The police firing was to quell a violent mob at Hari Masjid area of Mumbai, one of the incidents of communal violence that took place in many parts of the country including Mumbai in the aftermath of the 1992 demolition of Babri mosque in Ayodhya.

‘We are unable to accept the change of decision by Maharashtra government,’ said the apex court bench of Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice Anil R. Dave in their judgment.

The court made this observation in the wake of the Maharashtra government first agreeing before the Bombay High Court for a CBI probe into the police firing within the precincts of Hari Masjid, that resulted in the death of six people, and subsequently moving the Supreme Court challenging the same order.

Upholding the Bombay High Court verdict directing investigation by the CBI, the judgment said, ‘Taking note of the fact that the incident related to 1993 and also of the fact that the CBI has already examined several persons, we direct the CBI to continue and complete the investigation into the incident and file a final report to the court concerned within a period of six months.’

The judgment said that in order to protect ‘civil liberties, fundamental rights and more particularly Article 21′ the apex court and the high courts could very well order investigation by the CBI. However, the court said that this power to order CBI probe must be exercised ‘sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations’.

The high court ordered the CBI probe on the petition by Farook Mohammed Ksasim Mapkar who had contented that the state police had completely failed to investigate the case. The SIT that was set to investigate the case too did not move much in the matter.

In the instant case, one Sub-Inspector Nikhil Kapse fired at Hari Masjid on Jan 10, 1993, allegedly to control a violent mob. The firing resulted in the death of six people. Farook Mohammed Ksasim Mapkar too was hit by a bullet in the firing.

The special sessions court in Bijnor, some 300 km from Lucknow, gave the death penalty to the six people in connection with the killing of Mubarak Hussain and his nephew Shah Alam.

Alam and Hussain were killed Aug 25, 2000 in Tibri village of Bijnor over some political rivalry related to election of the Gram Pradhan in the village, police inspector Raghuraj Singh told reporters in Bijnor.

‘Actually, a total of nine people were accused of the double-murder. While two of them died during the trial of the case, one remained absconding. Therefore, the death sentence was awarded to the remaining six people,’ he added.

Sirin Middya, a guest lecturer of the university, along with eight other lady teachers got a ‘diktat’ from the leaders of the students’ union to wear burqa and attend the college.

‘I was asked by the leaders of the student’s union to wear burqa and attend the college and if I don’t abide by the diktat, they won’t allow me to attend the college. Then after a few days as we were entering the university campus, they started shouting slogans ‘those who are against purdah system should go to hell’,’ Middya told.

Middya was appointed in March this year and got the union’s ‘diktat’ in the second week of April. From April-end, she has been unable to go to the Aliah University’s Calcutta Madrasah Campus.

A notice issued by the university clearly stated that ‘university has no dress code, any pressure from any corner will not be allowed regarding the use of burqa inside the university campus. If anybody creates pressure on female teachers to use the burqa, necessary steps will be taken by the university authorities’, she said.

‘The University Grants Commission and the university itself do not prescribe any such dress code. Who are they to dictate us what we should wear and what we should not. The most unfortunate part is that the students and leaders of students union are forcing us to wear burqa. A few of the teachers gave into their demand but I didn’t,’ Middya said.

According to her, she has no issues with wearing a burqa – but if she dons one, it would be of her own free will.

‘Most of the teachers do not like the diktat of the students to wear burqa. But they have no option but to accept it. This is Talibanisation of educational premises and there is no one to our rescue,’ she said.

Middya joined Aliah University after an M.A. in Bengali from Jadavpur University. After refusing to give in to the unethical demands of the students union, she has been unable to go to Aliah’s University’s Calcutta campus, and she reports to the university’s Salt Lake campus where she works as an assistant librarian.

In the month of June, Middya wrote to West Bengal Minister of State for Minority Development Abdus Sattar.

‘Nobody has the right to dictate to others what he/she should wear or should not wear. This completely depends upon the personal wish of the person. If some one is doing such kind of things then it is against human rights. We are looking into the matter and necessary action will be taken very soon,’ Sattar told.

‘Actually the Trinamool Congress is behind those people who have issued such kind of diktat inside the university. They are trying to create problems inside the campus,’ said Sattar.

The Aliah University was set up by upgrading Calcutta Madrasah, which was established in 1781. The university was upgraded in 2008. Islamic courses are taught in the Calcutta Madrasah building and the other academic activities are conducted on different campuses at the Salt Lake.

Justice S. Muralidhar passed this order while dismissing the plea of RTI activist and Magsaysay Award winner Arvind Kejriwal, seeking disclosure of the information on the ground that people had the right to know as to what was the grade assigned to an officer who was empanelled.

The court also set aside the order of the Central Information Commission which had held that information relating to appointment of secretaries in different ministries falls within the ambit of the transparency law.

‘This court holds that the CIC was not justified in overruling the objection of the centre and directing the government and the DoPT (Department of Personnel and Training) to provide copies of the documents as sought by Kejriwal,’ the judge said.

Setting aside the contention of the central government that the disclosure would amount to revealing details of an officer, the CIC had directed the department and the cabinet secretariat to disclose details pertaining to selection of officers for the posts of secretaries and additional secretaries.

The CBI investigation was ordered by the Bombay High Court.

