English News Coverage

The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi has allowed the release of Manu Sharma on the recommendations of the Sentence Review Board.
Last year in November, Manu Sharma’s lawyer Amit Sahni had approached the Delhi high court seeking his release.

Jessica Lall case: AAP government to take a call on Manu Sharma’s parole – Manu Sharma has sought three months’ parole to enable him appear for LLB second semester exams from December 31. Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Sharma, said three month was required as the convict has to appear before the Registrar in Chandigarh on January 19 next year for registration of his marriage. Sahni said the government has not yet taken any decision on the application since October this year.

The Delhi High Court on Monday asked the AAP government to decide in three days the parole plea of Manu Sharma, undergoing life term for killing model Jessica Lall in 1999. Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Sharma, said three month was required as the convict has to appear before the Registrar in Chandigarh on January 19 next year. He said the government has not yet taken any decision on the application since October this year.

The Delhi High Court today asked the AAP government to decide in three days the parole plea of Manu Sharma, undergoing life term for killing model Jessica Lall in 1999. Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Sharma, said three month was required as the convict has to appear before the Registrar in Chandigarh on January 19 next year. He said the government has not yet taken any decision on the application since October this year.

NEW DELHI:The Delhi High Court on Monday asked the AAP government to decide in three days the parole plea of Manu Sharma, undergoing life term for killing model Jessica Lall in 1999.
Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Sharma, said three month was required as the convict has to appear before the Registrar in Chandigarh on January 19 next year for registration of his marriage.

Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Sharma, said three month was required as the convict has to appear before the Registrar in Chandigarh on January 19 next year for registration of his marriage. Sahni said the government has not yet taken any decision on the application since October this year.

Delhi High Court today granted
18-day parole to Manu Sharma, who is undergoing life term for
killing model Jessica Lall in 1999, to pursue his LLB course
and get his marriage registered.

Delhi High Court today granted 18-day parole to Manu Sharma, who is undergoing life term for killing model Jessica Lall in 1999, to pursue his LLB course and get his marriage registered. Sharma had moved the high court through his counsel Amit Sahni, seeking direction to the Delhi government to decide his plea for extension of parole for one month.

Sharma had moved the high court through his counsel Amit Sahni, seeking direction to the Delhi government to decide his plea for extension of parole for one month.

Delhi high court on Tuesday granted 18-day parole to Manu Sharma, who is undergoing life term for killing model Jessica Lall in 1999, to pursue his LLB course and get his marriage registered.
Sharma had moved the high court through his counsel Amit Sahni, seeking direction to the Delhi government to decide his plea for extension of parole for one month.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted 18-day parole to Manu Sharma, who is undergoing life term for killing model Jessica Lall in 1999, to pursue his LLB course and get his marriage registered.
Sharma had moved the high court through his counsel Amit Sahni, seeking direction to the Delhi government to decide his plea for extension of parole for one month.

“Keeping in view that petitioner (Sharma) has been granted parole by this court earlier also, the court is inclined to give him the relief till January 31,” the court said.
Sharma had moved the high court through his counsel Amit Sahni, seeking direction to the Delhi government to decide his plea for extension of parole for one month.

Sharma’s lawyer Amit Sahni, however, denied that he was involved in any brawl. “He was never involved in any brawl. This is a mere allegation. Also, that was not a ground for rejection of his early release. There was no action taken against him as he was not found to be involved. There is no police record of the incident and it was just a hype created by the media,” he told ThePrint.
Sahni further said his client has been found to be satisfactory in all reviews.

Justice AK Pathak allowed Sharma to remain on parole till January 31, after he urged the court that he has to attend his personal contact programme in connection with the LLB course and re-establish social ties.
Sharma had moved the high court through his counsel Amit Sahni, seeking direction to the Delhi government to decide his plea for extension of parole for one month.

Sharma had moved the high court through his counsel Amit Sahni, seeking direction to the Delhi government to decide his plea for extension of parole for one month.

Delhi High Court today granted 18-day parole to Manu Sharma, who is undergoing life term for killing model Jessica Lall in 1999, to pursue his LLB course and get his marriage registered. Sharma had moved the high court through his counsel Amit Sahni, seeking direction to the Delhi government to decide his plea for extension of parole for one month.

Sharma had moved the high court, with his counsel Amit Sahni, seeking to have the government hear his plea for extension of parole for one month.

The Delhi High Court on Monday asked the AAP government to consider Jessica Lal murder convict Manu Sharma’s request for premature release at the next meeting of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) that is likely to be held in March.
Advocate Amit Sahni, told the court that Sharma’s conduct in prison and while on bail, parole or furlough has been good and there was no adverse report opposing his request.

The plea filed through advocate Amit Sahni said Sharma’s name was first sent to SRB in September 2017. But the board rejected his case “despite his extraordinary conduct”. Sharma had referred to the recent release of Sushil Sharma, convicted in the infamous Tandoor case, after serving 23 years in the prison.

Justice Brijesh Sethi issued notice on the plea filed through advocate Amit Sahni which had contended that the SRB had rejected Sharma’s case in an ‘unfair, arbitrary and whimsical manner.’ Challenging an order of the SRB on September 19, 2019, the plea said that the petitioner has spent more than 23 years in jail (with remission).

A petition, filed through advocate Amit Sahni, sought Sharma’s release saying the authorities rejected his plea in an unfair, arbitrary and whimsical manner.

“The petitioner qualifies all the requisite parameters as stipulated in minutes of meetings of SRB. Further incarceration of the petitioner after completion of maximum prescribed period, that is, 20 years (including remission), in absence of cogent and compelling reasons, is unlawful and without legal justification,” said the plea, filed through advocate Amit Sahni.

Jessica Lal murder convict Manu Sharma, who has spent about 17 years in jail, has sought premature release and the Delhi High Court Friday asked the Delhi government to respond to his plea.
“The petitioner qualifies all the requisite parameters as stipulated in minutes of meetings of SRB. Further incarceration of the petitioner after completion of maximum prescribed period, that is, 20 years (including remission), in absence of cogent and compelling reasons, is unlawful and without legal justification,” said the plea, filed through advocate Amit Sahni.

The petition, filed through advocate Amit Sahni, sought Sharma’s release saying the authorities rejected his plea in an unfair, arbitrary and whimsical manner.

Manu Sharma, son of former Union minister Venod Sharma, was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Delhi High Court in December 2006 for killing Jessica Lal in 1999.
“The petitioner qualifies all the requisite parameters as stipulated in minutes of meetings of SRB. Further incarceration of the petitioner after completion of maximum prescribed period, that is, 20 years (including remission), in absence of cogent and compelling reasons, is unlawful and without legal justification,” said the plea, filed through advocate Amit Sahni.

Sharma’s lawyer Amit Sahni said, “It is shocking and shows the sorry state of affairs. There are 14 parameters the board considers for release. Sharma fulfils all 14. In addition, he served time in the semi-open jail and is now in open jail. The jail, prison, and welfare officer have given a positive report for his prison conduct. The high court had taken cognisance of the positive reports submitted by the three departments and asked SRB to consider his release. But they rejected his plea. It is sad. We will again approach the high court.”

“Convicts who do not fulfil the 14 parameters have been released. My client has undergone more than 22 years of incarceration (with remission). We are sure the high court would grant relief when we approach it as his was the fittest case among all for premature release,” said Sahni.

Sahni said Lal’s sister Sabrina had written to the prison authorities, saying she had forgiven Sharma and would have no problem if he is released. “It seems the 14-parameter rule apply only to other prisoners.”

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to grant relief to Siddharth Vashisht, alias Manu Sharma, the main culprit in the Jessica Lall murder case, directing the Delhi government instead to reconsider his premature release plea in the Sentence Review Board.
The court asked the board to consider the convict’s conduct as Manu Sharma counsel, Advocate Amit Sahni informed the bench that Sharma’s conduct has remained good in prison and while on bail, parole or furlough.
The court was hearing the plea filed by Manu Sharma through advocate Amit Sahni.

The Delhi High Court on Monday disposed off the plea filed by Jessica Lal murder case convict Manu Sharma for premature release. The HC asked the Sentence Review Board (SRB) to consider the plea in the next meeting which will take place in March.
Manu Sharma had in his plea filed through advocate Amit Sahni, sought setting aside of the October 4, 2018 SRB recommendation, rejecting his plea, as well as the December 7, 2018 order of the Delhi government, upholding the board’s view.

NEW DELHI: A month after the Delhi high court ordered the forthwith release of former Youth Congress leader Sushil Kumar Sharma, who had served over 2.
Manu Sharma (43), in his plea filed through advocate Amit Sahni, has sought setting aside of the October 4, 2018 SRB recommendation, rejecting his plea, as well as the December 7, 2018 order of the Delhi government, upholding the board’s view.

Jessica Lal murder case convict Manu Sharma moved Delhi High Court seeking an early release from prison.
Sharma, in his plea filed through advocate Amit Sahni, has asked setting aside of the SRB’s rejection of his plea and Delhi government’s order of upholding the board’s decision.
In the petition, Sharma has argued that the reports received from several authorities such as prison, police and social welfare department of Delhi government, have recommended his early release. The petition is likely to be heard on Monday by Justice Najmi Waziri.

The court was hearing the plea filed by Manu Sharma through advocate Amit Sahni. Sharma has sought setting aside of government order dated December 7, 2018, which has upheld recommendation rejecting his plea seeking premature release.

The Wife of Manu Sharma, a Convict in Jessica Lal Murder case, on Wednesday approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) for his release, alleging human rights violation. Manu’s wife Preity Sharma through her Advocate Amit Sahni approached the NHRC, alleging the gross violation of her husband’s human rights.

The petition, filed through advocate Amit Sahni, sought Sharma’s release saying the authorities rejected his plea in an unfair, arbitrary and whimsical manner.

The Delhi High Court on Monday disposed of the plea filed by Jessica Lal murder case convict Manu Sharma for premature release. The HC asked the Sentence Review Board (SRB) to consider the plea in the next meeting which will take place in March.
Manu Sharma had in his plea filed through advocate Amit Sahni, sought setting aside of the October 4, 2018 SRB recommendation, rejecting his plea, as well as the December 7, 2018 order of the Delhi government, upholding the board’s view.

The plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni sought setting aside of a December 7, 2018, order of the competent authority, which cited “interest of justice”, while accepting rejection of his premature release in the minutes of meetings of Sentence Review Board.

According to convict Manu Sharma’s petition filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, he has served 15 years in jail without remission and over 20 years with remission and therefore, he is eligible for grant of premature release.

The Delhi Government filed its reply on Manu Sharma’s plea before a division bench of Justices Manmohan and Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal. Sharma’s advocate, Amit Sahni said the convict has completed almost 23 years (with remission) and 17 years (without remission) in jail.

Jessica Lal murder convict Manu Sharma had moved the Delhi High Court seeking premature release from prison.
In his plea filed through advocate Amit Sahni, Sharma demanded that the 4 October 2018 SRB recommendation that had rejected his plea and the subsequent decision by the Delhi government to uphold the board’s view should be set aside, according to PTI.

“The petitioner qualifies all the required parameters as stipulated in minutes of meetings of SRB. Further incarceration of the petitioner after completion of the maximum prescribed period, that is, 20 years (including remission), in absence of cogent and compelling reasons, is unlawful and without legal justification,” said the plea, filed through advocate Amit Sahni.

“The petitioner qualifies all the required parameters as stipulated in minutes of meetings of SRB. Further incarceration of the petitioner after completion of the maximum prescribed period, that is, 20 years (including remission), in absence of cogent and compelling reasons, is unlawful and without legal justification,” said the plea, filed through advocate Amit Sahni.

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to grant relief to Siddharth Vashisht, alias Manu Sharma, the main culprit in the Jessica Lall murder case, directing the Delhi government instead to reconsider his premature release plea in the Sentence Review Board (SRB) meeting in March.
The court was hearing the plea filed by Manu Sharma through advocate Amit Sahni. Sharma has sought setting aside of government order of December 7, 2018, which has upheld recommendation rejecting his plea seeking pre-mature release. On October 4, 2018 the SRB had recommended rejecting Manu Sharma’s plea.

NEW DELHI The Delhi High Court today disposed of the plea filed by Jessica Lal murder case convict Manu Sharma for premature release. The HC asked the Sentence Review Board (SRB) to consider the plea in the next meeting which will take place in March.
Manu Sharma had in his plea filed through advocate Amit Sahni, sought setting aside of the October 4, 2018 SRB recommendation, rejecting his plea, as well as the December 7, 2018 order of the Delhi government, upholding the board’s view.

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to grant relief to Siddharth Vashisht, also known as Manu Sharma, the main culprit in the Jessica Lall murder case, directing the Delhi government instead to re-consider his premature release plea in the Sentence Review Board (SRB) meeting in March. The Petition was filed by Manu Sharma through his Lawyer Amit Sahni.

The court was hearing the plea filed by Manu Sharma through advocate Amit Sahni. Sharma has sought setting aside of government order dated December 7, 2018, which has upheld recommendation rejecting his plea seeking premature release.

NEW DELHI, Feb 20: The Delhi High Court asked the AAP government on Thursday to reply to a plea by Jessica Lal murder convict Manu Sharma, serving life sentence seeking early release from Tihar Jail. The petition, filed through advocate Amit Sahni, sought Sharma’s release saying the authorities rejected his plea in an unfair, arbitrary and whimsical manner.

In his plea, Manu Sharma filed through advocate Amit Sahni, has sought setting aside of the October 4, 2018, SRB recommendation, rejecting his plea, as well as the December 7, 2018 order of the Delhi government, upholding the board’s view.

The Delhi High Court on Friday issued a notice to the state government on a plea filed by Manu Sharma, the convict in 1999 Jessica Lal murder case, seeking his release. A division bench of Justices Manmohan and Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal granted four weeks to file a response on the petition of Siddharth Vashisht, also known as Manu Sharma.
The court will take up the matter on December 16. Sharma is serving life term for murdering Jessica Lal in south Delhi’s Mehrauli in April, 1999.
The Delhi government sought time to file its response on Sharma’s petition, which was filed through advocate Amit Sahni.

The Delhi High Court asked the AAP Government on Thursday to reply to a plea by Jessica Lal murder convict Manu Sharma, serving life imprisonment, seeking premature release.
Justice Brijesh Sethi asked the Delhi Government to file a status report in the matter along with the relevant records of Sentence Review Board (SRB).
The petition, filed through advocate Amit Sahni, sought Sharma’s release saying the authorities rejected his plea in an unfair, arbitrary and whimsical manner.

Jessica Lal murder convict Manu Sharma, who has spent about 17 years in jail, has sought premature release from jail by filing a petition filed through Advocate Amit Sahni.

The petition, filed through advocate Amit Sahni, sought Sharma’s release saying the authorities rejected his plea in an unfair, arbitrary and whimsical manner.

Manu Sharma filed a petition through advocate Amit Sahni seeking the cancellation of the decision on December 4, 2018 and the Delhi government’s decision on December 7, 2018. The Board had dismissed Manu Sharma’s application and the Delhi government had justified it.

“The petitioner qualifies all the requisite parameters as stipulated in minutes of meetings of SRB. Further incarceration of the petitioner after completion of maximum prescribed period, that is, 20 years (including remission), in absence of cogent and compelling reasons, is unlawful and without legal justification,” said the plea, filed through advocate Amit Sahni.

