naqviandnaqvi.com

24/02/2023

Here comes into play an old proverb "Never put all the eggs in one basket".

18/08/2022

The Delhi high court has dismissed a petition by Bharatiya Janata Party leader Shahnawaz Hussain challenging a trial court order directing the city police to register an FIR against him on a woman’s complaint alleging r**e. The court has castigated police for its “complete reluctance” in doing so.

Justice Asha Menon said there was no perversity in the 2018 trial order directing the registration of the FIR and vacated the interim orders of the court staying its operation.

“There is no merit in the present petition. The petition is dismissed. The interim orders stand vacated. The FIR be registered forthwith. The investigations be completed and a detailed report under Section 173 CrPC be submitted before the learned MM (metropolitan magistrate) within three months,” said the court in its order on Wednesday, August 17.

In its order, the high court said that while reference is made in the police status report to the recording of the statement of the prosecutrix on four occasions, there was no explanation as to why the FIR was not lodged.

“The FIR only puts the machinery into operation. It is a foundation for investigation of the offence complained of. It is only after investigations that the police can come to the conclusion whether or not an offence had been committed and if so by whom. In the present case, there seems to be a complete reluctance on the part of the police to even register an FIR,” said the court.

In 2018, a Delhi-based woman had moved the lower court seeking registration of an FIR against Hussain on her allegation of r**e.

Indian Express has quoted Justice Menon as having noted that the “police have a lot to explain” for not registering the FIR.

“But admittedly, in the present case, till the filing of the complaint before the magistrate on 21st June 2018, the SHO, PS (police station) Mehrauli had done nothing. In fact, the status report filed before this court refers to the said complaint having been received at PS Mehrauli on 20th June, 2018 from the commissioner’s office. The police have a lot to explain for not having registered the FIR on the receipt of the forwarded complaint,” said the court.

A magisterial court had on July 7, 2018, ordered registration of an FIR against Hussain, saying a cognizable offence was made out in the complaint of the woman. This was challenged by the BJP leader before a sessions court which dismissed his plea.

On July 13, 2018, the high court had passed an interim order staying the trial court order which directed the Delhi Police to register the FIR.

It had then issued notice on the politician’s plea and sought the response of the woman and the police.

Hussain challenged the trial court order on grounds that in spite of the police stand that its inquiry revealed that the allegations raised by the complainant were not found to be substantiated, the lower court directed the registration of an FIR.

The prosecution said that in the light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari case, the FIR had to be registered and there was no infirmity in the order favouring its registration.

(With PTI inputs)

Justice Asha Menon observed that the "police have a lot to explain" for not registering an FIR on the basis of a complaint of r**e against Shahnawaz Hussain.

13/07/2022

[Matrimonial Disputes] Allowing Fabricated Omnibus Allegations Against Entire Family May Lead To Further Misuse Of Process Of Law: Delhi High Court https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/fabricated-allegations-entire-family-matrimonial-disputes-misuse-process-law-delhi-high-court-203616

The Delhi High Court has observed that allowing fabricated allegations against the entire family in matrimonial disputes may lead to further misuse of process of law.
"If false implication by fabricated omnibus allegations against entire family in the course of matrimonial disputes and differences, is allowed, it may lead to further misuse of the process of law and assume serious proportions," Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed.

The Delhi High Court has observed that allowing fabricated allegations against the entire family

23/06/2022

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/courts-expected-to-pass-order-at-earliest-in-matters-involving-personal-liberty-supreme-court/article65552603.ece

The apex court, while hearing a petition against a Delhi HC order, observed that posting an application seeking anticipatory bail after two months cannot be appreciated

12/05/2022

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/manipur-extra-judicial-killings-probe-supreme-court-seeks-status-report-from-centre-198959

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Union of India to file a status report with regard to investigation into the alleged extra judicial killings in Manipur.

The investigation is being carried out by a Special Investigation Team constituted by CBI pursuant to Supreme Court's direction in July 2017.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Hima Kohli issued the direction in a writ petition filed by Extra Judicial Ex*****on Victim and The Human Rights Alert claiming to have compiled 1528 alleged extra-judicial executions carried out by the police and security forces in Manipur.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves appearing for the petitioner informed the court that out of 655 investigations that were ordered to be done, only 39 cases were investigated, and inquiry into the remaining cases was abandoned, after the previous bench(which ordered the probe) was dissolved.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appearing for the Union of India opposed the submissions and submitted that the Investigation is complete in 39 cases, prosecution complaints have been filed, and further investigation has been directed.

Disputing the figures cited by Mr Gonsalves are incorrect, the ASG sought to place a status report with regard to the investigation before the court.

