Supreme Court detects blunder in judgements of Trial Court, Ahmedabad, Gujarat High Court and Gujarat Government in a rape case

“It can ever be unwise to acquaint the public with the truth about the workings of any branch of government. It is wholly undemocratic to treat the public as children who are unable to accept the inescapable shortcomings of man-made institutions. The best way to bring about the elimination of those shortcomings of our judicial system that are capable of being eliminated is to have all our citizens informed as to how that system now functions. It is a mistake, therefore, to try to establish and maintain, through ignorance, public esteem for our courts.”

- Judge Jerome Frank, in Courts on Trial, Princeton University Press, 1949

Judge Jerome Frank employed an equation, R x F=D where R signifies the rule of law, F signifies the facts, and D signifies the decision. If a judge's decision is wrong, it may be for any of three reasons: she/he may have adopted the wrong rule of law; she/he may have incorrectly found the facts; or she/he may have improperly applied the law to the facts.

On January 9, 2025, in Yogesh Jayantilal Bhavasar vs. The State of Gujarat (2025), Supreme Court's bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed:"We fail to understand how trial court could have imposed sentence of three years rigrous imprisonment for the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”). Section 376 of the IPC, even prior to its amendment in 2013, provided that the minimum punishment shall be that of seven years, which may be for life or for a term which may extend to 10 years." 

It noted that the State had preferred an appeal seeking enhancement of sentence but the appeal was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court. While dismissing the criminal appeal, The High Court failed to note as to how could the trial court have imposed sentence of three years for the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of the IPC whereas the minimum is seven years.

Unlike in other cases, Supreme Court's website does not provide the name of the High Court's judges who authored the judgment overlooking the error on the part of the trial court. High Court's judgement was delivered by Justices K.S. Jhaveri and G.B.Shah on September 2, 2015. It was authored by Justice Jhaveri. 

The High Court's bench of Justice Z.K.Saiyed has admitted the appeal on April 2, 2012. Th appeal was against the judgement of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No.269/2008 whereby, original accused no.1 to 3 were convicted for the offences punishable u/s.418, 420, 376 r/w. Section 114 of Indian Penal Code. Criminal Appeal No.674/2012 was preferred by the State seeking enhancement of sentence imposed upon all the three accused persons vide the impugned judgment and order. Criminal Appeal No.374/2012 was preferred by original accused no.2 and 3 against their conviction u/s.376, 418 and 420 r/w. Section 114 IPC. Criminal Appeal No.375/2012 was preferred by original accused no.1 against his conviction u/s.376, 418 and 420 r/w. Section 114 IPC.

on September 1, 2006 an FIR being IC.R. No.137/2006 was registered with GIDC Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad by the survivor wherein, it was alleged that original accused no.2 & 3, who happen to be the paternal relatives of the survivor, lured the survivor to reside with them at their home, after the death of her father, under the pretext of getting her married to the person of her choice. During her stay, the survivor came into contact with original accused no.1, who was already married and having children. The original accused no.1 lured and persuaded the survivor to get married with him and also developed physical relationship with her. The survivor was also pressurized by the accused persons to get into prostitution. Accused no.1 had physical encounters with the survivor on numerous occasions, which, ultimately, made her pregnant. The survivor was taken to some Hospital, where the pregnancy was aborted. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. As sufficient material was found against original accused no.1 to 3, chargesheet was filed against them before the magisterial Court. As the case was sessions triable, it was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The counsel of the accused submitted that the sexual act was largely a consensual act by the survivor.

The High Court's judgement records that originally the complaint in was filed against nine accused persons. After necessary investigation, charge sheet was filed only against the present three accused persons, as no material was found against the other individuals. It is an undisputed fact that original accused no.1 was married and having two children out of the wedlock. By concealing this fact from the survivor, the accused persons enticed the survivor to get into marriage with original accused no.1 and thereby, led her to indulge into sexual intercourse with accused no.1.

Justice Jhaveri observed:"we are of the view that the Court below has not committed any error in convicting the accused for the offence in question. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at in the impugned judgment. However, considering the fact that the period of almost ten years has elapsed and the survivor has settled, though we are inclined to enhance the sentence imposed upon the accused but, since it has been brought to our notice that accused no.1 is having children of marriageable age and that his wife has lost almost 80% of eyesight and thereby, his family is facing severe hardship, we are not entertaining the enhancement appeal filed by the State." 

Taking these reasons in to consideration, the Court dismissed the appeals confirmed the impugned judgment and order dated March 17, 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No.269/2008. 