After the seven-member Sentence Review Board (SRB) rejected Sharma’s plea for early release in July, his advocate Amit Sahni had said that they would seek legal recourse because Sharma was eligible for release. Sahni had said that his client fulfilled all parameters for release such as the minimum time served of 14 years, clean record in prison, and positive report by police and jail authorities among others.

“Manu Sharma fulfils all parameters as required for premature release,” his lawyer Amit Sahni said.
The Delhi Sentence Review Board (SRB) has recommended a premature release of Jessica Lal murder convict Manu Sharma, who is serving life imprisonment, sources said on Tuesday.
A final decision on the recommendation will, however, be taken by Lt Governor of Delhi.

Siddharth Vashishta,43, better known by his alias Manu Sharma, shot dead model Jessica Lal, who was tending an unlicensed bar at a private party on April 30, 1999, after she refused to serve him a drink well past midnight.
Sharma’s lawyer Amit Sahni said:” There is no official communication on the release. But I have learnt from the media that the SRB has recommended his release.”

New Delhi, May 12 (PTI) The Delhi Sentence Review Board (SRB) has recommended a premature release of Jessica Lal murder convict Manu Sharma, who is serving life imprisonment, sources said on Tuesday.
“Manu Sharma fulfils all parameters as required for premature release,” his lawyer Amit Sahni said.

“Manu Sharma fulfils all parameters as required for premature release,” his lawyer Amit Sahni said.

The Delhi Sentence Review Board (SRB) has recommended a premature release of Jessica Lal murder convict Manu Sharma, who is serving life imprisonment, sources said on Tuesday.
“The file will now be sent to the lieutenant governor for final approval,” the sources added.
“Manu Sharma fulfils all parameters as required for premature release,” his lawyer Amit Sahni said.

The Delhi Sentence Review Board SRB has recommended a premature release of Jessica Lal murder convict Manu Sharma, who is serving life imprisonment, sources said on Tuesday. A final decision on the recommendation will, however, be taken by Lt Governor Anil Baijal.
“Manu Sharma fulfils all parameters as required for premature release,” his lawyer Amit Sahni said

Sharma is currently out on parole. He was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Delhi High Court in December 2006 for killing Lal, a model, in 1999.
“In fact, in the current assessment, it was noted that the crime he committed was in the spur of the moment and was not per-meditated. Also, it was noted that he is not a habitual offender and that his propensity of him committing crime is nil,” Amit Sahni, Manu Sharma’s Lawyer said.

Sources said their case has now been put up before lieutenant governor Anil Baijal for his consideration.
“My client has undergone more than 23 years of incarceration. We would again move to High Court” Amit Sahni, Manu Sharma’s Lawyer said.

Confirming the release, Sharma’s lawyer Amit Sahni said the lieutenant governor had accepted the recommendations of the sentence review board, which met on May 11.

Advocate Amit Sahni, while speaking to ANI, had said that Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal had approved the name of Siddharth Vashishth also known as Manu Sharma for release from Tihar Jail.

Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal has approved the premature release of Jessica Lal Murder case convict Manu Sharma, who is serving life sentence at Tihar Jail. “Manu Sharma fulfils all parameters as required for premature release,” his lawyer Amit Sahni said.

“Manu Sharma fulfils all parameters as required for premature release,” his lawyer, Amit Sahni, said.

“Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal had approved the name of Siddharth Vashishth also known as Manu Sharma for release from Tihar Jail, in a sentence review board meeting held on May 11,” Advocate Amit Sahni told ANI.

Siddharth Vashishta,43, better known by his alias Manu Sharma, shot dead model Jessica Lal, who was tending an unlicensed bar at a private party on April 30, 1999, after she refused to serve him a drink well past midnight.
Sharma’s lawyer Amit Sahni said:” There is no official communication on the release. But I have learnt from the media that the SRB has recommended his release.”

The Lieutenant Governor LG of Delhi Anil Baijal on Tuesday allowed the release of 1999 Jessica Lal murder case convict Manu Sharma The release was ordered on the recommendations of Sentence Review Board. Advocate Amit Sahni, while speaking to ANI on Tuesday, confirmed the development and said that Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal has approved the name of Siddharth Vashishth also known as Manu Sharma for release from Tihar Jail. He said that Sharma’s name was approved in a sentence review board meeting held on May 11.

Manu Sharma’s lawyer Amit Sahni told The Quint that the SRB “is a statutory body constituted by the L-G under the powers vested in him and is constituted under the government of Delhi which is represented by members of Delhi government and Central government.”

Manu Sharma, who was convicted & sentenced to life imprisonment in the 1999 Jessica Lal Murder Case, has received the approval of Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor for his release after a recommendation of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) for the same.
On Tuesday, Lawyer Amit Sahni, while speaking the news agency, confirmed the development & said that Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal has approved the name of Siddharth Vashishth also known as Manu Sharma for release from Tihar Jail.

Manu Sharma, who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in the 1999 Jessica Lal murder case, has received the approval of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi for his release after a recommendation of the Sentence Review Board for the same.
Jessica Lal murder case: Delhi Lt Guv allows release of convict Manu Sharma after SRB recommendation
Read more At:
https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/jessical-lal-murder-case-delhi-lt-guv-allows-release-of-convict-manu-sharma-after-srb-recommendation20200602161428/

New Delhi, May 12 (PTI) The Delhi Sentence Review Board (SRB) has recommended a premature release of Jessica Lal murder convict Manu Sharma, who is serving life imprisonment, sources said on Tuesday.
“Manu Sharma fulfils all parameters as required for premature release,” his lawyer Amit Sahni said.

NEW DELHI: “I deeply regret what happened 21 years ago, every single day,” says 45-year-old Manu Sharma, out of jail after remission of his life term .
His lawyer, Amit Sahni, said the sentence review board recommended premature release on the basis of reports from the jail authorities and lack of any opposition from Delhi Police.

Delhi High Court asked CBI on Friday to give specific details of the ailments Ajay Chautala is suffering from so that a medical board can be constituted, as sought by the agency, to examine him.
The response came on a query by Advocate Amit Sahni who appeared for O P Chautala. Chautala had surrendered at Tihar jail on October 11 after the high court cancelled his interim bail on October 10 for flouting bail conditions by campaigning for his party.

Delhi High Court today extended till May 9 the interim bail of Ajay Singh Chautala, MLA-son of former Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala, who has been sentenced along with his father in teacher recruitment scam.
advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Ajay Chautala, sought extension of bail on the ground that he is to undergo left atrial appendage occlusion, treatment to prevent blood clot formation in patients suffering from atrial fibrillation. Chautala is suffering from atrial fibrillation.

Justice Siddharth Mridul extended the interim bail of Kumar, Badshami and Vidya Dhar to December 5, November 28 and December 12, respectively.
Meanwhile, advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for former Haryana Chief Minister O P Chautala, informed the court that the Indian National Lok Dal (INLD) Chief’s plea for regular bail is still pending before it.

The Delhi High Court todayextended the interim bail till August 1 of former Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala and his MLA-son Ajay Chautala, sentenced to ten years in prison in a teachers recruitment case. Senior advocate N Hariharan and advocate Amit Sahni appeared for the Chautalas.

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Friday reserved its verdict on the 2000 illegal teacher recruitment scam in Haryana against former chief minister Om Prakash Chautala and 55 other convicts.
Chautala’s counsel Amit Sahni told court that his client’s health condition is deteriorating and under close monitoring of the hospital

The court gave two weeks to CBI to file its report and listed the matter for hearing on December 12.
The response came on a query by senior advocate Hariharan and advocate Amit Sahni who appeared for O P Chautala.

The Delhi High Court sought response of CBI on former Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala’s plea seeking regular bail citing his ill health.
O P Chautala, in his bail plea filed through advocate Amit Sahni, has contended that he is a physically disabled senior citizen having 60 per cent permanent disability.

CBI was asked by the court to file status reports on the bail pleas of Badshami and Vidya Dhar.

Advocate Amit Sahni, who appeared for the Chautalas, submitted that as per the report of the Medical Superintendent of Medanta Hospital, O P Chautala has to undergo further medical tests for the various ailments he is suffering from.

Delhi High Court Friday reserved its verdict on the 2000 illegal teacher recruitment scam in Haryana against former chief minister Om Prakash Chautala, his son Ajay Chautala and others.
Chautala’s counsel Amit Sahni told court that his client’s health condition is deteriorating and under close monitoring of the hospital.

HC seeks CBI’s response on Chautala’s plea for bail extension. The order was passed after hearing arguments by advocates Amit Sahni on behalf of Chautala and CBI respectively.

The Delhi High Court today extended till July 10 the interim bail granted to former Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala, serving a 10-year jail term in teachers recruitment case.
The Indian National Lok Dal (INLD) leader’s interim bail has been extended by the court on the same terms and conditions as in the June 3 order after perusing the status report submitted by Central Bureau of Investigation or CBI and after hearing arguments by advocate Amit Sahni on behalf of Mr Chautala.

NEW DELHI, June 20: The Delhi High Court today sought CBI’s response on the plea of former Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala, serving a 10-years imprisonment.
The order was passed after hearing arguments by advocate Amit Sahni on behalf of Chautala and CBI respectively

The Court gave the direction after Advocate Amit Sahni appearing for Chautala, pleaded with the court that his Client (OP Chautala) is “suffering from various ailments including tuberculosis, peripheral meuritis, low backache, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases.”

Justice Vipin Sanghi ordered Chautala’s release for a day on his furnishing a bond of Rs 50,000 and directed the INLD leader to surrender on January 4 at 11 AM.
The INLD leader, in his interim application filed through advocate Amit Sahni, had sought two days’ parole to attend his grandson’s ‘roka’ and ‘ring’ ceremonies.

Ajay Chautala, in his plea, has contended that his parole application was “illegally” rejected by the Delhi government. He has also alleged in his plea, filed through advocate Amit Sahni, that the rejection was communicated to him only after his appeal against a similar earlier decision had been filed and was pending before the high court.

Later, both of them through their counsel Amit Sahni stated that they have to attend weddings in their family, which are scheduled in February.

The Delhi High Court has sought city government’s reply on the plea by former Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala and his son Ajay Chautala, serving 10-year jail term in teachers’ recruitment scam case, seeking parole for medical treatment.
Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Chautalas said the two have to attend weddings in their family, which are scheduled in February.

Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Chautalas said the two have to attend weddings in their family, which are scheduled in February.

Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Chautalas said the two have to attend weddings in their family, which are scheduled in February. “Their presence in the aforesaid function is required for customary and religious rituals prevalent in their family,” the additional application stated.

Delhi High Court today sought the response of the Aam Aadmi Party government on the plea of INLD leader Ajay Chautala, serving a 10-year jail term in a JBT Teacher recruitment scam.
In his plea filed through Advocate Amit Sahni, it is alleged that the rejection was communicated to him only after his appeal against a similar earlier decision had been filed and was pending before the high court.

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought a response from Arvind Kejriwal-led government on the writ petition filed by former Haryana chief minister Om Prakash Chautala seeking an extension of his parole for four weeks.
Advocate Amit Sahni appearing for Chautala submitted that his presence is essential for observing 40 days post cremation rites observed in their community.

engagement
New Delhi, Dec 30 (PTI) The Delhi High Court today granted
parole for one day to ex-Haryana chief minister Om Prakash
Chautala, serving a 10-year jail term in teachers’ recruitment
scam case, to attend his grandson and MP Dushyant Chautala’s
engagement on January 3, 2017.
The INLD leader, in his interim application filed through advocate Amit Sahni, had sought two days’ parole to attend his grandson’s ‘roka’ and ‘ring’ ceremonies.

The Delhi High Court today granted parole to incarcerated INLD leader Ajay Chautala to appear in PG Diploma examinations to be held till July 12.
The court’s direction came on Chautala’s petition, filed through advocate Amit Sahni, seeking parole to appear in his PG Diploma exams scheduled from June 28 to July 12.

The Delhi High Court today granted parole to incarcerated INLD leader Ajay Chautala to appear in PG Diploma examinations to be held till July 12. The court’s direction came on Chautala’s petition, filed through advocate Amit Sahni, seeking parole to appear in his PG Diploma exams scheduled from June 28 to July 12.

The court’s direction came on Chautala’s petition, filed through advocate Amit Sahni, seeking parole to appear in his PG Diploma exams scheduled from June 28 to July 12. Chautala is pursuing PG Diploma in Counselling and Behaviour Modification (PGDCBM) under the Distance Education from Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar.

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court today granted parole to incarcerated INLD leader Ajay Chautala to appear in PG diploma examinations to be held till July 12.
The court’s direction came on Chautala’s petition, filed through advocate Amit Sahni, seeking parole to appear in his PG diploma exams

INLD leader Ajay Chautala, who is serving a 10-year jail term in a teachers’ recruitment scam case, today moved the Delhi High Court seeking permission to attend the wedding of his niece and appear in the exam.
Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Chautala, submitted that the plea was moved as the authorities hae not yet taken any decision.

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought the response of the AAP government on a plea of INLD chief O P Chautala seeking two-month parole.
Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for former Haryana chief minister Chautala, submitted that the convict’s wife Sneh Lata is critically ill and is hospitalised at Sirsa in Haryana.

The Lieutenant Governor (LG) has dismissed the plea of incarcerated INLD leader Ajay Chautala seeking a month’s parole to prepare for his exam and attend a wedding, the Delhi High Court was informed today.
Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Chautala, who is serving a 10-year jail term in the teachers’ recruitment scam case, pleaded to withdraw his parole application on the ground that he would challenge the competent authority’s order, which was allowed by the court.

Justice Mukta Gupta asked the counsel for Chautala to place on record the medical details of the politician’s wife including diagnosis of her ailment and the treatment which she is said to be availing at a private hospital at Sirsa.
Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for former Haryana Chief Minister Chautala, said that the convict’s wife Sneh Lata is critically ill and is hospitalised at Sirsa in Haryana. The counsel submitted that the woman is in the intensive care unit (ICU) in the hospital.

The Delhi high court has asked the AAP government to respond to a plea by former Haryana chief minister O P Chautala claiming that his prayer for early release.
Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Chautala, argued that despite the december 18 directions of hte Court, the Delhi Government has not dcided the case for special remisssion and state cannot prolong it indefinitely.

The petition, filed through advocate Amit Sahni, said that as the marriage of Chautala’s grandson is expected to be solemnised by the end of this year, the customary rites and ceremonies are required to be followed for 40 days.

Chautala’s counsel Amit Sahni informed the court that according to the special remission grant, the Centre asked states and Union Territories to grant benefit of special remission to males above 60 years, females and trans-gender above 55 years and to release them if they have undergone half of their sentence. The notification also said that convicts with above 70 per cent disability will also be released after serving half the actual sentence.

Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Chautala, argued that despite the December 18 directions of the court, the Delhi government has not decided the case for special remission and the state cannot prolong it indefinitely. He said the government was asked to comply with the order in two weeks but it has not been complied with even after 40 days and sought direction to the authorities to comply with it.

The petition, filed through advocate Amit Sahni, referred to the central government’s July 18, 2018 special remission notification by which the relief could be granted to certain categories of prisoners and they were to be released in three phases with effect from October last year.

