prison for over two years have alleged that the Devendra Fadnavis led government and police administration at the time the violence took place, conveniently ignored the serious offences committed by Sambhaji Bhide and Milind Ekbote. According to the petitioners, Sambhaji Bhide took out a rally of around 1000 to 1200 people on January 1, 2018 and assaulted dalits who had gathered to give tribute to the martyrs of the Bhima Koregaon battle. Sambhaji Bhide and Milind Ekbote played key roles and acted in tandem with the State government led by Devendra Fadnavis in drawing up the nefarious plan of incarcerating all dalits rights activists in one go falsely implicating them in cases under UAPA painting them as ‘urban naxals’. Although multiple FIRs were registered across the State after the violence took place including FIRs filed at Shikrapur police station against Sambhaji Bhide and Milind Ekbote, State government withdrew prosecutions in most of the cases. But an FIR was registered on January 2 at the behest of Ramesh Damgude, a close associate of Milind Ekbote who alleged that insightful speeches were made at the Elgar Parishad event organised on January 1 which led to the caste based violence, petitioners contended. Moreover, the petitioners have alleged that the BJP led government with its Hindutva agenda used the incident to target influential dalit thinkers by showing Elgar Parishad as part of the maoist movement. The investigation was curiously transferred to Commissioner, Swargate Division, Pune and entrusted with persons very close to CM Devendra Fadnavis. Suhas Bawache, who previously threatened the petitioners with false charges was transferred as DCP, Pune City from Nagpur and was made part of the core investigation team. Petitioners have made serious allegations against the investigating officer and Suhas Bawache- “Without making any arrest or interrogation, the investigating officer Shivaji Pawar proceeded to add Section 120 B of IPC to the FIR. Thereafter, ACP, Swargate sought a search warrant against the petitioners and others accused in the case which was denied. Then,on April 17, 2018, IO Shivaji Pawar and Suhas Bawache illegally conducted search and seizure at the residences of both the petitioners and others. The IO seized all digital and electronic devices without following due procedure and tampered the electronic gadget device to insert incriminating material” In November 2019, the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi coalition government led by CM Uddhav Thackeray came into power. A month later in December, the new government decided to form a Special Investigation Team to investigate the violence that took place on January 1, 2018. However, On January 24, 2020, the Central Government issued a notification transferring investigation in the case to the NIA. Petitioners contend that the said transfer of investigation is not only malafide but a classic example of sheer abuse of the process of law and is nothing less than a fraud on the legislature. Section 6 of the NIA Act stipulates two contingencies so as to exercise powers by the Central Government to direct investigation by NIA. Section 6(2) contemplates a situation when the State Government files a report and on the basis of such report NIA investigation is ordered whereas Section 6(5) of the act contemplates a situation where Centre can direct suo-motu investigation by NIA. Petitioner argued- “The Central government despite having specific knowledge that scheduled offences have been committed, way back in 2018, did not direct the investigation by NIA for more than one and a half years. On the contrary, it allowed State police to continue with the investigation and showed complete faith in it and defended the investigation by the State police machinery before the Supreme Court in a petition filed by historian Romila Thapar.” Thus, the only reason that prompted the Centre to transfer investigation to NIA is that the new state government intended to constitute a SIT to investigate the circumstances that led to the violence at Bhima Koregaon, petition states. Petitioners are represented by Advocate Madhavi Ayyapan of Talekar Associates.  Click Here To Download Petition [Read Petition]Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

[Students vs UGC] Maharashtra Students’ Union Supports State Disaster Management Authority’s Decision To Cancel Exams; Bats For State Autonomy In Holding Exams

first_imgTop Stories[Students vs UGC] Maharashtra Students’ Union Supports State Disaster Management Authority’s Decision To Cancel Exams; Bats For State Autonomy In Holding Exams LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK12 Aug 2020 2:35 AMShare This – xThe Maharashtra Students’ Union has sought intervention in the writ petition challenging UGC Guidelines mandating conduct of examinations for final year students by September 30. The Petitioner organization stands by the decision of theMaharashtra Government of not holding final year examinations of both professional and non-professional courses in the state, amid the pandemic. It…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Maharashtra Students’ Union has sought intervention in the writ petition challenging UGC Guidelines mandating conduct of examinations for final year students by September 30. The Petitioner organization stands by the decision of theMaharashtra Government of not holding final year examinations of both professional and non-professional courses in the state, amid the pandemic. It is contended that decision of the State’s Disaster Management Authority shall prevail over all Central and State Acts, including the Universities Grant Commission Act, 1956, as it is a special law. “Guidelines dated 29.04.2020 or the revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020 issued by the University Grants Commission are neither mandatory nor binding on the State Authority set up under Section 14 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. In case of a conflict between laws made either by the Parliament and/or State Legislature and the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the latter shall prevail in accordance with the provisions of Section 72 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005,” the Petitioner has submitted. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs had permitted the conduct of exams by Universities and Institutions vide notification dated July 6, 2020 and had ordered the Universities to compulsorily conduct examination of final year students as per UGC guidelines and Standard Operating Procedure. In furtherance of the aforementioned notification, UGC has issued revised guidelines for University examination for terminal semester students whereby it instructed Universities to conduct exams in offline (pen & paper)/ online/ blended (offline + online) mode. The decision has been challenged before the Top Court, as violative of students’ right to health and life. In its affidavit, UGC had stated that the direction to hold final year examinations by September 30 was issued to “protect the academic future of students”. It further stated that conducting examinations for final year students is necessary to test them on “specialized elective courses” studied by them during the terminal year. Responding to this submission, the Petitioner-organization through Advocate Mohini Priya has stated that final examination of students of Higher and Technical Education does not carry any special weightage or decisive value as now, the evaluation is done on a “cumulative assessment of all semesters” in a degree course. They have contended that ever since introduction of “Semester system” and the “Choice based Credit system” in the year 2009, modules taken by students are assessed immediately upon completion of required academic work as a part of “continuous assessment”. Other grounds taken by the Petitioner include: Section 12 of the UGC Act casts a general duty on the Commission to consult State Governments Section 12 of the UGC Act stipulates that it shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, in consultation with the Universities or “other bodies concerned”, all such steps as it may think fit for promotion and co-ordination of education and for determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities. The Petitioner has contended that since the words “other bodies” is not defined in the Act, the same has to be interpreted comprehensively and widely. It is stated that “other bodies” would certainly include the State Authority and/or State Government. On this note it is submitted, “Admittedly while taking the decision of holding examinations, the UGC did not consult either the State Authority and/or the State Government and hence in my humble submission, such decision on part of UGC to hold examinations is neither mandatory nor binding on the State Governments.” Power to take decisions regarding the conduct of examinations rests upon the respective State Universities The Petitioner-organization has contended that the power to take decisions regarding the conduct of examinations and conferring degrees rests upon the respective State Universities and not upon the UGC. Taking a comprehensive of view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, the Petitioner has submitted, “the power to take decisions regarding conduct of examinations and conferring of degrees rests with the respective State Universities, and as such the UGC does not have the authority to grant/withold degrees of students, when the State Governments and Vice Chancellors of Universities have after considering all the exigencies of the current situation made a unanimous decision to confer degrees without holding the final year examinations.” It is argued that the UGC is concerned with the “standards of education” and the State Government’s decision regarding non-conduct of final exams amid a national health crisis cannot in the remotest manner be considered as an impediment on the same. The matter is slated to be heard on August 14, 2020. Click Here To Download Application Read Application Next Storylast_img read more