The operative part of the judgment and order dated March 17, 2012 passed by V.M.Nayak, Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case: 269/2008 reads: “for the offence punishable u/s.376 and 114 of the I.P.C. the accused No.l Yogesh Jayantilal Bhavsar is ordered to undergo a ngorous imprisonment of 3 (Three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo a further simple imprisonment of 6 (Six) months. Further, for the offence punishable u/s.418 and 114 of the I.P.C. the accused No.I Yogesh Jayantilal Bhavsar is ordered to undergo a ngorous imprisonment of 2 (Two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo a further simple imprisonment of 3 (Three) months. Further, for the offence punishable u/s.420 and 114 of the I.P.C. the accused No.I Yogesh Jayantilal Bhavsar is ordered to undergo a rigorous imprisonment of 2 (Two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo a further simple imprisonment of 6 (Six) months. Whereas, for the offence punishable u/s.376 and 114 of the I.P.C. the accused No.2 Sheelaben W/o Goldenbhai @ Ganeshbhai and the accused No.3 Goldenbhai @ Ganeshbhai both, are ordered to undergo a rigorous imprisonment of I (One) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine by any of them, they shall undergo a further simple imprisonment of 3 (Three) months. Further, for the offence punishable u/s.418 and 114 of the I.P.C. the accused No.2 Sheelaben W/o Goldenbhai @ Ganeshbhai and the accused No.3 Goldenbhai @ Ganeshbhai both, are ordered to undergo a rigorous imprisonment of I (One) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine by any of them, they shall undergo a further simple imprisonment of 3 (Three) months. Further, for the offence punishable u/s.420 and 114 of the I.P.C. the accused No.2 Sheelaben W/o Goldenbhai @ Ganeshbhai and the accused No.3 Goldenbhai @ Ganeshbhai both, are ordered to undergo a rigorous imprisonment of 1 (One) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine by any of them, they shall undergo a further simple imprisonment of 3 (Three) months. lt is hereby ordered that all the sentences awarded to the accused persons shall run concurrently and the period spent by them in the prison shall be given as set off. It is also hereby ordered that the muddamaal of the instant case shall be disposed of after expiry of the appeal period and each accused herein shall be provided with one copy of this judgment, free of cost.” 

The High Court's judgement reads: "The original accused are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. The accused persons are directed to surrender to custody within a period of TWO MONTHS from today to undergo the sentence imposed upon them failing which the investigating agency shall take necessary action against the accused person/s in accordance with law. It is, however, observed that if any of the accused person/s has already undergone the sentence imposed upon them, then such accused person/s is not required to surrender to custody."

Notably, even prior to amendment in the Section 376 of the IPC in 2013, it was provided that the minimum punishment for rape shall be that of seven years, which may be for life or for a term which may extend to 10 years. There is nothing in the judgment of the trial court and the High Court to defend the indefensible act of imposing a sentence of only three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence of rape punishable under Section 376.  

Drawing from Court's on Trial, it can be inferred that Gujarat High Court application of the law to the facts is quite improper. The criminal appeal against the High Court's judgement was filed by the accused in the Supreme Court on December 7, 2015. The act and omission and commission of the State of Gujarat in its failure to file an appeal is quite stark.

The counsel appearing in the Supreme Court for the State of Gujarat admitted that it was "a serious error on the part of both, the trial court as well as the High Court going to the root of the matter." The Supreme Court's order has recorded that the counsel has acknowledged that the State should have appealed in the Supreme Court against the High Court's order which was conscious of the "error committed by the trial court in imposing sentence of three years" but it overlooked it. It is listed for hearing on January 23, 2025.   

P.S.: Notably, on December 16, 2015, in State of Gujarat vs. Jaydip Damjibhai Chavda, the Gujarat High Court's bench of Justices M.R. Shah and Z.K.Saiyed observed: "awarding the sentence of only three and half years for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC by no stretch of imagination it can be said to be imposing   adequate   punishment   commensurate with   the   gravity   of   the   offence. It is required to be noted that in the present case at   the   time   of   commission   of   offence  the accused was aged 38 years of age and both the victim/prosecutrix were less than 16 years of age, out of which one victim/prosecutrix was the step­daughter i.e. accused was the step father." It noted that "The   only   reason   given   by   the   learned trial   Court   while   imposing   the   punishment lesser   than   the   minimum   provided   under Section 376 of the IPC is that the accused is a poor and has a responsibility to maintain his   wife   and   children.   The   aforesaid   can hardly be said to be a cogent reason and/or special circumstances/case while awarding the punishment   less   than   the   minimum   provided under Section 376 of the IPC." 

The penultimate paragraph of the judgement reads: the offence of rape is a heinous crime not only against the individual but also against the society   at   large.   The   offences   against   the woman more particularly under Section 376 of the IPC are increasing. Therefore a massage must   go   to   the   society   that   if   such   an offence is committed it shall be dealt with iron­hand and strictly and that no leniency shall be shown. Thus, in the present appeal the learned trial Court has not exercised the discretion   judiciously   and   it   can   be   said that   the   learned   trial   Court   has   failed   to perform   its   duty   as   a   Judge   while   awarding appropriate   and   adequate   punishment   to   an offender   who   is   convicted   for   the   offence under   Sections   376,   377   and   506(2)   of   the Indian Penal Code." 

The High Court concluded: The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Court No.13, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.122 of 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside insofar as awarding of sentence for the offence under Sections 376 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. While convicting the accused for   the   offence   under   Section   376   of   the Indian Penal Code the accused is sentenced to undergo10 (ten) years R.I.   with   fine   of Rs.10,000/­ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further 06 (six) months R.I. and he   is   also   sentenced   to   undergo 07 (seven) years R.I. for the offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.500/­ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 02 (two) months and sentence imposed   by   the   learned   trial   Court   while convicting the original   accused   for   the offence   under   Section   506(2)   of   the   Indian Penal   Code   is   hereby   maintained.   All   the sentences to run concurrently. The accused to surrender   before   the   jail   authority   to  undergo   the   remaining   sentence   as   per   the present judgment and order within a period of 04   (four)   weeks   from   today,   failing   which non­bailable warrant be issued against him to undergo   the   remaining   sentence." 