Chautala’s counsel Amit Sahni informed the court that according to the special remission grant, the Centre asked states and Union Territories to grant benefit of special remission to males above 60 years, females and trans-gender above 55 years and to release them if they have undergone half of their sentence. The notification also said that convicts with above 70 per cent disability will also be released after serving half the actual sentence.

New Delhi: Former Haryana Chief Minister O.P. Chautala on Tuesday moved the Delhi High Court for his release from Tihar Jail under the special remission granted to males above 60 years. Chautala’s plea will be heard on Wednesday.
Chautala’s counsel Amit Sahni told the court on July 18 2018, the central government asked the state governments and Union Territories to grant the benefit of special remission to males above 60 years, females and trans-gender above 55 years and to release them if they have undergone half of the actual sentence.

Chautala’s counsel Amit Sahni told the court on July 18 2018, the central government asked the state governments and Union Territories to grant benefit of special remission to males above 60 years, females and transgender above 55 years and to release them if they have undergone half of actual sentence.

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi government to consider former Haryana chief minister Om Prakash Chautala’s plea seeking his release.
Representing Chautala, Advocate Amit Sahni told the court that according to the special remission grant, the Centre asked state governments and union territories to grant benefit of special remission to males above 60, females and trans-genders above 55 and to release them if they had undergone half of their sentence.

Chautala, in his plea filed through advocate Amit Sahni, has said that he deserved to be released early under the Centre’s policy of special remission as he had already spent seven years in prison.

New Delhi: Recently, the Delhi High Court has reserved the decision on the appeal of the release of former Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala. The case was heard on Tuesday in the bench of Judge Manmohan and Judge Sangeeta Sehgal.
OP Chautala’s lawyer Amit Sahni said that the court can pronounce its verdict on any day this week. In fact, former INLD Chief and former CM OP Chautala have petitioned for release in the High Court through his lawyer. In his petition, Chautala has told the court that since his sentence has been completed as per the set criteria, he should be released.

Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Chautala, argued that despite the December 18 directions of the court, the Delhi government has not decided the case for special remission and the state cannot prolong it indefinitely.

In his petition filed through Advocate Amit Sahni, Chautala has not only cited his age as a ground for remission, but has also claimed that he had permanent disability of 60%, as on April 2013, and also had a pacemaker surgery in June 2013.

The Delhi High Court on Monday extended the parole of former Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala for four weeks.
Chautala had approached Delhi High Court through his Lawyer Amit Sahni.

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought a response from Arvind Kejriwal-led government on the writ petition filed by former Haryana chief minister Om Prakash Chautala seeking an extension of his parole for four weeks.
HC seeks Delhi govt’s response on OP Chautala’s petition filed through Advocate Amit Sahni for seeking extension of parole.

The Delhi High Court on Monday extended the parole of Indian National Lok Dal (INLD) chief OP Chautala by four weeks. Chautala is serving a 10-year jail term in the teachers’ recruitment scam.
The petition, filed through advocate Amit Sahni, said as the wedding of Chautala’s grandson is expected to happen by the end of this year, the customary rites and ceremonies are required to be followed for 40 days

The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi government to consider former Haryana chief minister Om Prakash Chautala’s plea seeking his release.
Representing Chautala, Advocate Amit Sahni told the court that according to the special remission grant, the Centre asked state governments and union territories to grant benefit of special remission to males above 60, females and trans-genders above 55 and to release them if they had undergone half of their sentence.

Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Chautala, argued that despite the December 18 directions of the court, the Delhi government has not decided the case for special remission and the State cannot prolong it indefinitely.

New Delhi, Jan 30 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has asked the AAP government to respond to a plea by former Haryana chief minister O P Chautala through his Counsel Amit Sahni, claiming that his prayer for early release from jail in a teachers″ recruitment scam has not been considered by the authorities despite judicial order.

The Delhi High Court today (December 18, 2019) directed the AAP government to consider a fresh plea of former Haryana Chief Minister, Om Prakash Chautala filed by his Advocate Amit Sahni for seeking his release from the Tihar Central Jail under the special remission granted to senior citizen having already served 7 years in prison.

Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Chautala, argued that despite the December 18 directions of the court, the Delhi government has not decided the case for special remission and the state cannot prolong it indefinitely.

The Delhi High Court has asked the AAP government to respond to a plea by former Haryana Chief Minister OP Chautala through his Advocte Amit Sahni claiming that his prayer for early release from jail in a teachers’ recruitment scam has not been considered by the authorities despite a judicial order.

The bench observed that “the life and liberty of an individual is of paramount consideration” and added: “We need to know how and why you can keep someone in custody indefinitely.”
“The Principal Secretary (Home), GNCTD as well as the Law Secretary are requested to remain present before this court on the next date of hearing so as to assist the court on the determination of these proceedings,” the bench said. Advocate Amit Sahni, who filed the petition on behalf of Sharma, said the convict has been in jail for the last 29 years and was entitled to premature release in as per the guidelines of the Sentence Review Board (SRB).

The Delhi High Court today asked the Tihar jail authorities to produce the minutes of meeting of the Sentence Review Board in which former Congress youth leader Sushil Kumar Sharma’s plea for premature release was taken up for consideration.

1995 Tandoor murder case: Convict seeks parole, Delhi HC seeks response from govt – Congress leader Sushil Sharma is undergoing life term in the sensational murder case. “Respondent (state) has failed to appreciate that the petitioner (Sharma) has already undergone more than 20 years in custody and six months have already elapsed from the date of termination of the previous parole,” the application, filed through advocate Amit Sahni, said.

Congress leader Sushil Sharma had shot his wife Naina Sahni with his licensed revolver on the night of July 2, 1995, taken her body to a restaurant, chopped it into pieces and tried to burn them in the restaurant’s oven.
“Respondent (state) has failed to appreciate that the petitioner (Sharma) has already undergone more than 20 years in custody and six months have already elapsed from the date of termination of the previous parole,” the application, filed through advocate Amit Sahni, said

Former youth Congress leader Sushil Sharma, who is undergoing life term in the sensational murder case of his wife Naina Sahni, was on Wednesday granted three weeks parole by the Delhi High Court.
The convict in his plea filed through advocate Amit Sahni had also challenged November 28 last year’s order of the Delhi government rejecting his application for regular parole.

Former youth Congress leader Sushil Sharma, who is undergoing life term in the sensational murder case of his wife Naina Sahni, was today granted three weeks parole by the Delhi High Court.
The convict in his plea filed through advocate Amit Sahni had also challenged November 28 last year’s order of the Delhi government rejecting his application for regular parole.

Former youth Congress leader Sushil Sharma, who is undergoing life term in the sensational murder case of his wife Naina Sahni, was today granted three weeks parole by the Delhi High Court. The convict in his plea filed through advocate Amit Sahni had also challenged November 28 last year’s order of the Delhi government rejecting his application for regular parole.

Former youth Congress leader Sushil Sharma, who is undergoing life term in the sensational murder case of his wife Naina Sahni, was today granted three weeks parole by the Delhi High Court.The convict in his plea filed through advocate Amit Sahni had also challenged November 28 last year’s order of the Delhi government rejecting his application for regular parole.

The convict had killed his wife with a licensed revolver, chopped her body up and tried to burn those at the restaurant oven. The convict in his plea filed through advocate Amit Sahni had also challenged November 28 last year’s order of the Delhi government rejecting his application for regular parole.

Sharmas counsel Amit Sahni moved the court for premature release, claiming that their client has spent over 25 years in jail, which is the maximum prescribed punishment as per the Sentence Review Board guidelines.

In 2003, a city court awarded him death sentence which was later upheld by the Delhi High Court in 2007. In 2013, the SC commuted his death sentence stating that there was “no evidence” of Sharma chopping his wife’s body.
The court’s remarks come while hearing a habeas corpus plea filed by Sharma through advocate Amit Sahni who had alleged that Sharma’s incarceration was illegal.

Sharma, who is in prison since 1995, has contended that he has already undergone the maximum prescribed sentence as mandated under the SRB guidelines.Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Sharma, said the guidelines on premature release state that life convicts sentenced for a single offence are to be released after completion of 20 years of incarceration and those who had committed heinous crimes are to be granted the relief after 25 years.Delhi government standing counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra said the LG, who is the competent authority to decide the pre-mature release of convicts, had accepted the SRB recommendations not to release Sharma and all records were put before him.

The Delhi High Court Friday ordered ‘forthwith’ release of former youth Congress leader Sushil Kumar Sharma, serving life term for the murder of his wife Naina Sahni in 1995.
Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Sharma, had said that guidelines on premature release state that life convicts sentenced for a single offence are to be released after completion of 20 years of incarceration and those who had committed heinous crimes are to be granted the relief after 25 years.

A bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal said it was concerned over the human rights of the prisoner, and called the issue very serious.
Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Sharma, said guidelines on premature release state that life convicts sentenced for a single offence are to be released after completion of 20 years of incarceration and those who had committed heinous crimes are to be granted relief after 25 years.

Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Sharma, said guidelines on premature release state that life convicts sentenced for a single offence are to be released after completion of 20 years of incarceration and those who had committed heinous crimes are to be granted the relief after 25 years.

The Delhi High Court Tuesday asked whether a person could be allowed to be kept in jail indefinitely for the offence of murder even if he has already served the sentence.
Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Sharma, said the guidelines on premature release state that life convicts sentenced for a single offence are to be released after completion of 20 years of incarceration and those who had committed heinous crimes are to be granted the relief after 25 years.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought to know whether a person can be kept in jail indefinitely for committing a murder, even if he has alreaday served the sentence. Sharma’s advocate Amit Sahni told the court that Sharma is in prison since 1995 and he has already undergone the maximum prescribed sentence as mandated under the guidelines.

Sharma had appealed against the lower court verdict of 2003 in the Delhi High Court but received a setback as the High Court upheld the lower court’s death sentence.
Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Sharma, had said guidelines on premature release state that life convicts sentenced for a single offence are to be released after completion of 20 years of incarceration and those who had committed heinous crimes are to be granted the relief after 25 years. In his petition, Sharma contended even though his case falls in the first category, he had also undergone 29 years of incarceration, with remission, and 23 years and six months, without remission.

The Delhi High Court ordered ‘forthwith’ the release of former youth Congress leader Sushil Kumar Sharma, who was convicted in the ‘tandoor’ murder case.
Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Sharma, had said that guidelines on premature release state that life convicts sentenced for a single offence are to be released after completion of 20 years of incarceration and those who had committed heinous crimes are to be granted the relief after 25 years.

Sharma has already undergone over two decades of incarceration in the case. Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Sharma, had said that guidelines on premature release state that life convicts sentenced for a single offence are to be released after completion of 20 years of incarceration and those who had committed heinous crimes are to be granted the relief after 25 years.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought to know whether a person can be kept in jail indefinitely for committing a murder, even if he has alreaday served the sentence. Sharma’s advocate Amit Sahni told the court that Sharma is in prison since 1995 and he has already undergone the maximum prescribed sentence as mandated under the guidelines.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought to know whether a person can be kept in jail indefinitely for committing a murder, even if he has alreaday served the sentence.
Sharma’s advocate Amit Sahni told the court that Sharma is in prison since 1995 and he has already undergone the maximum prescribed sentence as mandated under the guidelines.The Delhi government told the court that the Lieutenant General is the competent authority to decide the pre-mature release of convicts and he had accepted the Sentence Review Board’s recommendations not to release Sharma.Congress worker Naina Sahni was murdered on July 2, 1995, night. Her husband and Congress leader Sushil Sharma shot her, chopped up her body and tried to dispose it of in the tandoor of a restaurant, the Delhi Police alleged.

The court raised the query while hearing a plea by former youth Congress leader Sushil Kumar Sharma, serving life term in the 1995 murder of his wife Naina Sahni, seeking release after having undergone 29 years of incarceration. Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Sharma, said the guidelines on premature release state that life convicts sentenced for a single offence are to be released after completion of 20 years of incarceration and those who had committed heinous crimes are to be granted the relief after 25 years.

Sharma has already undergone over two decades of incarceration in the case. A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal passed the order.
Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Sharma, had said that guidelines on premature release state that life convicts sentenced for a single offence are to be released after completion of 20 years of incarceration and those who had committed heinous crimes are to be granted the relief after 25 years.

The Delhi High Court on Friday ordered “forthwith” release of former Youth Congress leader Sushil Kumar Sharma, serving life term for the murder of his wife Naina Sahni in 1995. Advocate Amit Sahni, representing Sharma, had said that guidelines on premature release state that life convicts sentenced for a single offence are to be released after completion of 20 years of incarceration and those who had committed heinous crimes are to be granted the relief after 25 years.

The high court set aside and quashed the recommendations of the sentence review board (SRB) which had rejected Sharma’s representation for pre-mature release.
Advocate Amit Sahni, representing Sharma, had said that guidelines on premature release state that life convicts sentenced for a single offence are to be released after completion of 20 years of incarceration and those who had committed heinous crimes are to be granted the relief after 25 years.

The Delhi High Court on Friday ordered the immediate release of former Youth Congress leader Sushil Kumar Sharma, who is serving a life term in the 1995 murder of his wife Naina Sahni. Sharma’s advocate Amit Sahni told the court that Sharma is in prison since 1995 and has already undergone the maximum prescribed sentence.

The Delhi High Court Monday agreed to hear on Tuesday a PIL filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking to open Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch which has been closed since December 15, due to ongoing protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar listed the PIL for hearing on Tuesday. The petition, filed by advocate and social activist Amit Sahni, sought a direction to the Delhi Police Commissioner to withdraw the closure of the stretch along with the Okhla underpass.

Delhi High Court will hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni seeking to open the arterial Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch that connects Delhi with Noida today. The road has been closed since December 15 due to the ongoing protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).

Delhi HC directs Police to look into closure of Kalindi Kunj road while keeping in mind larger public interest, law and order. The order was passed by a Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar in a petition by Advocate & Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking directions to Delhi Traffic Police to withdraw the closure of two roads.

The Delhi High Court had on Monday agreed to hear a PIL filed by advocate and social activist Amit Sahni seeking to open Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch. The road closure is causing huge inconvenience/ hardship to lakhs of commuters every day and they are compelled to take different routes for last one month, the plea said.

The petition, filed advocate and social activist Amit Sahni, sought direction to the Delhi Police Commissioner to withdraw the closure of Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh Stretch and Okhla underpass, which were closed on December 15, 2019 for ongoing protests against CAA and National Register of Citizen (NRC). It was a temporary measure but has been extended from time to time.

The court disposed of the plea filed by social activist and lawyer Amit Sahni and ruled that the decision should be taken at the earliest by the concerned authorities as per the law.

The court passed the order while disposing of a PIL filed by advocate and social activist Amit Sahni seeking a direction to the Delhi Police Commissioner to lift restrictions on Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch and Okhla underpass, which were closed on December 15, 2019 for ongoing protests against CAA and National Register of Citizen (NRC).

The plea which was urgently mentioned before a bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar by lawyer and social activist Amit Sahni, said that the closure has been extended many times, causing huge inconvenience to the lakhs of commuters everyday, who are compelled to take different route for nearly one month now.

The Delhi High Court Monday agreed to hear on Tuesday a PIL filed by Social Activist and Lawyer Amit Sahni seeking to open Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch which has been closed since December 15, due to ongoing protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).