"The government respondent UOI sought some time to file status report. List after vacation" the bench said

The bench also allowed two applications filed in the writ petition seeking permission to allow some members of CBI/SIT to attend other official work and to relieve two officers attached with CBI/SIT.

The petitions before the Court allege there have been 1582 cases of extra-judicial killings in Manipur between the years 2000 and 2012. A majority of these killings, they allege, were carried out in cold blood when the victims were in custody. They further point out that not even a single First Information Report has been registered by the Manipur police against the police or the security forces, even though several complaints have been made alleging the same.

The Supreme Court had in July 2017 directed the CBI to constitute a Special Investigation Team and to investigate the alleged extra judicial killings in Manipur.A Bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta had issued the direction

In July 2018, a Bench comprising Justice M.B. Lokur and Justice U.U. Lalit had directed the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to appear before it, after noting that the investigations in the alleged extra-judicial encounter killings in Manipur were taking an "unduly long time".

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Union of India to file a status report with regard to inv

07/05/2022

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-up-govt-non-compliance-contempt-covid-patient-missing-198440

How can he be missing? His oxygen was 82, he was unable to walk! He was in the hospital. Where will the body go?" Justice Krishna Murari remarked

With regard to the High court's direction asking the state officials to be present before the Court, the CJI suggested that since the case is already before the High Court, the state may file an application before the High Court praying to dispense with the appearance.

Referring to the High Court's previous orders, the AAG submitted that the High Court recorded that no conclusive evidence is available to conclude if the person is alive.

"It has been one year he's been missing. Imagine the family's desperation. Look at agony of family," Justice Hima Kohli said

The AAG responded saying that the state has taken all possible steps in the present case.

"Please see the extent of steps taken by state. We even explored the possibility of his body was in other bodies cremated. At the hospital, since last examination his vitals were proper" AAG said

"That means he vanished into thin air!" Justice Krishna Murari remarked

The AAG further submitted that the State has taken action against all officers, doctors have been suspended, nurses have been removed, and disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against those responsible. She added that the State has been filing personal affidavits of highest officers for the last one year.

In response to the court's query if the some compensation is being given to the person's family, the AAG said that the State will be willing to pay compensation as the court may direct.

"You yourself are doing nothing," Justice Kohli remarked

"Why should they come all the way to SC?" the CJI said

The bench was considering a special leave petition filed by State of UP against Allahabad High Court's order passed in a habeas corpus petition directing the state officials to produce the corpus before the Court on 6 May failing which, the state officers were to remain personally present before the Court.

Therefore 8 of the present Petitioners namely the Principal Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary (Home); Additional Chief Secretary (Medical & Health); Director General, Medical and Health; District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police, Chief Medical Officer of Prayagraj; and Chief Medical Superintendent of the Hospital were directed to produce "the corpus" Shri Ram Lal Yadav, else remain personally present in court.

The State in its SLP filed through Advocate Ruchira Goel argued that the High Court failed to consider that the tragic incident occurred in May 2021, during the peak of the second wave of the Covid-19 Pandemic, when hospitals and health care providers were overstretched, and health care and other essential services providers were working under great stress.

Further, the state has argued that the High Court did not consider that as soon as as the State authorities were informed of Mr. Yadav going missing they have taken all possible and best efforts to trace his whereabouts.

It has been stated that various steps have been taken, including the formation of two SITs which has undertaken a detailed and thorough investigation, constant monitoring of progress by the ACS Home himself, the institution of fact finding Inquiry, and extensive outreach through social and conventional media.

Supreme Court on Friday made strong remarks in relation to the case of a 82 year old covid patient who allegedly went missing from a hospital in Uttar Pradesh last year.

28/04/2022

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/bail-order-should-be-furnished-to-accused-in-prison-on-same-day-of-pronouncement-supreme-court-197797

The Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that Rule 17 of the 2021 Draft Criminal Rules on Practice- which the High Courts have been directed to adopt - should be read as a mandate for furnishing of the bail order to the prison concerned, and the concerned prison in turn should furnsih the same to the accused on the same day of pronouncment.

Rule 17 titled 'Bail' reads as follows- "i. The application for bail in non-bailable cases must ordinarily be disposed off within a period of 3 to 7 days from the date of first hearing. If the application is not disposed off within such period, the Presiding Officer shall furnish reasons thereof in the order itself. Copy of the order and the reply to the bail application or status report (by the police or prosecution) if any, shall be furnished to the accused and to the accused on the date of pronouncement of the order itself.

ii. The Presiding Officer may, in an appropriate case in its discretion insist on a statement to be filed by the prosecutor in charge of the case"
The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, S Ravindra Bhat and BR Gavai noted :

"Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, amicus curiae, sought a clarification relating to para 17 of the criminal practice rules which has been reproduced as rule 17, chapter 5 ('Miscellaneous')."