Only one among four persons suffering from illicit drugs dependence receives treatment

The ills of drug abuse seem to be shadowing the length and breadth of our country withthe Central and every State Government fighting against the menace of substance abuse. The debilitating impact of drug trade and drug abuse is an immediate and serious concern for India.

As the globe grapples with the menace of escalating Substance Use Disorders (SUD) and an ever accessible drug market, the consequences leave a generational imprint on public health and even national security. Article 47 of the Constitution makes it a duty of the State to regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. The State has a responsibility to address the root causes of this predicament and develop effective intervention strategies to ensure that India’s younger population, which is particularly vulnerable to substance abuse, is protected and saved from such menace. This is particularly because substance abuse is linked to social problems and can contribute to child maltreatment, spousal violence, and even property crime in a family. 

Despite the efforts of the State, an unprecedented scale of coordination and profit seeking has sustained this menace so hard hitting and multifaceted that it causes suffering cutting across age groups, communities, and regions. Worse than suffering and pain, is the endeavour to profit from it and use the proceeds thereof for the committing of other crimes against society and the State such as conspiracy against the State and funding terrorist activities. Profits from drug trafficking are increasingly used for funding terrorism and supporting violence. 

From heroin and synthetic drugs to prescription medication abuse, India is grappling with an expanding drug trade and a rising addiction crisis. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s 2019 Report (MoSJE 2019 Report) on ‘Magnitude of Substance Use in India’ revealed that nearly 2.26 crore people use opioids in India. 

It was also borne out that substance use exists in all the population groups; however, adult men bear the brunt of substance use disorders. After alcohol, cannabis and opioids are the next most commonly used substances in India. About 2.8% of the population (3.1 crore individuals) reported having used cannabis and its products, of which 1.2% (approximately 1.3 crore persons) was illegal cannabis and its products. 

Alarmingly, the rate of opioid dependence is pacing at an alarming rate, partly due to the ongoing narcotic trade across the country’s borders and their consequent ease of availability. According to the MoSJE 2019 Report, there are approximately 77 lakh problem opioid users – the Report defines “problem users” as those using the drug in harmful or dependent pattern in India. More than half of 77 Lakh problem opioid users in India are spread throughout the States of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Orissa. 

Studies across the globe suggest that easy access to narcotic substances, peer pressure, and mental health challenges particularly in the context of academic pressure and family dysfunction could be significant contributors to this disturbing trend. Addiction at a young age can derail academic, professional and personal aims, leading to long-term socio-economic instability of almost an entire generation. The psychological impact of drug abuse, including depression, anxiety, and violent tendencies, further exacerbates the problem. 

The reasons behind this rise in juvenile addiction are complex. Peer pressure, lack of parental affection, care and guidance, stress from academic pressures and the easy availability of drugs contribute to this alarming trend. In many cases, adolescents resort to drugs as a form of escapism, trying to cope with personal and emotional issues. 

Preventing drug addiction among adolescents requires a concerted effort from multiple stakeholders: parents and siblings, schools and the community. Given the disturbing rise in adolescent drug use, urgent interventions are needed. 

The MoSJE 2019 Report found that only one among four persons suffering from dependence on illicit drugs had ever received any treatment and only one in twenty persons with illicit drug dependence ever received any in-patient treatment. Given the scale of the issue, there is need for a more comprehensive view of the solutions to the grave problem. 

Parents have a crucial role in the prevention of drug abuse among adolescents. Parental awareness, communication, and support are key in mitigating the risk of drug addiction. The first step in the effective preventive leap should start within the household. 

In our view, the most important yearning of children is love and affection and a sense of security emanating from parents and family. Domestic violence and discord between parents; lack of time being spent by parents with children due to various reasons and compensating the same by pumping pocket money are some of the reasons why young adolescents are being veered towards escapism and substance abuse. Affectionate and friendly conversations between parents and children and a continuous assessment of the direction in which a child is proceeding is a duty which each parent must undertake. This is to build a sense of emotional security around a child for, in our view, an emotionally secure child would not become vulnerable and be lured towards substance abuse as a possible path towards seeking what is lacking in life. 

No longer should drug abuse be treated as a taboo that parents disengage from. Instead, open discussions about drug use and its ill consequences will provide parents and children a safe space and equip children with the knowledge to help themselves out of peer pressure. 

Of equal importance is the need for schools and colleges to aid the government programs in educating students about the perils of drug abuse. They must include prevention of drug abuse in their curriculum, focusing on the physical, emotional, and legal consequences of drug abuse. Naturally, all efforts should be backed by scientific evidence and experiential learning. It is an urgent need that the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s framework of National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction and other programs are given a boost and truly imbibed in drug education programs run by schools and colleges in the country. 

Local communities should work with NGOs and law enforcement agencies to create awareness campaigns that address the risks of drug abuse with a special focus on schools and youth centres. Either through awareness campaigns, community outreach or peer education, communities can play a critical role in creating knowledgeable safe space that curb the use of drugs. 