Delhi high court on Monday agreed to examine a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni, which sought its intervention to open Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch.

The petition, filed by advocate and social activist Amit Sahni, said the road closure is “causing huge inconvenience/hardship to lakhs of commuters every day and they are compelled to take different routes for last one month”.

The high court had passed the current order disposing of a PIL filed by advocate and social activist Amit Sahni seeking a direction to the Delhi police commissioner to lift restrictions on Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh Stretch which was closed on December 15, 2019 for ongoing protests against the CAA and the NRC proposed by the government.

A division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar was hearing the plea filed by social activist and lawyer Amit Sahni.

The Delhi High Court Tuesday said the police has the power to control traffic wherever protests are going on and directed it to look into a plea filed by Lawyer and Social Activist Amit Sahni against restrictions on Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch which has been closed for a month December 2019.

Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni, who had approached the high court with a plea seking directions to the police to ensure smooth traffic flow on Kalindi Kunj – Shaheen Bagh stretch, has already filed an appeal in the apex court against the January 14 order of the high court.
Sahni had filed a Special Leave Petition in apex court seekign supervision of the situation in Shaheen Bagh, where several women are sitting on protest, by a retired Supreme Court Judge or a Sitting Judge of the Delhi HIgh Court in order to circumvent any violence.

Lawyer-activist Amit Sahni has filed a special leave petition in the apex court, seeking supervision of the situation in Shaheen Bagh, where several women are sitting on an indefinite protest, by a retired Supreme Court judge or a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court in order to circumvent any viol…

The petition was filed by a Delhi-based advocate and activist, Amit Sahni. In his petition, Sahni claimed that the earlier directive by the High Court in the matter did not succeed in delivering the relief sought by the petitioner since the HC had simply directed the Delhi Police to look into the grievances of the people without issuing any definitive orders to alleviate the problem.

According to a report in PTI, lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni has filed a special leave petition in the apex court seeking supervision of the situation in Shaheen Bagh by a retired Supreme Court judge or a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court in order to avoid any violence. The lawyer has also said that protests in Shaheen Bagh have inspired similar demonstrations in other cities and to allow it to continue would set the wrong precedent.

Earlier, advocate and social activist Amit Sahni had challenged a Delhi High Court’s verdict refusing to issue directions for forthwith removal of the protesters.
Sahni — who challenged the January 14 order of the high court — demanded that the situation be supervised by a retired Supreme Court judge or a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court in order to pre-empt any violence.

The plea in the Supreme Court, filed by advocate Amit Sahni, urged the SC to direct the monitoring of the situation by a retired judge of SC or sitting judge of Delhi HC “in order to avoid any further deterioration of the situation and to circumvent any violence”, and issue any other directions as may be required.

Lawyer-activist Amit Sahni has filed a special leave petition in the apex court seeking supervision of the situation in Shaheen Bagh, where several women are sitting on an indefinite protest, by a retired Supreme Court judge or a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court in order to circumvent any violence.

Lawyer-activist Amit Sahni in his plea said that protests in Shaheen Bagh has inspired similar demonstrations in other cities and to allow it to continue would set a wrong precedent.

The Petition was filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni submitting that “The protestors hae been usign Loudspeakers, as per reports, thus ‘unrestricted holding of public meetings’, processions, demonstrations etc has caused obstruction to traffic and disturbance of public tranquillity.”

Lawyer and activist, Amit Sahni has moved the Supreme Court on the issue of closure of the Kalindi Kunj road in Delhi on account of the ongoing protest at Shaheen Bagh against the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019.

A petition was filed in the Supreme Court by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking directions to the police to open Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, which has been closed since December 15 due to ongoing protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

The plea moved by a lawyer-activist, Amit Sahni, sought supervision of the situation in Shaheen Bagh where several women are sitting on an indefinite protest, by a retired Supreme Court judge or a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court to avoid any further deterioration in the situation and to circumvent any violence.

Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni approached the apex court after the Delhi High Court last week heard the case but did not order the removal of traffic restrictions. The lawyer said that the HC had said that no direction can be issued by it on how to handle an agitation or the place of protest. The court, however, had asked Delhi Police to look into the issue while also keeping law and order in mind.

A Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Delhi High Court by advocate Amit Sahni on the road closure issue due to ongoing protests. In his petition, he cited the hardships faced by the commuters in the national capital region due to the ongoing protest.

Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni, who had approached the high court with a plea seeking directions to the police to ensure smooth traffic flow on Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, has already filed an appeal in the apex court against the January 14 order of the high court.
Sahni has filed a special leave petition in the apex court seeking supervision of the situation in Shaheen Bagh, where several women are sitting on protest, by a retired Supreme Court judge or a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court in order to circumvent any violence.

Lawyer-activist Amit Sahni has filed a special leave petition in the apex court seeking supervision of the situation in Shaheen Bagh, where several women are sitting on an indefinite protest, by a retired Supreme Court judge or a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court in order to circumvent any violence.
Sahni in his plea said that protests in Shaheen Bagh has inspired similar demonstrations in other cities and to allow it to continue would set a wrong precedent. “No one can be permitted to occupy a public road for any reason whatsoever under pretext of peaceful protest and that

The plea moved by a lawyer-activist, Amit Sahni, sought supervision of the situation in Shaheen Bagh where several women are sitting on an indefinite protest, by a retired Supreme Court judge or a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court to avoid any further deterioration in the situation and to circumvent any violence.

Lawyer and activist Amit Sahni, in his special leave petition in the SC, has mentioned that “allowing the protests to continue would set a wrong precedent”.

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court by Lawyer and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking directions to the police to ensure smooth traffic flow on Delhi’s Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch which is closed for over a month due to anti Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests.

The Supreme Court of India tomorrow (January 21, 2020) is set to hear a petition seeking the reopening of Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh in the interest of ease of conveyance for the general public. Advocate and activist Amit Sahni had moved the Supreme Court earlier on the issue of closure of the Road since December 2019.

The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by advocate Amit Sahni, who had approached the high court seeking directions to the Delhi police to ensure smooth traffic flow on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, blocked by anti-CAA protesters since December 15.

‘We understand there is a problem and we have to see how to resolve it,’ SC said while hearing a petition filed by Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni

The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by advocate Amit Sahni, who had approached the high court seeking directions to the Delhi Police to ensure smooth traffic flow on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, which was blocked by anti-CAA protesters on December 15.

The petition filed by advocate Amit Sahni has sought directions to the police to take action to ensure smooth traffic movement on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, which has been closed for over a month due to anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests, making the public at large suffer.

Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, KM Joseph said they will the hear the pleas after the Delhi polls due on Saturday. The plea has been filed by advocate and activist Amit Sahni

The Supreme Court was hearing the pleas on the 10th of February, 2020 that sought the removal of anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 protestors from Shaheen Bagh. The batch of petitions against the Shaheen Bagh after the Apex Court had deferred it’s judgement in the view Delhi Elections.
Advocate Amit Sahni argued that the right to protest goes to some extent only.

The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by advocate Amit Sahni, who had approached the high court seeking directions to the Delhi police to ensure smooth traffic flow on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, blocked by anti-CAA protesters since December 15.

The Supreme Court on Friday said it understands the nature of the problem of the road blockade caused by the Anti-CAA protesters in Shaheen Bagh. SC said that it will hear all the plea on 10 February, Monday after the Delhi elections get over on Saturday. Advocate Amit Sahni has filed a petition in the SC demanding that the court direct Delhi Police to monitor the activities of politicians, organizers and supporters present there. In particular, the speeches and activities being held there should be monitored whether the law and order situation is deteriorating through them so that the traitorous organizations cannot take advantage of this serious situation.

The petition was filed by lawyer Amit Sahni praying the court direct the Delhi Police to take necessary action to to ensure smooth traffic movement on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch. Sahni’s petition says, “The respondents (Delhi Police) cannot be permitted to behave like mute spectators, particularly in a situation presently faced by persons living in the vicinity of Kalindi Kunj.”

Earlier, advocate Amit Sahni had challenged a Delhi High Court’s verdict refusing to issue directions for forthwith removal of the protesters.
Sahni – who challenged the January 14 order of the high court – demanded that the situation be supervised by a retired Supreme Court judge or a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court in order to pre-empt any violence.

The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by advocate Amit Sahni, who had approached the high court seeking directions to the Delhi police to ensure smooth traffic flow on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, blocked by anti-CAA protesters since December 15.

Advocate Amit Sahni has filed a petition in the SC demanding that the court direct Delhi Police to monitor the activities of politicians, organizers and supporters present there. In particular, the speeches and activities being held there should be monitored whether the law and order situation is deteriorating through them so that the traitorous organizations cannot take advantage of this serious situation.

Supreme Court has said that it will hear a PIL seeking removal of anti-CAA protesters from Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh on Monday, two days after Delhi Assembly elections.
When the petition filed by Advocate Amit Sahni came up for hearing today, a bench of justices comprising Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph said that they will hear the matter on Monday next week.

Advocate Amit Sahni, who has filed an appeal in the apex court against the January 14 order of the high court directing the police to deal with the situation keeping in mind law and order, said that due to the protests since December 15 last year traffic flow on Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch has been badly affected.

Advocate Amit Sahni, who has filed an appeal in the apex court against the January 14 order of the Delhi High Court directing the police to deal with the situation keeping in mind law and order, said that due to the protests since December 15 last year traffic flow on Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch has been badly affected.

The petition, filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni, also sought appropriate directions to the Centre and others for removal of protesters from Shaheen Bagh near Kalindi Kunj.

The PIL, filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni , also sought appropriate directions to the Centre and others for removal of protesters from Shaheen Bagh near Kalindi Kunj. Sudhi had, on Monday, mentioned the matter before a three-judge Bench headed by CJI SA Bobde, who asked him to approach the registry for urgent listing of the matter.

The petition filed by advocate Amit Sahni has sought directions to the police to take action to ensure smooth traffic movement on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, which has been closed for over a month due to anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests, making the public at large suffer.

The development comes after advocate Amit Sahni filed a plea in the apex court directing the police to deal with the situation keeping in mind law and order. The petitioner had also said that due to the protests since December 15 last year, traffic flow on Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch has been severely affected.

Advocate Amit Sahni, who filed an appeal in the SC against the January 14 order of the high court directing the police to deal with the situation keeping in mind law and order, had said due to the protests, traffic flow on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch was badly affected.

One, filed by lawyer and activist Amit Sahni demands that the situation should be monitored by a retired SC or Delhi HC judge to “circumvent any violence”.

The PIL, filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni through their lawyer Shashank Deo Sudhi earlier last week, sought appropriate directions to the Centre and others for removal of protesters from Shaheen Bagh near Kalindi Kunj.

The bench, which also comprises justice KM Joseph, said it did not want to take a call on the two petitions that had reached them without hearing the government first. The petitions were filed by lawyer Amit Sahni and Delhi BJP leader Nand Kishore Garg.
But it also signalled that it could not approve a protest that would go on indefinitely at the same location. The bench said the protests could continue but it should be done in an area “designated for protests”.
“You cannot block a public road indefinitely. If everybody starts protesting everywhere, then what will happen,” the bench led by Justice Kaul said.

The Supreme Court is hearing the pleas filed by Advocate Amit Sahni that sought the removal of anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 protestors from Shaheen Bagh. The batch of petitions against the Shaheen Bagh after the Apex Court had deferred it’s judgement in the view of the February 8th 20…

The apex court while hearing a petition filed by Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni said it would not pass any direction against the Shaheen Bagh protest against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) without hearing other side

Activist and Lawyer Amit Sahni had filed the petition saying daily life had been disturbed due to the protests. The plea stated, “The respondents (Delhi police) cannot be permitted to behave like mute spectators particularly in a situation presently faced by persons living in the vicinity of Kalindi Kunj”.

Hearing the petition filed by Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni, a bench of Justice KM Joseph and Justice SK Kaul, however, orally observed that the “protest can go on, but it should be done in an area designated for protests”.

The petition related to the road blockage at Shaheen Bagh was filed by advocate and activist Amit Sahni who alleged that protests in the area have disrupted daily life.

Advocate Amit Sahni had moved the apex court seeking directions to the authorities to remove the blockade on the Shaheen Bagh stretch, a main road connecting Kalindi Kunj and Noida.

At the outset, advocate Amit Sahni, one of the petitioners in the case, said that the question in this matter is about the extent of right to protest.

The PIL, filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni earlier last week, sought appropriate directions to the Centre and others for removal of protesters from Shaheen Bagh near Kalindi Kunj.

The top court said that it did not want to “influence” the Delhi assembly elections by hearing the matter on Friday. The top court was hearing the petition filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni

He has intervention in the appeal filed by advocate Amit Sahni, who had earlier moved the Delhi High Court seeking directions to the Delhi Police to ensure smooth traffic flow on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, which was blocked by anti-CAA protesters since December 15 last year. While dealing with Sahni’s plea, the high court had asked the local authorities to deal with the situation keeping in mind law and order. The apex court had on February 10 said the anti-CAA protestors, who are holding agitation at Shaheen Bagh, cannot block public road and create inconvenience for others.

A PIL filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni earlier last week, sought appropriate directions to the Centre and others for removal of protesters from Shaheen Bagh near Kalindi Kunj

The Supreme Court on Monday heard pleas filed by Lawyer and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking removal of anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protesters from Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh area.

“If you can wait for 50 days, you can wait for one more week,” the court said before posting the matter for February 17.
The observation by the top court came in two petitions – one by advocate Amit Sahni and another by BJP leader Nand Kishore Garg.

The Supreme Court has issued notices to the Delhi Police on a plea to clear the protesters from Shaheen Bagh. The matter will be heard next on February 17.

Meanwhile, the apex court has already listed for hearing on February 7 a similar plea filed by lawyer and activist Amit Sahni.

“You cannot block the public roads. There cannot be an indefinite period of protest in such an area. If you want to protest, it has to be in an area identified for protest,” the bench said.
At the outset, advocate Amit Sahni, one of the petitioners in the case, said that the question in this matter is about the extent of the right to protest.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to Central government, Delhi govt and Police for on the plea filed by Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni for seeking removal of protesters, who have been protesting the amended citizenship law from Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh.

The first petition has been filed by lawyer and activist, Amit Sahni. Sahni has prayed for certain specific directions for the removal of the blockage at the protest site. Sahni also seeks for the situation to be monitored or supervised by a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a retired judge of the Delhi High Court in order “to circumvent any violence”.

New Delhi: Advocate and activist Amit Sahni talks to the media outside the Supreme Court after a hearing on the plea seeking removal of protesters from the Shaheen Bagh area, in New Delhi.

In his plea, advocate Amit Sahni wondered if protesters have “unrestricted rights under Article 19 of the Constitution to protest on a busy road” while causing trouble to other commuters.

Activist Amit Sahni had filed the petition saying daily life had been disturbed due to the protests. The plea stated, “The respondents (Delhi police) cannot be permitted to behave like mute spectators particularly in a situation presently faced by persons living in the vicinity of Kalindi Kunj”.

The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by advocate Amit Sahni, who had approached the high court seeking directions to the Delhi Police to ensure smooth traffic flow on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, which remains blocked by anti-CAA protesters since December 15.