"We accept the submission made by the amicus curiae and we are of the considered opinion that paragraph 17 of the draft rules should be read as a mandate for furnishing of the bail order to the prison concerned. We are also of the opinion that the bail orders shall be furnished by the concerned prison to the accused", the bench observed in its order.

On Thursday, Mr. Luthra had told the bench, "When bail orders are passed, it becomes a peculiar situation because the orders don't reach the jail, the jail authorities don't know if the person is granted bail or not. The intimation only goes when the bail order goes to the court and then the court looks at the personal bond and based on that the person is released...The man is in custody when the lawyer is arguing in court. Also, it may be an amicus or the legal aid lawyer arguing. Families often do not reach the court. This frustrates the rights of a lot of people. I understand the problem in incorporating it as a rule but it may also come as a direction in the final order. It may come as a part of your lordships' order because once the order is passed, it only needs a communication from the court concerned to the jail authorities"

Also, on Thursday, the bench recorded that many High Courts and State Governments are yet to incorporate the draft Criminal Practice Rules approved by the Supreme Court last year.

The bench observed as follows :

"By Order dated 20th of April 2021, this court directed the High Court and the state governments to take the following steps- (a) All High Courts shall take expeditious steps to incorporate the said Draft Rules, 2021 as part of the rules governing criminal trials, and ensure that the existing rules, notifications, orders and practice directions are suitably modified, and promulgated (wherever necessary through the Official Gazette) within 6 months from today. If the state government's co-operation is necessary in this regard, the approval of the concerned department or departments, and the formal notification of the said Draft Rules, shall be made within the said period of six months.

(b) The state governments, as well as the Union of India (in relation to investigating agencies in its control) shall carry out consequential amendments to their police and other manuals, within six months from today. This direction applies, specifically in respect of Draft Rules 1-3. The appropriate forms and guidelines shall be brought into force, and all agencies instructed accordingly, within six months from today".

The bench granted 8 more weeks time to the High Courts and State Governments to comply with the directions passed on April 20, 2021.

"A note has been submitted by the amicus curiae regarding the compliance of the directions issued on 20.4.2021. A few high courts have not taken steps to incorporate the draft rules as rules governing criminal trials. It is relevant to note that six months' time was granted to the High Courts to implement the directions given on 20th of April 2021. Such of those High Courts which have not complied with those directions are granted four weeks' time to comply with the order passed by this court on 20th of April 2021 and file a status report. Most of the state governments have not carried out a consequential amendment to the police and other manuals. Some state governments could not carry out amendments due to their not receiving the rules formulated by the High Court as directed by this court. All the state governments/union territories are directed to comply with the directions issued by this court within a period of eight weeks from today and report compliance."

On April 20, 2021, the Court had directed the High Courts to adopt the draft rules of criminal practice, which has been prepared by amici curiae Senior Advocates R Basant, Sidharth Luthra and Advocate K Paremshwar, within a period of 6 months.

The High Courts shall take expeditious steps to adopt the said draft rules and ensure that existing rules are suitably modified within a period of 6 months, a bench led by the then Chief Justice S A Bobde had ordered.

If the state government's co-operation is necessary in this regard, the approval of the concerned department or departments, and the formal notification of the said Draft Rules, shall be made within the said period of six months

The Court further directed the Union Government and the State Government to make consequential amendments to police rules within a period of 6 months. The directions were issued in the suo motu case In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials.

The Court had appointed Senior Advocates R Basant, Sidhath Luthra and Advocate K Paremeshwar as amici curiae in the case. The amici had submitteda Draft Rules of Criminal Practice before the Court.

The Court had later sought the views of the High Courts to the draft rules of criminal practice framed by the amici curiae.

Case Title: In Re To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trial v. State of Andhra Pradesh

The Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that Rule 17

26/04/2022

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-prosecution-up-gangsters-act-single-fir-charge-sheet-anti-social-activities-shraddha-gupta-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-2022-livelaw-sc-411-197587

The Supreme Court observed that there can be prosecution against a person under Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in section 2(b) of the Act.

In this case, the Allahabad High Court had refused to quash the proceedings against the accused under Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986

In appeal before the Apex Court, the accused - appellant contended that solely on the basis of a single FIR/charge sheet and that too with respect to a single murder, the appellant cannot be said to be a 'Gangster' and/or a member of the 'Gang'. Opposing this plea, the State contended that even in case of a single FIR/charge sheet but with respect to anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, there can be a prosecution under the Gangsters Act.