The National Legal Services Authority and State Legal Authorities must devise awareness programs and implement them particularly in vulnerable regions of the States and territories more exposed to drug menace. 

There is a need for more synergies along the lines of Joint Action Plan on “Prevention of Drugs and Substance Abuse among Children and Illicit Trafficking” developed by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) in collaboration with Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB).

For youngsters just beginning to explore the world, the consumption of drugs in popular culture has propelled the cultural push towards a dangerous lifestyle, one that incorrigibly applauds drugs use as ‘cool’ and a fashionable display of camaraderie. We implore the youth to take charge of their decisional autonomy and firmly resist peer pressure and desist from emulation of certain personalities who may be indulging in drugs. It is sad that vulnerable children turn to drugs as an escapism from emotional distress and academic pressures or due to peer pressure. The unfortunate reality is that victims of substance abuse are not limited to the unfortunate ones who have fallen prey to it but also include their family and peers. Our approach towards the victims of drug abuse must not be to demonize the victims but to rehabilitate them.

Deep-rooted in our constitutional philosophy and social fabric is the vision to facilitate every citizen to be a constructive citizen, the best they can be. This vision hopes that the State’s obligation is met with a commitment to contribute as constructive citizens to the nation’s development. Part and parcel of this constructive citizenship is the positive aspect of uplifting oneself and those around towards a more participative polity and dynamic economy. Inextricably linked to this commitment is also the negative aspect of constructive citizenship, that is, to actively refrain from contributing against the interest of the community and the nation. It is a need of the times that the end consumers of the illicit drug trade exercise community-friendly decision making and refuse 

to sustain the bottom-line of drug traffickers. The arc and web of drug trade cannot be permitted to corrode the shine of the youth of India!

The Court concluded: "We find that the NIA was justified in seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner herein by the High Court in respect of the offences alleged against him under the provisions of the NIA Act in the State of Punjab. This is because the said offences are now being investigated by the NIA and there is also transfer of the trial from the concerned Special Court in the State of Punjab to the Special Court in the State of Gujarat, to be tried along with Scheduled Offences under Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA as per Section 14 of the NIA Act. Therefore, he special leave petition is also liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.The interim relief granted to the petitioner vide order dated 07.03.2024 and extended from time to time stands vacated."

This text is excerpted from the judgement of Supreme Court's bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh in Ankush Vipan Kapoor vs. National Investigation Agency 

 It was authored by Justice Nagarathna. 

Gopalganj native Baba Siddique killed in Mumbai by a gang of Lawrence Bishnoi lodged in Sabramati Central Jail?

Patna born Baba Siddique (66), a native of Gopalganj, Bihar and a former Maharashtra Minister was reportedly killed by three attackers from the gang of Lawrence Bishnoi (31) in Mumbai. Siddique was a close friend of Salman Khan, the renowned actor. After being shot at, Siddique was rushed to Lilavati Hospital, Mumbai where he was declared dead. It is apparent that he was killed for being close to the actor.

Siddique was the MLA in Maharashtra Assembly for three consecutive terms in 1999, 2004 and 2009. He had also served as Minister of State for Food & Civil Supplies and Labour under Congress Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh between 2004 and 2008. Siddique had served as Municipal Corporator earlier for two consecutive terms between 1992 and 1997. On February 8, 2024, Siddique resigned from the primary membership of the Indian National Congress. Prior to that he served as the Chairperson and Senior Vice President of the Mumbai Regional Congress Committee and Parliamentary Board of the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee. Siddique later joined the Nationalist Congress Party led by Ajit Pawar on February 12, 2024 which is part of the ruling party alliance in the Maharashtra and the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance. His son, Zeeshan (32) is the youngest Maharashtra MLA from Bandra East, Mumbai. 

Gurmail Baljit Singh from Haryana and Dharmaraj Rajesh Kashyap from Uttar Pradesh have been taken into custody in  the case of Siddiqui's murder. The police have named two more suspects, Shivkumar Gautam from Uttar Pradesh, and Mohammad Zeeshan Akhtar. The police have arrested Praveen Lonkar, who is said to have provided logistics support. It has been claimed that his absconding brother Shubham Lonkar was the mastermind behind the shooting. The Mumbai Police have confirmed that the gang led by Lawrence Bishnoi, a law graduate was involved in the murder. Bishnoi is currently lodged at Sabarmati Central Jail in Ahmedabad, Gujarat in connection with a ₹ 195-crore drugs case. Mumbai Police has submitted multiple requests for Bishnoi's custody from Sabarmati jail but these requests have been denied due to an order of Union Ministry of Home Affairs preventing transfer of Bishnoi because he faces multiple cases under investigation by both the Gujarat's Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) and the NIA. In August 2024, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs had extended the restrictions on movement of Bishnoi from Sabarmati Central Jail in Ahmedabad for another year. The restrictive order was imposed under Section 268 of the Criminal Procedural Code (CrPC). It was to expire in August 2024. But the restrictive order has now been extended under Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 till August 2025.

Notably, on July 30 2024, Supreme Court's bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma had passed an order dismissing a special leave petition (SLP) challenging the first information reports (FIRs) lodged against gangster Lawrence Bishnoi on the direction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in connection with the interview given to a private TV while being lodged in high-security prison. The SLP was filed on June 11, 2024, verified on July 25, 2024 and registered on July 30, 2024. The respondents were: the State of Punjab, the State of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. 

The Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Kirti Singh had passed a detailed order on December 21, 2023. The High Court took note of the case of Lawrence Bishnoi's interview while hearing a totally unrelated case. 

The High Court's order reads: "While hearing the matter, it had also come to our notice that a known criminal, namely, Lawrence Bishnoi, who is also a suspect in the murder case of a renowned singer Shubhdeep Singh Sidhu Moosewala, had been interviewed by a News channel and the interviews had been telecast in March, 2023. Lawrence Bishnoi was stated to be in the custody of the Punjab police or judicial custody in the State of Punjab at that time. We were informed that the interviewee was in Bathinda jail when the interview was telecast but the place and time the interview was conducted was not known. A two member High-Powered Committee comprising of Director General, STF and ADGP, Prisons had been constituted in March 2023 to enquire into the incident as it had been viewed seriously by the authorities. The report of the Committee had been placed before us in a sealed cover and a copy of the report was also furnished to the learned amicus curiae. Learned amicus curiae submits that there are several aspects which have not been looked into by the Committee and if the matter is properly investigated or re-examined, the exact time and location of the place where the interviewee was situated when the interviews were conducted can be pinpointed. She also submits that after registration of FIR, these aspects can be looked into by the Special Investigation Team. She stated that the telecast of the interviews is having an adverse impact on youngsters who are getting swayed and it creates wrong impression on the young impressionable minds as the interviews glorifies the criminal life and activities and the interviewee has justified taking law in his own hands for settling personal scores. In fact, a prisoner facing so many criminal cases had access to technology while being in custody and then through that technology has justified his criminal acts as desire of God/destiny. The interviews have been viewed by over 12 million viewers. The amicus curiae further submits that after the telecast of interviews, many more young persons have started writing threatening letters to the film actor targeted in the interview of Lawrence Bishnoi. She further submits that although the fundamental right to speech and expression is important, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions which include public order, decency, morality and incitement to offence. The telecast of the interviews is adversely affecting public order and harmony."

The order reads: "We have also gone through the report which indicates that the Committee has come to the conclusion that it is highly improbable that interviews had taken place either in judicial custody or in the police custody in the State of Punjab. It is apparent that the Committee has not reached a definite conclusion that the interviews were not being conducted in a jail or police custody within the State of Punjab. They have recorded the statements of large number of witnesses in this regard. We find it strange that the Committee took over 8 months to arrive at an inconclusive finding. Nonetheless, the Committee has made a recommendation for registration of two FIRs with regard to two interviews which were conducted in violation of the law. The Committee has recommended that the government may consider registration of two separate FIRs (one each for the respective interview) at a police station having statewide jurisdiction to investigate the matter and take on record relevant evidence/data exercising the powers available under Cr.P.C. If during the course of investigation, the offence(s) relating to any of the two cases or both of them is/are found to have occurred outside the State, the concerned case(s) may be transferred to police station(s) of appropriate jurisdiction. Further, the Committee has also made a recommendation to the Government to remove the URL of the video from the public domain."

The order reads: "The ADGP, Prisons, Punjab submits that they recommended registration of FIR as after registration of FIR the matter can be investigated with the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. for summoning the witnesses to record their statements etc. Learned State counsel submits that the report is being considered by the Government and appropriate action would be taken. She also submits that Lawrence Bishnoi is involved in 71 cases in the State of Punjab and had been convicted in 4 cases which includes offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, 302 IPC, extortions etc. The State itself appears to have taken up the matter with some seriousness as a High-Powered Committee was set up by the State. In the backdrop of the gravity of the situation where a suspect, who is involved in a large number of serious criminal cases, is allowed to conduct an interview in police/judicial custody and it has taken the Committee over eight months to submit an inconclusive report, we, while directing the registration of the FIR would like the matter to be investigated by a Special Investigation Team. Those, who facilitated the interviews need to be brought to book at the earliest."

The High Court observed: "We have gone through the contents of the interviews which indicate that it glorifies crime and criminals....he interviewee is justifying target killings and his criminal activities. He has reiterated and justified threat to a film actor. As in a large number of cases wherein he is involved, trials are underway and attempt to projecting his persona as larger than life could influence the witnesses....The conduct of the interviews is an apparent jail security breach and violation of the Prisons Act. The interviews have been telecast for the last 9 months and are available on public domain. The Committee has recommended that the Government may ask the police to ensure removal of videos pertaining to Interview-I and Interview-II from YouTube/ internet, wherever possible. We would not like to wait for the government to act at its leisure but would direct the removal of the interviews. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Court on its own motion vs. Union of India and others, (CROCP No.2 of 2023) wherein while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, it had directed the removal/blocking of the offensive content from social media platforms."