The pleas, filed by Advocate Amit Sahni and BJP leader Nand Kishore Garg, were deferred till February 10 in view of the Delhi Assembly elections on February 8. The pleas cite difficulties to local residents, businesses and commuters due to the closure of Road No 13A between Mathura Road and Kalindi Kunj by police due to the sit-in protest at Shaheen Bagh, which has been going on for over 50 days now.

The Supreme Court will hear the pleas seeking removal of anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protestors from Shaheen Bagh today. Advocate Amit Sahni, who has filed an appeal in the apex court against the January 14 order of the high court directing removal of road blockage.

“You cannot block the public roads. There cannot be indefinite period of protest in such an area. If you want to protest, it has to be in an area identified for protest,” the bench said
At the outset, Advocate Amit Sahni, one of the Petitioners in the case, said that the question in this matter is about the extent of right to protest.

A bench comprising justice SK Kaul and KM Joseph said that there is a law and people have grievances against it. Advocate Amit Sahni, one of the petitioners in the case, said that the question in this matter is about the extent of right to protest.

The Top Court, However, Refused To Pass A Direction To Clear The Road, Saying ‘it Can’t Be Done Ex-parte’ At the outset, advocate Amit Sahni, one of the petitioners in the case, said that the question in this matter is about the extent of right to protest.

Advocate Amit Sahni, who has filed an appeal in the apex court against the January 14 order of the high court directing the police to deal with the situation keeping in mind law and order, said that due to the protests since December 15 last year traffic flow on Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch has been badly affected.

Advocate Amit Sahni, who has filed an appeal in the SC against the January 14 order of the high court directing the police to deal with the situation keeping in mind law and order, had said due to the protests since December 15 last year traffic flow on Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch has been badly affected.
Earlier, Sahni had approached the high court seeking directions to the Delhi Police to ensure smooth traffic flow on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch which has been blocked since December 15 last year due to protest at Shaheen Bagh.

Advocate Amit Sahni had moved the apex court to seek directions to the authorities to remove the blockade at Shaheen Bagh, through which the main road connecting Kalindi Kunj and Noida passes.

The petition was filed by advocate and activist Amit Sahni who alleged that protests within the Shaheen Bagh space have disrupted day by day life.

Amit Sahni, the advocate who filed an appeal in the SC against the January 14 order of the high court directing the police to deal with the situation keeping in mind law and order, had said due to the protests since December 15 last year traffic flow on Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch has been badly hit.

The Supreme Court on Monday will hear petitions seeking removal of anti-Citizenship Act protesters from Shaheen Bagh in Delhi. The pleas, filed by Advocate Amit Sahni and BJP leader Nand Kishore Garg, were deferred till February 10 in view of the Delhi Assembly elections on February 8.

At the outset, advocate Amit Sahni, one of the petitioners in the case, said that the question in this matter is about the extent of the right to protest. “Is there anybody present from the government’s side. We will issue notice,” the bench said.

Advocate Amit Sahni had moved the apex court seeking directions to the authorities to remove the blockade on the Shaheen Bagh stretch, a main road connecting Kalindi Kunj and Noida.

Advocate-activist Amit Sahni moved a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking removal of the protesters from the Delhi-Noida stretch of the road, as it was blocking traffic. Refusing to pass any direction, the Delhi High Court directed the police to act “in accordance with law, rules and government policies applicable to the facts of the present case”. It asked the police to go as per the “ground reality” and their “wisdom”. The petition then moved the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court-appointed interlocutors filed their report in a sealed cover in the apex court on Monday following their talks with protestors at Shaheen Bagh, the epicentre of agitation against the Citizenship Amendment Act CAA for over two months.
The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by advocate Amit Sahni, who had approached the Delhi High Court seeking directions to Delhi Police to ensure smooth traffic flow on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, which was blocked by anti-CAA protesters on December 15 last year. While dealing with Sahni’s plea, the high court had asked local authorities to deal with the situation keeping in mind law and order.

Sanjay Hegde and Sadhana Ramachandran who were appointed as “interlocutors” had submitted their report in a sealed cover on Monday in the SC.
Two petitions were filed in the apex court, seeking clearance of Shaheen Bagh area and the Kalindi Kunj Road. The first petition had been filed by lawyer and activist, Amit Sahni while the other one had been filed by BJP leader Nand Kishore Garg.

The Supreme Court on Monday decided to take up a matter related to removal of protesters from Shaheen Bagh here, on Wednesday in order to enable it to go through a report submitted by the interocutors.
Petitioner-advocate Amit Sahni and BJP national executive member Nand Kishore Garg sought a direction to Delhi police to remove the squatters at Shaheen Bagh here, claiming it has caused severe hardships to lakhs of commuters between Delhi and Noida.

SC also pulled up Delhi police for not being able to handle violence in northeast Delhi.
Two petitions have been filed on this matter. Advocate and activist Amit Sahni had filed a plea in the SC against Shaheen Bagh protesters, claiming that the sit-in disrupted daily life in the area.

“No one can be permitted to occupy a public road for any reason whatsoever and that too for an indefinite period to make others suffer for this,” the plea contended.

Aazad, Habibullah and Naqvi are intervenors in the case filed before the SC by BJP’s Nand Kishore Garg and advocate, Amit Sahni, who have sought lifting of road blockade at Shaheen Bagh.

Sahni stated that the road closure is causing great inconvenience to the public. The road closure and the consequent traffic diversion have led to the wastage of precious time, energy and fuel besides overburdening the Delhi-Noida Direct (DND) flyway, Akshardham and Ashram routes.

Sahni has argued that while people have the right to protest, protestors cannot be allowed to occupy public roads indefinitely.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that it cannot say repeatedly that protesters at Shaheen Bagh in Delhi have the right to protest but they cannot block roads. The top court was hearing two please – one by Lawyer and Petitioner Amit Sahni and another by BJP leader Nand Kishore Garg – seeking removal of protestors from Shaheen Bagh, the epicentre of agitattion against CAA for over two months.

A petition has been filed by Advocate Amit Sahni “seeking directions to withdraw the closure of Shaheen Bagh stretch” and give Delhi Police the required assistance in addressing the issue.The blocked road affects more than 100,000 vehicles per day, including 1,800 trucks which are being diverted to other border points.

A public interest litigation (PIL) in the matter, filed by Advocate and Lawyer Amit Sahni through their lawyer Shashank Deo Sudhi, sought appropriate directions to the Centre and others concerned for removal of protestors from Shaheen Bagh near Kalindi Kunj.

A public interest litigation (PIL) in the matter, filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni, sought appropriate directions to the Centre and others concerned for removal of protestors from Shaheen Bagh near Kalindi Kunj.

A public interest litigation (PIL) in the matter, filed by Lawyer & Activist Amit Sahni, sought appropriate directions to the Centre and others concerned for removal of protestors from Shaheen Bagh near Kalindi Kunj.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today adjourned the hearing on Shaheen Bagh protest and scheduled the hearing on the matter for March 23 amidst the indefinite agitations in the national capital.
The matter was posted for next month while the Amit Sahni filed a petition arguing protestors at Shaheen Bagh are causing inconvenience on account of the blockage of the Kalindi Kunj-NOIDA road.

A plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni sought direction to the Centre for laying down guidelines on protests that obstruct public space.

The petition filed by a lawyer, Amit Sahni argues that public inconvenience is being caused by the protest at Shaheen Bagh on account of the blockage of the Kalindi Kunj-NOIDA road.

Another petition filed by Adv. Amit Sahni “seeking directions to withdraw the closure of Shaheen Bagh stretch” and give Delhi Police the required assistance in addressing the issue. On 14 January, 2020 the Delhi High Court said that this was a traffic matter and need to be dealt by the police and also assured that there would be no force used to evict protesters from Shaheen Bagh and would use persuasion.

A petition was filed in the Delhi High Court by social activist-advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions to the Delhi Police chief and area DCPs to withdraw the closure of the stretch and the Okhla underpass.

The Delhi police on Tuesday morning cleared the Shaheen Bagh sit-in protest which was going on for the last 101 days against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
Advocate-activist Amit Sahni moved a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking removal of the protesters from the Delhi-Noida stretch of the road, as it was blocking traffic. Refusing to pass any direction, the Delhi High Court directed the police to act “in accordance with law, rules and government policies applicable to the facts of the present case”. It asked the police to go as per the “ground reality” and their “wisdom”. The petition then moved the Supreme Court.

COVID19: Removal Of Shaheen Bagh Protesters Imperative To Curb Spread Of Disease, Says Plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni.

The Delhi High Court on Wednnesday granted interim bail to a Haryana MLA, sentenced to 10-year imprisonment along with former chief minister Om Prakash Chautala and others in the JBT teachers recruitment scam, on medical ground.
Badshami’s counsel Amit Sahni submitted that his client is 62-years-old and had been operated of sinusitis in June last year but the problem recurred and without surgery it could not be cured.

The Delhi High Court today granted interim bail to a Haryana MLA, sentenced to 10-year imprisonment along with former chief minister Om Prakash Chautala and others in the JBT teachers recruitment scam, on medical ground. Badshami’s counsel Amit Sahni submitted that his client is 62 years old and had been operated of sinusitis in June last year but the problem recurred and without surgery it could not be cured.

Badshami’s Counsel Amit Sahni submitted that his 62 years old client had been operated upon for sinussitis in june last year but the problem reoccured.

Haryana INLD MLA Sher Singh Badshami, sentenced to ten years jail term along with state’s former Chief Minister O P Chautala in the teacher recruitment scam, was today allowed by the Delhi High Court to travel to his hometown.
Badshami had in his plea filed by advocate Amit Sahni told the court that after the surgical intervention, he was kept under intensive care and was discharged on July 15.

Sahni said “Badshami has been advised to stay in a clean, hygienic and tension-free atmosphere to avoid any further infection and other complications and no place could be better than a person’s own home specially in case of medical exigencies.”

Delhi HC allows JBT scam convict MLA to visit native place. Badshami had in his plea filed by advocate Amit Sahni told the court that after the surgical intervention, he was kept under intensive care and was discharged on July 15.
Sahni said “Badshami has been advised to stay in a clean, hygienic and tension-free atmosphere to avoid any further infection and other complications and no place could be better than a person’s own home specially in case of medical exigencies.”

A 29-year-old woman, who lodged a rape case against a senior IAS officer of Uttarakhand cadre, was Thursday granted transit bail for two weeks by a Delhi court to appear in a Dehradun court in a counter case lodged against her by the officer for allegedly insulting him. The lady was represented by Lawyer Amit Sahni

A 29-year-old woman, who lodged a rape case against a senior IAS officer of Uttarakhand cadre, was today granted transit bail for two weeks by a Delhi court to appear in a Dehradun court in a counter case lodged against her by the Officer. The lady was represented by Advocate Amit Sahni

The Court allowed Divorce Petition filed by Peeyush Gakhar, former judge, Haryana through his Lawyer Amit Sahni

A Delhi court has granted divorce to a former civil judge of Haryana from his wife, who is a metropolitan magistrate in a south Delhi court, on grounds of cruelty.
The court was hearing a divorce case filed by Gakhar, through his counsel Amit Sahni. The application was moved by Gakhar in 2009 when he was posted as civil judge in Haryana and Monacha was a civil judge in Tis Hazari court in Delhi.

A Delhi magistrate, who earlier this year got divorced from her husband, an ex-Haryana civil judge.
The district judge’s order came after Gakhar’s counsel Amit Sahni said he needed time to file a reply against the allegation made by the magistrate against the case being heard by the ADJ.

Ruling that non-disclosure of her ambition to take up the job of a judge in Delhi after resigning from the Haryana judiciary was “concealment of a material fact,” a Delhi court annulled a marriage between a sitting Delhi judicial officer and her husband,a former Haryana judge who lost his job after complaint made by her. The two had come close during their training at the judicial academy after clearing the judgeship exam in 2006. A month after they got engaged with the consent of their families,but they had a break-up. But in January 2009 they married in an Arya Samaj temple in Delhi without informing their families,according to the petition filed in 2009 through advocate Amit Sahni.

The two had come close during their training at the judicial academy after clearing the judgeship exam in 2006. A month after they got engaged with the consent of their families, but they had a break-up. But in January 2009 they married in an Arya Samaj temple in Delhi without informing their families, according to the petition filed in 2009 through advocate Amit Sahni.

A former judge from Harayana has approached a city court for direction to police to register an FIR against his estranged wife, who is a magistrate here, for allegedly concealing the fact of her marriage while joining the Delhi Judicial Services in January last year.
Appearing for the complainant, counsel Amit Sahni said the police had failed to act on his client`s complaint as his wife is a metropolitan magistrate here.
The counsel submitted she was married to his client when she got selected for Delhi Judicial Services in January last year but lied before the High Court and sought extension of time to join the new job.

Read the interview of the Social Activist & Lawyer AMIT SAHNI

Q. You have filed many petitions to uphold the rights of prisoners, both undertrials and convicts. Could you talk about some of these pleas? We can start with your plea in Delhi HC seeking that the Sentence Review Board should convene more…

Amit Sahni attends Manjinder Singh Sirsa’s son Tarvinder Singh’s Dastar Bandi ceremony.

PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni that levying surcharge is not only illegal and discriminatory but it also promotes circulation of black money in cash.

Delhi HC asked Centre and RBI to file replies on a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni for framing of guidelines to prevent charging of surcharge on transactions through credit/debit cards

The high court bench in August had directed the Ministry of Finance and RBI to take a decision on the issue raised in the PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni.

Delhi High Court seeks Centre, RBI response on surcharge over card payment for petrol – Advocate Amit Sahni, through his PIL, stated that the levy of such a surcharge was discriminatory in nature and promoted circulation of black money.

The Delhi high court on Tuesday sought Centre and Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) response on a plea alleging “illegal” surcharge levied on transactions done through debit and credit cards. The PIL is filed by Advocate Amit Sahni.

A division bench of Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal sought responses from the Finance Minister and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) by January 4, 2017. In August, the bench had asked the Centre and the RBI to consider the plea of lawyer Amit Sahni on the same issue and pass orders accordingly.

Delhi High Court today asked the government to decide on the issue of surcharges levied on transactions done through debit and credit cards across the country. The lawyer Amit Sahni had moved the court seeking direction to frame guidelines in order to prevent “unlawful” and “discriminatory” surcharges being levied on debit and credit card transactions.

Delhi High Court today asked the government to decide on the issue of surcharges levied on transactions done through debit and credit cards. Advocate Amit Sahni had filed a PIL seeking directions to waive surchage on Card Transactions.

Decide on surcharges on card transactions: HC asks govt while hearing a writ petition preferred by Advocate Amit Sahni.

Hearing a public interest litigation filed by Advocate Amit Sahni claiming that the surcharge levied on credit and debit card transactions was “illegal” and “discriminatory”, Delhi High Court has sought the view of Ministry of Finance and Reserve Bank of India.

The Delhi High Court in its recent order asked the government to decide on the issue of surcharge raised in a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni.

PIL filed by Amit Sahni, a Delhi based Lawyer in Delhi High Court against surcharge levied on debit and credit card transactions.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Union government and the RBI to file replies on a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni for framing of guidelines to prevent charging of surcharge on transactions through credit/debit cards.