“We are unable to accept the change of decision by the Maharashtra government,” said the apex court bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and Anil R. Dave in their judgement.

The court made this observation in the wake of the Maharashtra government first agreeing before the high court to hand over the investigation to the CBI and subsequently challenging the same before the Supreme Court.

Writing the judgement, Justice Sathasivam gave the CBI six months to complete the investigation.

Police opened fire to disperse a mob indulging in arson and looting in Hari Masjid area during the riots that followed the Dec 6, 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.

The high court ordered a CBI probe into the firing by Sub-Inspector Nikhil Kapse in which six people were killed within the premises of the mosque.

The Maharashtra government claimed that Kapse fired at the mob on the orders of Deputy Commissioner of Police K.L. Bishnoi.

‘There can be no domestic relationship of the wife of the son with the parents when the parents are not living with the son, and there can be no domestic relationship of a wife with the parents of her husband when the son, along with the wife, is living abroad,’ said Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra.

Justice Dhingra said that in order to constitute a family and domestic relationship, it is necessary that the persons who constitute domestic relationship must be living together in the same house under one roof.

‘Once a son grows up and he starts earning, marries, makes his separate home and sires (fathers) children, the burden of his wife cannot be put on to the shoulders of his father or brother’, the court said.

Setting aside the lower court order in July 2009, the court also pulled up a family court judge for directing the in-laws, who stay in India, to pay jointly Rs.50,000 towards monthly maintenance to their daughter-in-law Payal Malik.

The court’s ruling came on an appeal filed by Harbans Lal Malik, father-in-law, Neelam (mother-in-law) and Varun Malik, brother-in-law, besides Nagesh Malik, the husband, challenging the lower court’s order.

The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Joseph Chelliah who sought the court’s directions to the central and the Gujarat governments to take necessary action to facilitate the mentally challenged orphans, including beggars, in availing their fundamental rights.

Following the court’s earlier order, both the governments Thursday submitted their respective reports on various government schemes which could benefit beggars and mentally challenged orphans.

The division bench of Chief Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice K.M. Thaker noted that a petty amount was paid to the poor who underwent the government’s vocational training under various government schemes.

The court opined that the payment under these schemes – which was as low as Rs.50 per day – may lead such people into the clutches of the begging mafia which may be active in Gujarat.

Earlier the court had asked government agencies to find out if there was any mafia taking advantage of such people. It fixed Aug 25, the next date of the case’s hearing, as the deadline for their replies.

Talwar, a doctor by profession, told the court that despite the July 22, 2008 directions of the court, both print and electronic media were ‘obdurately and disdainfully continuing with their reckless ‘whodunit’ speculative reportage’.

Senior counsel Pinaki Mishra appearing for Talwar told the court that in the last two months the media had been saying a lot of things about the dead child and also him and his wife.

The bench of Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice A.K. Pathak asked him to ‘cool down’ and listed the matter for hearing on Aug 9.

On July 22, 2008, the apex court in its order said: ‘…Both press and electronic media should exercise caution in publishing any news regarding the case in question, which may have the effect of prejudicing the defence of the accused or from damaging the reputation of any person connected with the case.’

Talwar’s application said that despite the said order, the media was running reports on ‘irresponsible and uninformed conspiracy theories’ which was prejudicing the conduct of the ongoing investigation.

The conduct of media was in complete disregard of the ‘respect and reputation’ of the persons and families connected with the case, the application said.

The application said that in view of the potential implications, it is imperative that the electronic media and the press were restrained from reporting information which was likely to prejudice the case or breach the right to privacy of the applicant and his family.

Aarushi was found murdered in Talwar’s Noida house May 18, 2008 and the next day the body of their domestic help Hemraj was also found.

‘The CBI decided to field Tulsi and an ASG (additional solicitor general) as noted lawyer Ram Jethmalani is providing legal assistance to Shah,’ said a government source on condition of anonymity.

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s close aide Shah was arrested here Tuesday after he surfaced at a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) press conference in Gandhinagar. Shah, the former minister of state for home, has been charged with ordering the killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and his wife Kausar-Bi.

The Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) has been accused of killing Sheikh near Ahmedabad, on grounds that he was a Lashkar-e-Taiba operative, in a staged shootout Nov 26, 2005. His wife Kauser-Bi has also been missing since then

Johri, who was the part of Supreme Court appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the case, has been asked to appear before the CBI on August 10.

The CBI had already questioned Johri twice before.

According to television reports, the line of questioning to Johri will be based on the allegations made by Vasant Solanki, the investigating officer of the case.

Earlier, the CBI has also summoned former Gujarat Director General of Police (DGP) P C Pandey and asked him to appear before it on August 11.

Pandey was DGP of Gujarat when the state CID was investigating the fake encounter case.

This is for the first time Pandey has been called for questioning by the CBI. It had earlier called other IPS officers, including G C Raigar and O P Mathur.

Meanwhile, the CBI team is likely to seek permission from its headquarters to question Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the case.

The investigating agency may want Modi to answer some questions in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case.

The CBI wants to know if Modi was aware of the attempts being made by top police officials to scuttle the probe.

If Modi is summoned for questioning, it will be for the second time this year. He was earlier questioned by a Special Investigation Team in 2002 Gujarat riots case.

Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausar Bi were killed in an alleged fake encounter in 2005