It relied on Delhi High Court's decision in the case of ‘X’ vs. Union of India and ors. (Decided on : 20.04.2021),while drawing upon Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India wherein the Court had directed the offending contents to be removed. In the event of intermediary not removing objectionable contents in pursuance to the direction of this Court, it would loose its exemption under Section 79 of the I.T. Act from its liability in cases illustrated therein. Moreover, Rule 3(1)(b)(vii) of The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 provides that, the intermediary shall make reasonable efforts to cause the user of its computer resource not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information which threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence, or prevents investigation of any offence, or is insulting other nation; (emphasis supplied). Furthermore, Rule 3(1)(d) provides that an intermediary, on whose computer resource the information is stored, hosted or published, upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court of competent jurisdiction or on being notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act, shall not host, store or publish any unlawful information, which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality; defamation; incitement to an offence relating to the above, or any information which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force.

The High Court had issued the following directions:
i) The DGP, Punjab, is directed to immediately register two FIRs with regard to the conduct of two interviews as recommended by the Special Investigation Team in the police station having State-wide jurisdiction.
ii) The investigation of the FIRs shall be carried out by the Special Investigation Team headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, IPS, DG, Human Rights Commission. The other members of the SIT would include Dr. S.Rahul, IPS and Ms.Nilambari Vijay Jagadale, DIG, Cyber Crime.
iii) The Head of the SIT would be at liberty to seek assistance of any other officer or of any other kind, on his making a request, the DGP, Punjab shall provide all necessary help and assistance to him. A copy of the report dated 11.12.2023 and the relevant record shall be handed over to the Head of the SIT. The SIT shall conclude the investigation expeditiously and file a status report before this Court within a period of two months.
iv) The DGP, Punjab is further directed:
(a) to get the URLs/weblinks/videos pertaining to both the said interviews removed/blocked/disable/restrict from all social media platforms like Youtube etc. forthwith;
(b) To ensure that the Press channel, where the said interview is hosted, removes the URLs/weblinks/videos from all its news /social media platforms with immediate effect;
(c) In case the said interviews are discovered by police authorities to be existing on any social media platform in future, the same be get removed with immediate effect;
(d) to direct the intermediary to preserve all the information associated relating to the offending content for use in investigation, in line with Rule 3(1) (g) of the 2021 Rules;
(e) To direct the search engines Google Search, Yahoo Search, Microsoft Bing to globally de-index and de-reference from their search results the afore-said interviews and their related contents as identified by its web URL and image URL. 

(f) All the concerned intermediaries be informed that non- compliance with the foregoing directions would make the non-complaint party liable to forfeit the exemption, if any, available to it generally under Section 79 (1) of the I.T.Act and as specified by Rule 7 of 2021 Rules: and shall make such entity and its officers liable for action as mandated by section 85 of the I.T.Act.
(g) The ADGP, Prisons, Punjab shall file a status report with regard to the timelines for installation of jammers, CCTV cameras, nylon mesh, X-ray body scanners etc. for augmentation of jail security.

A subsequent order of the High Court dated September 24, 2024 records that Tanu Bedi, Amicus Curiae submitted that "the interviewee had been kept at the premises of the CIA Staff Kharar for a long period of time and repeated remands had been taken to keep him there which needs to be examined as to whether there was a deliberate attempt to keep him there for extraneous reasons or he was genuinely required for investigation. It has also been brought to our notice by the counsel for State of Punjab that Inspector Shiv Kumar, the then Incharge of the CIA Staff, Kharar had retired in the year 2023. However, the affidavit filed by the ADGP (Prisons) indicates that Inspector Shiv Kumar was Incharge of the CIA Staff Kharar till January, 2024. It is disconcerting to believe that an officer, who had superannuated, had been given extension and posted at CIA Staff Kharar. Learned State counsel prays for time to seek instructions in this regard and file an affidavit of the competent authority as to why he was given extension and posted at CIA Staff Kharar. The State shall also file an affidavit in response to the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae with regard to stay of interviewee at CIA Staff Kharar and as to whether the officers who have been issued show cause notices are currently at posts having public dealing."

 

The order of September 24, 2024 notes that the State counsel filed an affidavit of the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Litigation, Bureau of Investigation, Punjab in Court to submit that "show cause notices have been issued to four officers including the then SSP of the District SAS Nagar as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against them. He has also filed an affidavit of the Additional Director General of Police, Prisons, Punjab indicating the progress made in installation of jammers, AI based CCTV cameras, body worn cameras, X-Ray baggage scanners and prison inmate calling system." The order states that the counsel for Union of India, one of the respondents "furnished a copy of the communication issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to the Additional Solicitor General of India dated 18.09.2024 indicating that ‘no objection certificate’ to the State Government has been accorded vide letter of even number dated 23.08.2024 to the proposal of the Department of Jails, Govt. of Punjab for deployment of jammers in its jails. The said communication is taken on record." But the order records that Arun Pal Singh, ADGP (Prisons), Punjab, while appearing through video conferencing, submitted that "no objection certificate for installation of jammers in the Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib is still pending consideration before the Govt. of India." 

 

Notably, ABP Network news channel has filed a case in the Supreme Court through Advocate Prasanna S. on August 13, 2024 which was verified On September 13, 2024 and registered on September 12, 2024 in the aftermath of High Court's order wherein it took note of the interview of Lawrence Bishnoi in jail by Jagvinder Patial, a ABP News journalist. In December 2023, the High Court had ordered the registration of FIR and probe by an SIT headed by IPS officer Prabodh Kumar into the interview of Bishnoi. The High Court had acted suo motu in the matter concerning the use of mobile phones by inmates within jail premises. On August 30, 2024, the Supreme Court's bench of Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra passed an order saying, "While the second petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation by the Special Investigation Team which has been constituted by the High Court, we direct that pending further orders of this Court, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners." The second petitioner is Patial, the journalist. The case is pending before the Supreme Court. 