Advocate Amit Sahni, in his PIL filed in Delhi High Court, had said the unlawful, unequal and arbitrary treatment is visible on the payment of petrol charges through credit and debit cards.

The Delhi High Court today sought response of the Centre and RBI on a PIL filed by a Lawyer Amit Sahni contending that the surcharge levied on credit and debit card transactions was “illegal” and “discriminatory”.

Advocate Amit Sahni, in his PIL, had said the “unlawful, unequal and arbitrary treatment is visible on the payment of petrol charges through credit and debit cards”.

A PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni stated that the levy of such a surcharge is discriminatory in nature and promotes the circulation of black money.

Decisions are taken by RBI in exercise of its administrative powers and in public interest, says RBI in response to PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni.

Public interest litigation (PIL) cannot be used as a “weapon to challenge financial or economic decisions”, the RBI has told the Delhi High Court opposing a plea against the surcharge on credit and debit card transactions. The plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni has alleged that the surcharge levied by the banks and the financial institutions on credit and debit card transactions was “illegal” and “discriminatory”.

The response of the federal bank came on the PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni who alleged that though Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s demonetisation move was beneficial, the decision to levy surcharge on credit and debit card transactions was “highly unfortunate”.

The response of the federal bank came on the PIL filed by advocate Amit Sahni who alleged that though Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s demonetisation move was beneficial, the decision to levy surcharge on credit and debit card transactions was “highly unfortunate”.

The plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni has alleged that the surcharge levied by the banks and the financial institutions on credit and debit card transactions was illegal and discriminatory.

A PIL has been filed in the Delhi High Court by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking directions to the state government and the director general (DG) of Tihar Jail to appoint one law officer each in the 16 jails of the national capital in a time-bound manner.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the Delhi Government to file a response on a plea seeking appointment of law officers in all jails in the national capital. The court was hearing a public interest litigation moved by advocate Amit Sahni who has sought directions to Delhi Government to ensure compliance of Section 6 of the Delhi Prison Act, 2000, by appointing one law officer for every jail in Delhi.

The PIL filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni contended that Delhi’s jails are overcrowded, and a law officer for every prison would result in better administration.

A PIL has been filed in the Delhi High Court seeking directions to the Delhi government and DG Tihar to ensure compliance of Section 6 of Delhi Prison Act, 2000, by appointing one law officer for every jail in the national capital. Advocate Amit Sahni, through this petition, seeks Law Officers are required to be appointed in all jails under the respondents, as per the mandate of Section 6 of Delhi Prison Act, 2000.

The petition, filed by advocate Amit Sahni, alleged that despite the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 mandating that there shall be a law officer in every prison, at present there is only one law officer for all 16 jails in the state who is stationed at the prison headquarters at Tihar here.

A PIL has been filed in the Delhi High Court by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions to the state government and the director general (DG) of Tihar Jail to appoint one law officer each in the 16 jails of the national capital in a time-bound manner.
The plea is listed

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice to the city government and the Director General (DG) of Tihar Jail on a petition seeking directions to appoint one law officer each in 16 jails of the Capital. The petition, filed by advocate Amit Sahni, alleged that despite the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 mandating that there shall be a law officer in every prison, at present, there is only one law officer for all 16 jails of the State who is stationed at prison headquarters at Tihar here.

As per a plea by advocate Amit Sahni, there are 16 jails in Delhi — nine at Tihar prison complex, one at Rohini prison complex and six at Mandoli prison complex.

Delhi government told the bench that the Director General of Prisons has been consulted and the process of appointment of law officers will be set in motion soon. The response of the Government conveyed in the PIL filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking complaince of provisions of Delhi Prisons Act, 2000.

Delhi high court has advised the state government to appoint law officers on a contractual basis in the 16 jails of the capital for their better administration. Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni, through this petition, seeks Law Officers are required to be appointed in all jails under the respondents, as per the mandate of Section 6 of Delhi Prison Act, 2000.

The petition, filed by advocate Amit Sahni, alleged that despite the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 mandating that there shall be a law officer in every prison, at present there is only one law officer for all 16 jails in the state who is stationed at the prison headquarters at Tihar here.

The Delhi High Court on Friday disposed of a petition filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking the appointment of Law Officers for every jail in Delhi after the Delhi Government submitted that the process for the creation of such post in under progress.

Appearing for the Delhi government, Standing Counsel said that the Director-General of Prisons has been consulted and the process of appointment of law officers will be set in motion. The petition, filed by advocate Amit Sahni, alleged that despite the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 mandating that there shall be a law officer in every prison, at present there is only one law officer for all 16 jails in the state who is stationed at the prison headquarters at Tihar here.

The petition, filed by advocate Amit Sahni, alleged that despite the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 mandating that there shall be a law officer in every prison, at present there is only one law officer for all 16 jails in the state who is stationed at the prison headquarters at Tihar here.

The Delhi High Court suggested on Thursday appointment of law officers on contractual basis. The petition, filed by advocate Amit Sahni, had alleged that despite the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000, mandating that there shall be a law officer in every prison, at present there is only one law officer for the 16 jails in the national capital who is stationed at the prison headquarters at Tihar here.

The petition, filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahni, alleged that despite the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 mandating that there shall be a law officer in every prison, at present there is only one law officer for all 16 jails in the state who is stationed at the prison headquarters at Tihar here.

A law officer supervises all legal matters, drafts and files reply to the courts, follow up on cases and appear in courts along with the government counsel. The law officer also co-ordinates with various divisions within the jail for complying with directions of the courts and maintenance of monthly statistics of court cases among others.
A bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar said issue raised in the plea by lawyer and social activist Amit Sahni was a “good” one and the Delhi government should look into the matter.
The court was hearing the plea by Sahni which had contended that there should be at least one law officer for each of the 16 jails.

Petitioner Amit Sahni, through this petition, seeks Law Officers are required to be appointed in all jails under the respondents, as per the mandate of Section 6 of Delhi Prison Act, 2000.
According to the petitioner, law officers will supervise all legal matters, draft and file replies/responses, follow up court matters, report day to day outcome of court cases, appear in court along with government counsels, coordinate with the branches of department for compliance of directions from courts, maintain monthly statistics of court cases, and prepare for special courts for the petty offenders.

A PIL has been filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni in the Delhi High Court seeking proper implementation of the section 6 of Delhi Prison Act, 2000, thereby making it compulsory for the Delhi Government to appoint a law officer in each Jail.

The court was hearing a public interest litigation moved by advocate Amit Sahni who has sought directions to Delhi Government to ensure compliance of Section 6 of the Delhi Prison Act, 2000, by appointing one law officer for every jail in Delhi.

Advocate Amit Sahni filed PIL in Delhi High Court seeking quashing of a standing order by which an undertrial inmate could meet his lawyer only once a week. Directions are sought to provide better facilities to lawyers, who visits jail for the purpose of Legal Interview.

The Delhi High Court while hearing PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni asked AAP government to consider giving facilities to lawyers to apply on-line with prison authorities for prior nod to have legal interviews with their jailed clients. “Issue notice to Delhi government and others

An order restricting lawyers from meeting their under-trial clients in the Tihar Jail here to once a week has been challenged in the Delhi High Court, which has sought the response of the Director General (Prison) on the Petition filed by Advocate Amit Sahni.

New Delhi, Dec 18 (PTI) The AAP government today informed the Delhi High Court that they were amending prison manual to bring in basic uniformity in rules and regulations governing the administration of prisons and management of prisoners in Tihar Jail here. Advocate Amit Sahni filed PIL seeking better facilities for lawyers and for changing legal interview rules.

The AAP government today informed the Delhi High Court that they were amending prison manual to bring in basic uniformity in rules. The PIL was filed in the High Court by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni.

The AAP government informed Delhi High Court that they were amending prison manual to bring in basic uniformity in rules and regulations governing the administration of prisons and management of prisoners in Tihar Jail here. The Petition was filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni.

Aiming to provide an efficient work environment in lower courts, Delhi High Court while hearing a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, today sought the response of two district judges on a plea seeking installation of air conditioners (ACs) at the district courts under their jurisdiction.

Delhi High Court issued notice in a PIL filed by Lawyer Amit Sahni for seeking directions to install air conditioners in the two court complexes of Delhi

Advocate Amit Sahni, in the public interest writ petition moved in the High Court, said all district courts in Delhi, except Tis Hazari and Patiala House, were centrally air-conditioned, while it was essential to provide an efficient working environment in all court rooms, as this would speed up the pace of disposal of pending cases.

The Delhi High Court Jan 14 sought a response from the district judges of the Tis Hazari and Patiala House Courts on the the public interest litigation filed by advocate Amit Sahni, which said air conditioners have become a basic necessity for efficient working and have been installed in all government and private sector offices in the last decade.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice R.S. Endlaw, which had sought the response of District Judges on January 14, disposed of the public interest writ petition moved by lawyer Amit Sahni on the subject earlier this week with the directions for completion of the air conditioning work without fail.

Amit Sahni, a lawyer, had raised the issue relating to the need for installation of Air Conditioners (ACs) in the court rooms of Tis Hazari and Patiala House court complexes at New Delhi. The aforesaid courts are visited by thousands of litigants daily apart from the regular staff, lawyers and judicial officers working in the court. In reply to his Right to Information (RTI) application, he was informed that there were “no written guidelines” regarding installation of ACs. The reply added that the work in this regard was in progress. It is noteworthy that all the district courts in Delhi are centrally air-conditioned except for Tis Hazari and Patiala House. In the Tis Hazari court, while the ACs have been installed in almost all the offices of the clerical staff, however many of the court rooms continue to work without an AC.

Delhi HC issues notice in PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni for installation of ACs in Tis Hazari and Patiala House

Delhi High was informed by the district court that they will be installing air conditioners in every room which falls under their jurisdiction.

The public interest litigation has sought a direction to the city police to replace “archaic and difficult words and phrases of Persian and Urdu language” which often confuse people with simple words from Hindi and English.
Advocate Amit Sahni, who filed the PIL, says the Delhi Police more often than not use difficult words for recording statement of witnesses, submitting of challan, registration of FIRs and in courts documents, etc.

Delhi High Court today sought responses of the Centre and city police on a plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions to replace “archaic and difficult words and phrases of Persian and Urdu language” with simple Hindi or English words for day-to-day work at police.

Delhi High Court today sought responses of the Centre and city police on a plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions to replace “archaic and difficult words and phrases of Persian and Urdu language” with simple Hindi or English words for day-to-day work at police stations.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the central government and city police on a plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions to replace “archaic and difficult words and phrases” of Persian and Urdu language with simple Hindi or English words for

Police opposes PIl filed by Advocate Amit Sahni for seeking removal of archaic words used in police working.

PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni against usage of archaic persian-urdu words in police working

PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking removal of archaic words of persian & urdu from police proceedings

A plea was today filed in the Delhi High Court by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions for properly management of the official websites of district courts here and update information of daily orders, cause lists and Judges on leave.

A plea was on Wednesday filed in the Delhi High Court seeking directions for properly management of the offici

Delhi High Court today agreed to hear a plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions for proper management of official websites of district courts, including updated information of daily orders, cause-lists and Judges on leave.

A 29-year-old woman, who lodged a rape case against a senior IAS officer of Uttarakhand cadre, was Thursday granted transit bail for two weeks by a Delhi court to appear in a Dehradun court in a counter case lodged against her by the officer for allegedly insulting him.
The woman, through advocate Amit Sahni, moved a court here seeking transit bail for four weeks to approach the concerned court in Dehradun in the case lodged against her by Joshi.

A 29-year-old woman, who lodged a rape case against a senior IAS officer of Uttarakhand cadre, was today granted transit bail for two weeks by a Delhi court to appear in a Dehradun court in a counter case lodged against her by the officer.
The woman, through advocate Amit Sahni, moved a court here seeking transit bail for four weeks to approach the concerned court in Dehradun in the case lodged against her by Joshi.

A plea was today filed in the Delhi High Court for capping airfares across the country so that customers are not fleeced arbitrarily by airlines.
The PIL filed by advocate Amit Sahni has urged the court to direct the authorities to frame “guidelines so as to put a cap on airfares and prevent the private airlines from charging arbitrarily, irrationally and exorbitantly for air flights.”

The PIL has been filed in Delhi High Court by Advocate Amit Sahni urged the court to direct the authorities to frame “guidelines so as to put a cap on airfares and prevent the private airlines here from charging arbitrarily, irrationally and exorbitantly for air flights”. Earlier the Ministry of Civil Aviation responded to an RTI filed by advocate Amit Sahni saying that government does not control private airline fares.

A plea has been filed by a Lawyer Amit Sahni in the Delhi High Court for capping airfares across the country so that customers are not fleeced arbitrarily by airlines.

A plea was filed in the Delhi High Court for capping airfares across the country so that customers are not fleeced arbitrarily by airlines. The PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni urged the court to direct the authorities to frame “guidelines so as to put a cap on airfares and prevent the private airlines here from charging arbitrarily, irrationally and exorbitantly for air flights”.

The PIL filed by a Delhi based Lawyer Amit Sahni has urged the court to direct the authorities to frame “guidelines so as to put a cap on airfares and prevent the private airlines from charging arbitrarily, irrationally and exorbitantly for air flights”.

A plea has been filed in the Delhi High Court by Advocate Amit Sahni for capping airfares across the country so that customers are not fleeced arbitrarily by airlines.

The Plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni stated that the hike in prices are especially seen during the unfortunate times faced by people in the country such as ‘Jat Agitation’ in Haryana in February 2016 or floods in Chennai.

Advocate Amit Sahni submitted “Private airlines companies have fleeced people even in emergent situations and the government has stood as a mute spectator,” the plea has said, adding there was an “urgent need to regulate the upper limit of airfares so that private airlines cannot fleece their customers as per their own wish.” DGCA in its response ruled out the Capping of airfares in backdrop of passengers complaints of arbitrary tariff hikes.

The regulator’s response came in the backdrop of a notice issued to it by the court seeking its stand regarding the claims made in the plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni.

Aviation regulator DGCA has claimed in the Delhi High Court that the airlines do not charge their customers arbitrarily and exorbitantly at the time of agitations in any state of India. The submission was made by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) before a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in a Petition filed by Advocate Amit Sahni.

Denying allegations of charging airline passengers arbitrarily and exorbitantly at the time of agitations in any state of India, aviation regulator DGCA responded to a plea in the Delhi High Court.
The PIL filed through advocate Amit Sahni has urged the court to direct the authorities to frame “guidelines so as to put a cap on airfares and prevent the private airlines from charging arbitrarily, irrationally and exorbitantly for air flights.”

‘Airlines don’t charge passengers arbitrarily during agitations’, DGCA to High Court – The plea was made by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) before a bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal, which sought capping of airlines. The PIL filed through advocate Amit Sahni has urged the court to direct the authorities to frame “guidelines so as to put a cap on airfares and prevent the private airlines from charging arbitrarily, irrationally and exorbitantly for air flights.”

Regulation of Airfare charged by airlines: Delhi HC lists PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni for final hearing

Delhi High Court’s query came while hearing a PIL filed Advocate Amit Sahni seeking capping of air fares charged by the various airlines in the country.