Thus, the issue raised in this case was whether, a person against whom a single FIR/charge sheet is filed for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, 1986 can be prosecuted under the Gangsters Act. In other words, whether a single crime committed by a 'Gangster' is sufficient to apply the Gangsters Act on such members of a 'Gang' ?

The Apex Court bench noted that, under the Gangsters Act, 1986, a 'Gang' is a group of one or more persons who commit/s the crimes mentioned in the definition clause for the motive of earning undue advantage, whether pecuniary, material or otherwise. The court also noticed that there is no specific provision under the Gangsters Act, 1986 like the specific provisions under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 that while prosecuting an accused under the Gangsters Act, there shall be more than one offence or the FIR/charge sheet.

"Therefore, considering the provisions under the Gangsters Act, 1986 as they are, even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet, if it is found that the accused is a member of a 'Gang' and has indulged in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, such as, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person and he/she can be termed as 'Gangster' within the definition of Section 2(c) of the Act, he/she can be prosecuted for the offences under the Gangsters Act. Therefore, so far as the Gangsters Act, 1986 is concerned, there can be prosecution against a person even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act provided such an anti-social activity is by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person.", the bench observed.

The bench noted that, in this the main accused P.C. Sharma was a gang leader and who was the mastermind and he hatched the criminal conspiracy along with other co-accused including the appellant herein to commit the murder of the deceased Sadhna Sharma for a pecuniary benefit as there was a property dispute going on since long between the family members. The High Court has rightly refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant-accused under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, 1986, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the bench said while dismissing the appeal.

Case details

Shraddha Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 411 | CrA 569-570 of 2022 | 26 April 2022

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Counsel: Adv Divyesh Pratap Singh for appellant, Adv Sanjay Kumar Tyagi for respondent -State, Adv Shuvodeep Roy for respondent

Headnotes

Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 ; Section 2(b) - Even a single crime committed by a 'Gang' is sufficient to implant Gangsters Act on such members of the 'Gang' - There can be prosecution against a person even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act provided such an anti-social activity is by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person. (Para 9-10)

Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - All provisions are to ensure that the offences under the Gangsters Act should be given preference and should be tried expeditiously and that too, by the Special Courts, to achieve the object and purpose of the enactment of the Gangsters Act. (Para 8)

The Supreme Court observed that there can be prosecution against a person under Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, even in case of a single...

21/04/2022

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-extends-status-quo-order-on-jahangirpuri-demolitions-by-2-weeks-197138

The Supreme Court on Thursday extended until further orders the status quo order against the demolition drive launched by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation(NDMC) in the riot-hit Jahangirpuri area.

A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai issued notice to the NDMC in the petition filed by the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and sought its counter-affidavit within 2 weeks.

"We'll take serious view of demolition that took place after information was given to Mayor", the Bench observed during the hearing.

The Bench also issued notice to the Union of India and the States of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat on another petition filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind against the authorities in different states resorting to demolition of houses of persons accused in crimes.

The petitions will be listed again after two weeks.

Yesterday, a bench led the Chief Justice of India had ordered status quo on demolitions until further orders in Jahangirpuri after an urgent mention was made by Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave.

Today, Senior Advocate Dave submitted that it was a matter related to "national importance".

Justice Rao asked if it was a matter of "national importance" as it was only confined to an area in Delhi. Dave said that it has become a "State policy" now that after every riots, a particular section of the society is targeted using bulldozers. "How is it that bulldozers have become an instrument of state policy?", he asked.

"This is not an issue confined to Jahangirpuri. It is a matter affecting social fabric of our country.Particular section of society is being targeted. I'll read Dr Ambedkar and Sardar patel on this, how they spoke of this eventuality. This is the warning they gave. If this is allowed, there will be no rule of law left. How is it that the President of the BJP writes a letter to the Municipal Commissioner to start demolitions and they demolish after that? The Municipal Corporation Act provides for service of notice, appeals..Look at the Olga Tellis case, where the Supreme Court protected.."

Dave pointed out there is a legislation in Delhi which regularised colonies. "There are 731 unauthorised colonies in Delhi with lakhs of people and you pick up one colony because you target 1 community!".

"Our homes are more than 30 years old...our shops are beyond 30 years old...we are in a democracy and how can this be allowed?", Dave asked.

Dave referred to Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act to say that no order of demolition can be passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person.

"They have demolished homes. Who should be held accountable? These are poor people. If you want to act against unauthorized constructions, you go to Sainik Farms. Go to Golf Links where every second home is an encroachment. You don't want to touch them, but target the poor people", Dave submitted.