 

It is apparent that subsequently, Lawrence Bishnoi was put in Delhi's Tihar Jail. He was lodged there before being handed over to the Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad in April 2023 even as the case being heard in Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court. Gujarat Police had found the role of one Bharat Bhushan alias Bhola Shooter - a member of the Lawrence Bishnoi gang - in the 2021 Morbi drug seizure. Bhushan died while being in jail. Later, National Investigation Agency (NIA) had filled a chargesheet against gangsters Lawrence Bishnoi and Goldy Brar for having links with the banned pro-Khalistan outfit Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) and other similar terrorist groups in one of three terror-criminal nexus cases. The chargesheet named 12 other individuals. NIA had alleged that Bishnoi, along with Canada-based gangster Goldy Brar and has been operating his terror-crime syndicate from jails. Bishnoi is in jail from 2015. Goldy Brar is reported to be hiding in Canada. 

 

Timeline of Crimes by Lawrence Bishnoi (b.1993,  Ferozpur, Punjab)

2010-2012: Several first information reports (FIRs) registered against Lawrence Bishnoi for crimes including an attempt to murder, trespassing, assault, and robbery.

2013: Bishnoi reportedly killed the winning candidate in the Government College elections in Muktsar, Punjab. He shot dead a rival candidate in the Ludhiana Municipal Corporation elections.

2014: Bishnoi engaged in an armed encounter with the Rajasthan Police, leading to his arrest. While being in jail, he allegedly connected with Jaswinder Singh, alias Rocky. The gangster-turned-politician Rocky was shot by gangster Jaipal Bhullar in 2016.

2021: Lawrence Bishnoi was transferred to Tihar Jail in Delhi owing to a case filed against him under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

May 2022: Sidhu Moosewala Murder. Punjabi singer and Congress leader Sidhu Moosewala was shot dead in May 2022. Lawrence Bishnoi is alleged to have orchestrated his murder.

March 2023: A National investigation agency (NIA) report revealed Bishnoi’s and his associate Goldy Brar link to Pro-Khalistan outfits.

August 2023: Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad gained custody of Bishnoi, citing a case of drug smuggling, and he was transferred to a high security ward in Sabarmati jail.

September 2023: Sukha Duneke Murder. In September 2023, Gangster Sukhdool Singh, alias Sukha Duneke, of the Davinder Bambiha gang, was shot dead in Canada. A member of Bishnoi’s gang claimed responsibility for his murder later.

November 2023: Shots Fired at Gippy Grewal’s House. In November 2023, shots were fired at Punjabi actor and singer Gippy Grewal’s residence in Vancouver, Canada. Lawrence Bishnoi was behind this attack claiming that she maintained close contact with Salman Khan and had called for justice following Sidhu Moosewala’s killing.

April 2024: Firing Outside Salman Khan’s House. In April 2024, two gunmen fired shots outside the residence of Bollywood star Salman Khan in Bandra, Mumbai. According to Mumbai Police, the shooters were allegedly hired by the Bishnoi gang to kill him. Salman Khan was targeted due to his 1998 Blackbuck poaching case. 

September 2024: Firing Outside Singer AP Dhillon’s Canada House. Shots were fired outside Canadian rapper and singer AP Dhillon’s house in Canada in September 2024. Accused Rohit Godara, a member of Bishnoi’s gang reportedly took responsibility for the attack.

October 12, 2024: Baba Siddique killed in Mumbai.

October 14, 2024: Canadian police claims that Punjab’s category-A gangster Bishnoi was connected to the murder of pro-Khalistan activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada in June 2023. Punjab Police dossier refers to his connection with Harwinder Rinda, Pakistan-based gangster. In a media statement released in Canada late on October 14, 2024, Brigitte Gauvin, Assistant Commissioner, Federal Policing, National Security, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, alleged that Lawrence-Goldy Brar gang was connected to the ‘agents of the government of India’. “It (India) is targeting South Asian community but they are specifically targeting pro-Khalistani elements in Canada... What we have seen is, from an RCMP perspective, they use organised crime elements. It has been publically attributed and claimed by one organised crime group in particular — Bishnoi group... We believe that the group is connected to agents of the Government of India," claimed the Canadian statement. 

Arvind Kejriwal's questions for Narendra Modi

Q1. Does government plan to raise the price of KG Basin gas to $16 per unit? If you become the prime minister, will you raise the price of gas to $16 per unit?

Q2. Is it true that your government is buying solar energy at Rs. 13 per unit, and that without inviting tenders? MP and Karnataka buy solar power at Rs. 7.5 per unit and Rs. 5.5 per unit after inviting tenders, so why is your government buying electricity (solar power) at such high price?     

Q3. You claim that agriculture growth rate in Gujarat is 11%, but by your own government's estimates in 2006-2007 agricultural production in the state was Rs. 27,815 crore. In 2012-2013, agricultural production fell to Rs. 25,908 crore. This means agricultural production has fallen in Gujarat during your tenure and the annual agricultural growth rate is -1.18% (sic). How do you then claim agriculture growth rate is 11%? 
 