Delhi HIgh Court Criticises practice of carriers levying exorbitant airfares in adverse situations while hearing the Petition filed by Advocate Amit Sahni.

PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni alleges mismanagement in collection of toll from vehicles and seks directions to smoothen the flow of traffic along Delhi borders.

The plea, filed by advocate-petitioner Amit Sahni, said there was total mismanagement in the collection of toll from commercial vehicles along the state borders, which was causing huge problem for other vehicles.

The Delhi High Court today asked the NHAI and the South Delhi Municipal Corporation to “take a view” on a plea seeking smooth flow of traffic along the National Capital Region’s borders, where toll collectors intercept commercial vehicles causing huge snarls. The PIL was filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions to manage the Traffic while collection of Toll at Delhi Borders.

The Delhi High Court while hearing a Petition filed by Advocate Amit Sahni asked the NHAI and the South Delhi Municipal Corporation to take a view on the plea seeking smooth flow of traffic along the National Capital Region’s borders, where toll collectors intercept commercial vehicles causing huge snarls.

Delhi HC asks NHAI, SDMC to consider plea for smooth flow of traffic along Delhi borders – The plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni stated that there was total mismanagement in the collection of toll from commercial vehicles along the state borders, which was causing huge problem for other vehicles.

A PIL is filed by Advocate Amit Sahni in Delhi High Court seeking steps to ensure smooth flow of traffic along state borders where toll collectors.

“As per the Act, there was no limit on the campaign expenditure for the candidates of political parties, while there was no such benefit for an Independent nominee,” the plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni claimed.

The Delhi High Court today sought the response of the Centre and the Election Commission (EC) on a plea seeking a direction to strike down a provision of law that allegedly distinguished between a poll candidate of a political party and an Independent candidate. Advocate Amit Sahni, who had filed the petition, claimed that according to section 77 (account of election expenses and maximum thereof) of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, there was no limit on the campaign expenditure for the candidates of political parties, while there was no such benefit for an Independent nominee.

The plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni contended that the home ministry had not replied to a representation requesting it to ensure that a uniform process is followed to scan the biometrics of a missing person who has lost track of his/her identity.

The Delhi High Court today sought the Centre’s response on a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking direction to utilise biometric and Aadhaar details of missing persons, including children, aged and mentally challenged, so that they can be re-united with their families.

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought the Centre’s response on a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking direction to utilise biometric and Aadhaar details of missing persons, including children, aged and mentally challenged, so that they can be re-united with their families.

The Delhi High Court today sought the Centre’s response on a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking direction to utilise biometric and Aadhaar details of missing persons, including children, aged and mentally challenged, so that they can be re-united with their families.

The Delhi High Court while hearing a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, asked the Centre to respond to a plea asking if missing children could be traced by using Aadhaar biometrics, why could the same system not be used to identify the dead.

If missing children can be traced by using Aadhaar biometrics, why cannot the same system be used to identify dead persons is a question raised in a plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni in Delhi High Court.

A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V K Rao asked the Centre and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to respond to the application filed by Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni.

If missing children can be traced by using Aadhaar biometrics, why cannot the same system be used to identify dead persons is a question raised in a plea moved in the Delhi High Court on Tuesday.

The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) told the Delhi high court on Tuesday that it was not legally and technologically feasible to use Aadhaar biometrics for forensic purposes like identification of dead persons. The reply came while hearing a plea filed by advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions on the use of Aadhaar biometrics in the identification of the dead bodies.

UIDAI cites technical, legal hurdles in using its biometric data to identify dead while responding to a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni.

Using the data for identification of bodies may not be technologically feasible, it tells HC in response to a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni.

The UIDAI told the Delhi High Court on Monday that it was technically not possible to match the fingerprints of an unidentified body with the biometrics of 120 crore people stored in its database. The plea was filed by Advocate Amit Sahni submitting that if missing persons can be traced by using biometrics stored in UIDAI portal while processing Aadhaar, then why unidentified dead bodies cant be traced in the same manner.

The UIDAI told a bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V K Rao that using Aadhaar biometrics to identify bodies would be contrary to the Aadhaar Act. However, petitioner and Advocate Amit Sahni told the court that Aadhaar was being used to trace and identify missing children and, therefore, it can be used to identify unidentified bodies as well.

The Delhi High Court, while hearing a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, asked the Centre to respond to a plea asking if missing children can be traced by using Aadhaar biometrics, then why cannot the same system be used to identify the dead. A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V K Rao upon hearing Petitioner and Advocate Mr. Sahni asked the Centre and the Unique Identification Authority of India.

The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) submitted before the Delhi High Court that using only biometric data for purposes of identification of dead bodies may not be technologically feasible. The court was hearing a plea filed by lawyer and social activist Amit Sahni.

Terming as “serious” sale of expired drugs as unexpired by erasing the original manufacturing and expiry dates and re-stamping them, the Delhi High Court Friday said the Centre ought to look into the matter. The PIL is filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni to curb sale of expired medicines sold by restamping as unexpired.

New Delhi, Nov 16 (PTI) Terming as “serious” sale of expired drugs as unexpired by erasing the original manufacturing and expiry dates and re-stamping them, the Delhi High Court Friday said the Centre ought to look into the matter. Advocate Amit Sahni, in his PIL, has claimed that the original manufacturing and expiry dates as well as the maximum retail price (MRP) are erased from expired medicines by the offenders and the drugs are re-stamped as unexpired to sell them.

In a public interest litigation petition filed in the Delhi High Court with the cause title, Amit Sahni vs. Union of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Anr., questions and challenges the serious issue of unlawful reselling and reuse of drugs/medicines by erasing original manufac…

New Delhi: Delhi high court on Friday sought the Centre’s stand on a PIL filed by Social Activist and Lawyer Amit Sahni that claimed rampant sale of expired drugs by chemists who erase the original.

Terming as “serious” sale of expired drugs as unexpired by erasing the original manufacturing and expiry dates and re-stamping them, the Delhi High Court issued notice in a PIL filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni.

The petition filed by advocate Amit Sahni contended that as per Environment Protection Act (biomedical waste management and handling rules) expired or discarded medicines are either to be sent back to the manufacturer or disposed of as per the prescribed rules. “Unfortunately in our country, some people for their vested interest sell expired medicines by putting new expiry date on them,” the plea said.

Terming as serious sale of expired drugs as unexpired by erasing the original manufacturing and expiry dates and re-stamping them, the Delhi High Court Friday said the Centre ought to look into the matter filed by Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni

HC issues notice to Centre in petition filed by Advocate Amit Sahni to curb sale of ‘expired drugs’

The plea filed by Activist and Lawyer Amit Sahni said, expired medicines sold as un-expired not only affect the health of the affected…

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the December 20 order allowing 10 Central agencies to snoop on people.The petition filed by advocate Amit Sahni said the order authorised blanket surveillance where every citizen was a suspected criminal.

The Supreme Court on Monday entertained PILs challenging the Centre’s December 20 notification authorising 10 Govt. Agencies. The petitioners – Amit Sahni, Mahua Moitra, Shreya Singhal and M L Sharma – alleged that the notification issued under Section 69 of the Information Technology Act was a tool for the government to snoop on the privacy of citizens and hence violated the right to privacy, which has been declared by the SC as part of the right to life.

Advocate Amit Sahni and Manohar Lal filed separate pleas seeking to quash the government’s December 20 notification that empowers 10 central probe and snoop agencies for computer interception and analysis.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is filed in the Supreme Court on Monday, seeking quashing of the December 20 order of the Ministry of Home Affairs allowing ten Central agencies to monitor any computer resource, reported ANI. The PIL has been filed by advocate Amit Sahni.

The Centre’s order had authorised 10 government agencies to monitor data and information stored in any computer. The petitioners include The Internet Freedom Foundation, ML Sharma, Amit Sahni, Mahua Moitra and Shreya Singhal.

Two advocates had filed petitions seeking to quash the December 20 notification, calling it undemocratic.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre on a plea challenging the government’s notification authorising 10 central agencies to intercept, monitor and decrypt any computer system. A batch of petitions filed by advocates M L Sharma, Amit Sahni, Shreya Singhal and others like TMC MLA Mahua Moitra challenged the validity of the notification contending it would allow the government to carry on snooping on citizens.

Advocate Amit Sahni claimed the notification is “unconstitutional”. Sahni, in his plea claimed the Dec. 20 notification was liable to be set aside according to the mandate of the right to privacy judgement delivered by a nine-judge Constitution bench of the top court. The order dated Dec. 20, 2018 is a blanket order and the same is against public at large, without any reasoning and the same is bad in law, therefore the same is liable to be set aside.

The Supreme Court on Friday posted after four weeks the hearing of a batch of petitions seeking quashing of the December 20 notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) allowing 10 central agencies to monitor and decrypt information stored on any computer for national security. A PIL filed by advocate Amit Sahni has sought a direction to the government to make public the safeguards to be adopted so as to ensure that the Right to Privacy of citizens is not affected as such, as per the mandate of this court.

Supreme Court gives Centre six weeks to reply to notice on PIL against ‘snooping’ The court was hearing a batch of petitions, including those filed by advocates Manohar Lal and Amit Sahni, challenging the government’s December 20 notification.

The Supreme Court on Monday entertained PILs challenging the Centre’s December 20 notication authorising 10 agencies, including the CBI, Enforcement Directorate, IB
and NIA, to intercept, monitor and decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received
or stored in any computer resource.
The petitioners — Amit Sahni, Mahua Moitra, Shreya Singhal and M L Sharma — alleged that
the notication, issued under Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, was a tool for
the government to snoop on the privacy of citizens and hence violated the right to privacy,
which has been declared by the SC as part of right to life.

Two public interest litigations (PIL) were filed before the Supreme Court on Monday challenging the constitutional validity of the Centres order empowering intelligence agencies and Delhi Police to snoop on all computers, seeking the quashing of the December 20 order. The petitions filed by advocates M.L. Sharma and Amit Sahni respectively, contend that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) order was “illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires to the law” and expressed apprehension that citizens may be penalised for expressing views opposing those of the government.

Advocate Amit Sahni Challenges MHA’s Surveillance Order Before Supreme Court

Petitioner filed by Advocate Amit Sahni contended that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) order was “illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires to the law” and expressed apprehension that citizens may be penalised for expressing views opposing those of the government.

A plea alleging fraudulent practices by several fuel stations in the country and seeking transparency in this regard has been filed in the Supreme Court by Advocate Amit Sahni.

A plea alleging fraudulent practices by several fuel stations in the country and seeking transparency in this regard has been filed in the Supreme Court.
The plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni claimed that petrol pump owners are indulging in “systematic and organised cheating” with customers.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking direction for the government to ensure transparency and fairness at petrol pumps across the country.The petitioner, advocate Amit Sahni, sought immediate steps to stop cheating at petrol pumps by giving lesser fuel by installing a “microchip” to speed up the pulse meter or by any other method. The PIL is likely to come up for hearing before the apex court in the coming week.

The plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni claimed that petrol pump owners are indulging in systematic and organised cheating with customers.

Advocate Amit Sahni filed a Plea in Supreme Court to ensure transparency at fuel stations; court asks Centre to take a call within 4 weeks.

New Delhi [India], Jan 13 (ANI): A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court by Lawyer and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking direction for the government to ensure transparency and fairness at petrol pumps across the country.

The plea filed in public interest by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni has alleged that petrol pumps cheat customers by dispensing lesser fuel by installing a “microchip” to speed up the pulse meter or by any other method.

NEW DELHI: A plea in public interest is filed by Advocate Amit Sahni alleging fraudulent practices by several fuel stations in the country and seeking transparency in this regard has been filed in the Supreme Court.

SC asked the Centre to take a call on a petition moved by Advocate & Activist Amit Sahni highlighting how petrol pumps have been swindling customers by dispensing less fuel for the price paid. Sahni has moved the court submitting how petrol pumps have made it a business practice to dupe customers by giving them less fuel than what they actually pay for.

The plea filed by advocate Amit Sahni claimed that petrol pump owners are indulging in “systematic and organised cheating” with customers.

PIL praying that the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 be struck down for having been exceeded by the Delhi authorities without the approval of the Lieutenant Governor. Advocate Amit Sahni has challenged the Delhi Prison Rules (DPR) 2018, exceeded using the Delhi government below the Delhi Prison Act.
He said the regulations do now not have the approval of the LG, that’s obligatory as consistent with the Delhi Prison Act. He stressed that at the same time as consistent with Article 239AA of the Constitution, the LG is the administrator of Delhi.

Delhi High Court issues notice in a plea challenging the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. Advocate Amit Sahni has challenged the Delhi Prison Rules (DPR) 2018, exceeded using the Delhi government below the Delhi Prison Act.
He said the regulations do now not have the approval of the LG, that’s obligatory as consistent with the Delhi Prison Act. He stressed that at the same time as consistent with Article 239AA of the Constitution, the LG is the administrator of Delhi.

Delhi HC issued Notice To LG, Delhi Govt to file response to the PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni to quash Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 since the same was not approved by the LG.

The lieutenant governor has told Delhi high court that a new jail manual was introduced by the AAP government without his approval. The Petition was filed by Social Activist and Advocate Amit Sahni stated that the Delhi Governemnt has not sought approval of the LG before giving effect to the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which makes it “unconstitutional” and liable to be set aside.

The Delhi High Court has sought the responses of the AAP government in the national capital and the Lieutenant Governor on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the new jail manual and alleging that the LG was not kept in the loop. Social Activist and Lawyer Amit Sahni had filed the petition to quash Delhi Prison Rules 2018 as the same does not comply with the constitutional mandate and has been given effect to without approval of LG of Delhi.

he Delhi High Court has sought the responses of the AAP government in the national capital and the Lieutenant Governor on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the new jail manual and alleging that the LG was not kept in the loop. The court was hearing a petition filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahni, who said the Delhi government had not sought the approval of the LG before giving effect to the Delhi Prison Rules (DPR), 2018, which made those “unconstitutional” and liable to be set aside.

A Bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice A.J. Bhambhani issued notice to the authorities on the plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Delhi Prison Rules (DPR), 2018. The petition filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahni said that the Delhi government had not sought the approval of the L-G before giving effect to the DPR, which made those “unconstitutional” and liable to be set aside.

A PIL has been moved in the Delhi High Court seeking directions to the Centre and the Medical Council of India MCI to ensure that doctors prescribe medicines by writing their generic names legibly and preferably in capital letters. The petition seeks strict compliance of regulation 1.5 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, which mandates every physician “prescribe drugs with generic names legibly and preferably in capital letters”.

NEW DELHI: A PIL has been moved by Advocate Amit Sahni in the Delhi High Court seeking directions to the Centre and the Medical Council of India (MCI) to ensure that doctors prescribe medicines by writing their generic names legibly and preferably in capital letters.

New Delhi, Mar 31 (PTI) A PIL has been moved in the Delhi High Court by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking directions to the Centre and the Medical Council of India (MCI) to ensure that doctors prescribe medicines by writing their generic names legibly and preferably in capital letters.

’Doctors persist with branded medicines despite MCI circular, says petition filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni.

The plea by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni contends that MCI in 2017 had directed all medical practitioners registered under the Indian Medical Council Act to use generic names, but unfortunately no one takes it seriously.