"The police and civil authorities are bound by the Constitution and not by letters written by a BJP leader. His wish became the command. It speaks on a sad commentary on us as a nation", Dave added.

Muslims are associated with encroachments : Sibal

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing in the second petition filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind against the demolition of homes of accused in other states, made submissions after Dave.

"Encroachment is a serious problem all over India but the issue is Muslims are being associated with encroachments", Sibal submitted.

"No Hindu properties were affected?", Justice Rao asked.

"Some isolated instances. When processions are carried out and frictions occur, homes of only one community is bulldozed...", Sibal submitted.

"Look at Madhya pradesh...where the Minister says that if Muslims does such a thing they cannot expect justice. Who decides that ?Who gave him that power?", Sibal added.

"I've photos where people from a community were gated and their houses were demolished. What is this process, to instil fear to sideline rule of law?", Sibal said.

Sibal requested that an order be passed to restrain demolitions in this manner till the matter is heard. The bench said that it cannot pass a blanket order against demolitions on a pan-India basis.

Brinda Karat's plea

Senior Advocate PV Surendranath, appearing for Brinda Karat, submitted that she had reached Block C of Jahangirpuri at around 10.45AM and told the authorities about the Supreme Court's order. But the demolitions continued till 12.25 PM.

"She had to physically stand infront of the bulldozers to stop...had she not been there the entire C block would have got demolished", Surendranath submitted.

The Bench asked when exactly was the order communicated. Sibal submitted that the Advocate-on-Record MR Shamshad messaged the order via Whatsapp to the Mayor around 11.

"The Mayor himself went on record at 11 to say SC's orders will be complied with. He complied with it after 12 depsite that", Dave submitted.

Notices were given, no targeting of Muslims : Solicitor General's response

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the North Delhi Municipal Corporation, submitted that the eviction drive started way back in January.

"So far as Delhi is concerned... they tried to remove what was lying on footpath and public roads, it started in January, then February 2022 and then in April. It was commenced to clear roads...", the SG said. He said that in many cases, there are judicial orders to remove encroachments in footpaths and public roads. Notices were given to persons.

"This happens when organizations file writ petitions..none of the affected persons are here, because they will have to show their locus", the SG said.

"No individual is coming as they'll have to show notices & suddenly organisations have come", the SG added.

"There is a pattern that one particular section will move PIL on an issue in SC. Thereafter entire political spectrum joins the bandwagon", he said.

The SG also disputed that claim that only properties of Muslims were acted against.

"In Khargone demolition, 88 affected parties were Hindus and 26 were Muslims. I am sorry to make this bifurcation, the Government does not want to. But I am compelled by the petitioners to do so", the SG said. He said that in Madhya Pradesh, notices were served to parties in 2021 and 2022.

The SG submitted that there is no provision for notice to remove stalls, chairs etc from footpaths and roads.

"The demolition yesterday was only of stalls chairs tables etc?", Justice Rao asked.

"Are bulldozers required to remove stalls, chairs and all?", Justice Gavai asked.

"Notices were issued for buildings", the SG said.

"If the statute provides for something to be done in a certain way, it has be done in that way. It also provides for appellate remedy, it provides time for 5-15 days", Justice Gavai pointed out.

The SG maintained that for buildings, notices were issued.

Senior Advocate Hegde, appearing for Ganesh Gupta, whose juice shop at Jahangirpuri was destroyed, asserted that no notice was issued.

"We want affidavits from the petitioners on the notices if served and counter affidavits on the details of the demolition and till then status quo order will continue", Justice Rao said.

The SG also said that it was wrong on the part of Dave to say that the demolitions started at 9AM instead of 2 PM as stated in the notice as the authorities knew that the petition was going to be mentioned in the Court. The SG said that the notice for yesterday mentioned 9 AM and 2 PM was for the day before yesterday.

"We'll take serious view of demolition that took place after information was given to Mayor", Justice Rao said at this juncture.

The hearing got over at this point with the bench issuing notice and posting the matter after two weeks. The bench clarified that the status quo was with respect to the Jahangirpuri demolitions.

"Issue notice in writ petitions. Status quo to be maintained till further orders. List after 2 weeks. Pleadings to be completed till then", the Bench said.

After the bench dictated the order, Sibal made a second request for stay on demolitions in the second petition. "This shouldn't mean in other states bulldozing happens", Sibal submitted.

"You're bringing to our notice what happened some time back and your apprehension is what will happen. Once we have passed orders in one case, you still think something will happen?", Justice Rao asked.

The Supreme Court on Thursday extended until further orders the status quo order against the demolition drive launched by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation(NDMC) in the riot-hit Jahangirpuri...