Q4. In the last 10 years almost two-third small industries have shut down in Gujarat. We found that in a small place like Mehsana alone 140 of the 187 small industrial units have shut down. Under such circumstances, what is your model for development? Will you shut down all small, medium industries in the country and hand over industry in the country to select business houses? 

Q5. You claim that there is no corruption in Gujarat, but people in towns and villages told us that there is rampant corruption in all government departments. People have to pay bribes to get BPL cards, avail government schemes or make licences. How do you then claim that there is no corruption in Gujarat? 

Q6. At least two of your ministers are accused of involvement in financial scams? Couldn't you find honest persons for your ministry among 6 crore Gujaratis. 

Q7. Would you like to comment on your relationship with businessman Mukesh Ambani?

Q8. Recently, 13 lakh people applied for 1,500 junior-level government posts in Gujarat. How do you then claim that there is no unemployment in the state?

Q9. Young people employed by your government on contract are paid a mere Rs. 5,300 monthly? Can an educated, self-respecting person survive on Rs. 5,300?
 
Q10. Do you accept that it is the government's responsibility to provide good education to the country's poor? We have travelled across Gujarat's villages and towns in the last few days. Gujarat's government schools are in a poor state. We have also found colleges where there are only three teachers including the principal for 600 children. With such education system, how can the country progress?
 
Q11. Do you accept that a government's responsibilities include providing good healthcare services? Government health services are crippled in the entire state. There is corruption everywhere. In many villages, the primary health centres are shut, lying in ruins. In hospitals at taluka and district-levels, more than half of the posts are vacant. Those who are there, they don't come. The hospitals do not have medicines. Under such circumstances, why are you making claims of providing good health services in Gujarat before the entire country?  
  
Q12. Farmers throughout Gujarat are unhappy with your government. He gets less than what he spends for his produce because on minimum support price, your government has been ignoring him. Farmers are being forced to commit suicide. In the last few years, 800 farmers have committed suicide in Gujarat and you have stopped all subsidies which were given to farmers.    
  
Q13. You are going around the country saying your government has taken electricity to villages. We have found that 4 lakh farmers applied for electricity connection to your government for years, but they are not getting it. When you are not even giving connection to farmers, then why are you making hollow claims on providing electricity?   


Q14. Under your government, the land of farmers is being snatched away and you are giving them to your favourite industrialists at throwaway prices. In this, many farmers have not been given compensation. To those farmers whom you have paid compensation, the amount is way less than the market rate. You have snatched away farmers' land and given them to industrialists such as Adani and Ambani at the rate of Rs. 1 per square metre. Why? Why is your government so heartless towards farmers?   

Q15. The height of Narmada Dam was raised in 2005 to provide water to the people of Kutch for drinking and farming. But, even eight years later, the people of Kutch have not got water. This water was given to some of your favourite industrialists. Why this discrimination against the people of Kutch?     
 
Q16. You had said in Punjab that the land of Sikhs living in Kutch, Gujarat, will not be snatched away. The truth is your government has moved court to take away the land of Sikh families. Why don't you take back this case? 
 
Q17. You move around in private helicopters and aircraft. How many such aircraft/choppers do you have? Who do they belong to? How much do you pay for these aircraft/choppers? Or, does someone else pay for them? Why don't you make your air travel expenses public?

Effect of Chiranjeevi Yojana on institutional deliveries and neonatal and maternal outcomes in Gujarat, India: a difference-in-differences analysis

A study with the objective to evaluate the effect of the Chiranjeevi Yojana programme, a public–private partnership to improve maternal and neonatal health in Gujarat, India found  that the Chiranjeevi Yojana programme was not associated with changes in the probability of institutional delivery, maternal morbidity or delivery-related household expenditure. There was little or no association between the programme and out-of-pocket costs of deliveries.

A household survey (n = 5597 households) was conducted in Gujarat to collect retrospective data on births within the preceding 5 years. In an observational study using a difference-in-differences design, the relationship between the Chiranjeevi Yojana programme  and the probability of delivery in health-care institutions, the probability of obstetric complications and mean household expenditure for deliveries was subsequently examined. In multivariate regressions, individual and household characteristics as well as district and year fixed 

effects were controlled for. Data from the most recent District Level Household and Facility Survey (DLHS-3) wave conducted in Gujarat (n = 6484 households) were used in parallel analyses. 

It found that between 2005 and 2010, the Chiranjeevi Yojana programme was not associated with a statistically significant change in the probability of institutional delivery (2.42 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, CI: −5.90 to 10.74) or of birth-related complications (6.16 percentage points; 95% CI: −2.63 to 14.95). Estimates using DLHS-3 data were similar. Analyses of household expenditures indicated that mean household expenditure for private-sector deliveries had either not fallen or had fallen very little under the Chiranjeevi Yojana  programme. 

The Chiranjeevi Yojana programme appears to have had no significant impact on institutional delivery rates or maternal health outcomes. The absence of estimated reductions in household spending for private-sector deliveries deserves further study.

The full paper is available at 

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/3/13-124644.pdf