The PIL filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeks strict compliance of regulation 1.5 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, which mandates every physician “prescribe drugs with generic names legibly and preferably in capital letters”.

The Delhi High Court on Monday declined to entertain a petition seeking directions to the Centre and the Medical Council of India (MCI) to ensure that doctors prescribe generic medicines.The plea by advocate Amit Sahni said that the MCI had on January 21, 2013, issued a circular addressed to the deans of all medical colleges, director of all hospitals, president of all State medical councils, whereby the doctors practising medicines were called upon to prescribe drugs with generic name as far as possible.

In his plea, Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni said there were instances when civic bodies engage people for cleaning sewers and septic tanks in the capital, either directly or indirectly by outsourcing the work to private contractors.

The PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni pressed for an urgent hearing on the ground that implementation of the law would “prevent loss of lives due to manual cleaning of sewers and septic tanks”.

The court observed that the death of people shows that authorities are not complying with the Act and if the deaths have taken place, someone has to go to jail. The court was hearing the plea filed by advocate and social activist Amit Sahni who has sought directions to the Delhi government to ensure strict compliance of the 2013 law on manual scavengers.

A PIL was moved in the Delhi High Court seeking directions to the Delhi government to ensure strict compliance of the 2013 law on manual scavengers, enacted for their rehabilitation and prohibiting such a practice.
Advocate and activist Amit Sahni mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a bench headed by Chief Justice Rajendra Menon, which agreed to hear it the next day. The PIL pressed for an urgent hearing on the ground that implementation of the law would “prevent loss of lives due to manual cleaning of sewers and septic tanks”.

Taking a serious view of death of manual scavengers highlighted in the Petition filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni, the Delhi High Court Friday asked the AAP government and various other authorities to state on affidavit whether they were, directly or indirectly, hiring people to manually clean septic tanks and sewers.

A Division Bench, headed by Chief Justice Rajendra Menon, on Tuesday was hearing a petition by advocate Amit Sahni seeking appropriate directions to civic bodies to ensure strict compliance of the provisions of the Act to prevent loss of lives in the manual cleaning of sewers and septic tanks.

Advocate and activist Amit Sahni mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a bench headed by Chief Justice Rajendra Menon, which agreed to hear it on Tuesday.
The PIL pressed for an urgent hearing on the ground that implementation of the law would “prevent loss of lives due to manual cleaning of sewers and septic tanks”

Taking a serious view of death of manual scavengers highlighted by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni, the Delhi High Court asked the AAP government and various other authorities to state on affidavit whether they were, directly or indirectly, hiring people to manually clean septic tanks and sewers.

Delhi High Court while hearing a plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni had directed the Authorities to filed their response/counter-affidavit(s). A bench of Justice G S Sistani and Justice Jyoti Singh said the affidavit should also highlight compliance with the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act and rehabilitation of manual scavengers.

The Delhi High Court on Friday asked the city government and various civic authorities here to submit in affidavit details of manual scavengers who are directly or indirectly in their payroll. The High Court was hearing a bunch of petitions for the rehabilitation of manual scavengers. While one of the case is pending since 2007, a fresh petition was filed this year by advocate and social activist Amit Sahni seeking directions to the Delhi government to ensure strict compliance of the 2013 law on manual scavengers.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking strict compliance of provisions of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. He also filed an application today, seeking permission for filing additional documents in the case and also annexed the said media reports.
Adv. Amit Sahni, the petitioner in the case, who is putting his efforts to eradicate this abominable practice, has also prayed for appropriate directions to civic bodies in order to ensure strict compliance of the provisions of the Act to prevent loss of lives in the manual cleaning of sewers and septic tanks.

In his petition, advocate Amit Sahni has stated that hazardous cleaning is not permissible and illegal under the Act. The advocate stated that excreta in the sewers creates harmful gases such as sulphur and methane that can cause severe damage to the respiratory system if inhaled, and may even cause death. Despite a blanket ban, manual cleaning of sewers and septic tanks is still done, he added.

Mr. Sahni said the practice of manual scavenging was leading to many deaths.


“Over 10 people died in Delhi in 2017 [while manual scavenging]… the L-G set up a high-level panel, which led to a blanket ban on manual cleaning of sewers and septic tanks, but unfortunately deaths were reported in 2018 too,” he stated.

After coming across a video showing manual scavenging being continued to be carried out by men, an advocate seeks a strict ban on the practice which was declared to be illegal in the year 1993.
Advocate Amit Sahni moved the Delhi High Court in after watching a video posted on Facebook by a MLA from Sultanpur Majra Constituency of Delhi. The said video depicted men engaged as manual scavengers cleaning a sewer in the Shakurpur Vidhan Sabha area, New Delhi. Appearing to be employed by the Government Public Works Department, they can be seen without any safety gear or equipment.

Finance Ministry, CBDT told to pass detailed order by June 30. The petition, filed by advocate Amit Sahni, stated that the receipts of compensation are non taxable under the Income Tax Act and, therefore, the interest under the motor accident claims should not be made taxable.

The petition filed by advocate and social activist Amit Sahni sought setting aside of CBDT’s June 26 order by which it was held that the income tax levied upon the interest accrued upon compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) is fair and reasonable.

A plea was filed on Monday in the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of a provision under the Income Tax law which mandates deduction of tax on the interest received on the compensation by a road accident victim.
The plea stated that the receipts of compensation are non taxable under the Income Tax Act and, therefore, the interest under the motor accident claims should not be made taxable.
“But the insurance companies deduct TDS on the interest accrued upon the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in view of section … of the Income Tax Act, 1961,” the plea filed by advocate and activist Amit Sahni said.

A plea was filed by Advocate Amit Sahni in the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of a provision under the Income Tax law which mandates deduction of tax on the interest received on the compensation by a road accident victim. The petition was mentioned before a bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice A J Bhambhani and is likely to come up for hearing on Tuesday before an appropriate bench. The plea stated that the receipts of compensation are non taxable under the Income Tax Act and, therefore, the interest under the motor accident claims should not be made taxable.

A bench of Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Talwant Singh also issued a notice to the Ministry of Finance, asking for its stand on the plea, and listed the matter for further hearing on November 6. The court was hearing a PIL filed by advocate-activist Amit Sahni, who sought setting aside of CBDT’s June 26 order by which it was held that the income tax levied upon the interest accrued upon compensation granted by the MACT is fair and reasonable.

Plea seeks quashing of provision mandating tax deduction.
The PIL filed by advocate and social activist Amit Sahni sought setting aside of the CBDT’s June 26 order by which it was held that the income tax levied upon the interest accrued upon compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) is fair and reasonable.

A Division Bench of Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice I.S. Mehta asked the CBDT to consider advocate Amit Sahni’s plea and decide by June 30.
The court was hearing Sahni’s petition, which has sought quashing of Section 194A(3)(ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as amended up-to-date) that mandates deduction of tax from interest accrued upon the award and compensation granted by the MACT.
He has sought that the provision be declared unconstitutional as it is in direct conflict with the object and spirit of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
“Hold that no authority can deduct TDS upon the interest accrued upon the award/ compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) under Section 194A(3)(ix) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and pass necessary directions to the respondents in this regard,” the petition said.

A Division Bench of Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice I.S. Mehta asked the CBDT to consider advocate Amit Sahni’s plea and decide by June 30.
The court was hearing Sahni’s petition, which has sought quashing of Section 194A(3)(ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as amended up-to-date) that mandates deduction of tax from interest accrued upon the award and compensation granted by the MACT.

The court was hearing Advocate Amit Sahni’s petition, which has sought quashing of Section 194A(3)(ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as amended up-to-date) that mandates deduction of tax from interest accrued upon the award and compensation granted by the MACT.

The petition filed by advocate Amit Sahni submitted that the Section is unconstitutional and in the direct conflict with the object and spirit of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which is a Social Welfare Legislation.
It was stated that when a receipt substitutes a source of income, it is a capital receipt which is generally not taxable as income. Such receipts are taxable as income only when they are specifically roped in into the definition of income.
Since receipts of compensation are not taxable under the Income Tax Act, interest under motor accident claims should not be made taxable, the petitioner argued.

The plea was filed by advocate Amit Sahni, who has sought quashing of Section 194A(3)(ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.He has sought direction to the insurance companies as well as banks not to effect tax deduction at source (TDS) upon such interest on compensation amount.

Plea to scrap tax on compensation to accident victims. The Petition states that the receipts of compensation are non-taxable under the Income Tax Act and, therefore, the interest under the motor accident claims should not be made taxable. “But the insurance companies deduct TDS on the interest accrued upon the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [MACT] and apart from the same, when the compensation amount is directed by the Superior Courts to be deposited in Banks, the Banks also deduct TDS upon the interest,” said the petition filed by advocate Amit Sahni said.

A petition was filed in the Delhi High Court by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking quashing of a provision which mandates deduction of tax on the interest accrued upon the award or compensation granted by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) to the accident victims.

Plea in High Court for Contempt action against Government over non-appointment of Law Officers in Jails. The PIL filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni for seeking appointment of Law Officer in each Jail of Capital was allowed by the Division Bench headed by Chief Justice but the appointment of Law Officer were not made in furthereance thereto.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the response of the AAP government and the prison authorities here on a plea for contempt action against them for non-compliance of judicial orders regarding appointment of a law officer in every jail in the city. The order came on the plea by advocate Amit Sahni, who contended that the authorities have ‘wilfully’ disobeyed the high court’s September 27, 2019 direction to appoint law officers preferably within 12 weeks.

Justice AK Chawla while hearing a contempt petition filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni, asked the Delhi government’s Home department and the prison authorities to file a status report and listed the matter for further hearing on July 2.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the response of the AAP government and the prison authorities here on a plea for contempt action against them for non-compliance of judicial orders regarding appointment of a law officer in every jail in the city.
The order came on the plea by advocate and activist Amit Sahni, who contended that the authorities have “wilfully” disobeyed the high court’s September 27, 2019 direction to appoint law officers preferably within 12 weeks.

The Delhi High Court issued a notice to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) over a plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking basic amenities on the Western Peripheral Expressway.

The Delhi High Court asked the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) to file a response to a plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist seeking to ensure basic amenities like petrol pumps, toilet complex, ambulance and other emergency facilities on expressways.

On a PIL filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni, the Delhi High Court sought response of the NHAI and HSIIDC on a plea to ensure basic amenities, including toilets, petrol pumps, ambulance and emergency facilities, on the Eastern and Western Peripheral Expressways.

Toilets, petrol pumps, ambulance, emergency facilities sought; NHAI told to respond.
The court issued notices to the NHAI and the HSIIDC on the petition and listed the matter for further hearing on August 26. The court was hearing the petition filed by advocate and social activist Amit Sahni that said no such facilities are available on Western Peripheral Expressway or Kundli-Manesar-Pawal (KMP) Expressway, which was made operational about two years ago, though thousands of vehicles cross it daily and pay the toll. The plea, however, said some of the facilities are available at Eastern Peripheral Expressway or Kundli-Ghaziabad—Palwal (KGP) Expressway, which was inaugurated by the Prime Minister in November last year.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) over a plea seeking basic amenities on the Western Peripheral Expressway.
The petition filed by Advocate Amit Sahni sought directions to the two agencies to provide basic amenities like petrol pumps, toilet complex, ambulance, eateries, police patrolling and emergency facilities on the Western Peripheral Expressway or Kundli-Manesar-Palwal (KMP).

Delhi HC issues notices to NHAI, HSIIDC over plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni for seeking basic amenities on Western Peripheral Expressway on Business-standard.

The public interest litigation was filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahni who also requested that the wayside amenities be integrally planned and developed along with national highways and should be made operational by the NHAI for all future projects before the commencement of toll collection on such highways.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) to file a response to a plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking directions to ensure basic amenities like petrol pumps, toilet complex, ambulance and other emergency facilities on expressways.

Delhi High Court notice to NHAI and the HSIIDC on plea seeking basic amenities on the Eastern and Western Peripheral Expressways.
The notices to the two authorities came on a plea filed by advocate and social activist Amit Sahni highlighted the absence of basic facilities on Western Peripheral Expressway or Kundli-Manesar-Palwal (KMP) Expressway. The highway was made operational about two years ago.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) to file a response to a plea seeking to ensure basic amenities like petrol pumps, toilet complex, ambulance and other emergency facilities on expressways.
The public interest litigation was filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahni who also requested that the wayside amenities be integrally planned and developed along with national highways and should be made operational by the NHAI for all future projects before the commencement of toll collection on such highways.

The Delhi High Court asked the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) to file a response to a plea seeking to ensure basic amenities like petrol pumps, toilet complex, ambulance and other emergency facilities on expressways.
The public interest litigation was filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahni who also requested that the wayside amenities be integrally planned and developed along with national highways and should be made operational by the NHAI for all future projects before the commencement of toll collection on such highways.

The petition filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni submitted that a representation was made to NHAI to provide the facilities, but no action was taken by the authorities.

The Delhi High Court asked the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) to file a response to a plea seeking to ensure basic amenities like petrol pumps, toilet complex, ambulance and other emergency facilities on expressways.
The public interest litigation was filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahni who also requested that the wayside amenities be integrally planned and developed along with national highways and should be made operational by the NHAI for all future projects before the commencement of toll collection on such highways.

The petition was filed by advocate and social activist Amit Sahni saying that no such facilities were available on Western Peripheral Expressway or Kundli-Manesar-Pawal (KMP) Expressway, which was made operational about two years ago, though thousands of vehicles cross it daily and pay the toll.

Lawyer and Social Activist Amit Sahni had made a representation to the NHAI on April 1 but till date no action has been taken after which he approached the high court.

The Delhi High Court has directed the NHAI and HSIIDC to ensure basic amenities, including toilets, petrol pumps, ambulance and emergency facilities on the Eastern and Western Peripheral Expressways as early as possible.
The petition was filed by advocate and social activist Amit Sahni saying that no such facilities were available on Western Peripheral Expressway or Kundli-Manesar-Pawal (KMP) Expressway, which was made operational about two years ago, though thousands of vehicles cross it daily and pay the toll.

NHAI and HSIIDC are directed by the court to ensure that the basic amenities like Petrol Pumps, Toilet Complex, ambulance and emergency facilities, eateries, Police Patrolling etc. are provided on EPE and WPE.
Social Activist and Advocate Amit Sahni had filed a petition asking the court to pass further directions that the wayside amenities be integrally planned and developed along with National Highways and such amenities be made operational for all its future projects before the commencement of toll collection on all such highways, in order to ensure safety and security of the commuters and for seeking further directions.

The order from Delhi High Court came while disposing off a petition filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni, which sought the availability of facilities or amenities including toilet complex, eateries, ambulance, emergency facilities as well as police patrolling on Kundali-Ghaziabad-Palwal expressway and Kundali-Manesar-Palwal expressway.

The PIL, filed by by lawyer and activist Amit Sahni, said healthcare professionals and security personnel are performing the most challenging job and governments should resolve the shortage of PPE kits including “body coveralls, N-95 masks and 2-ply/3-ply surgical masks” for them.

SC hears pleas filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni and two doctors seeking directions over shortage of PPE kits for healthcare professionals.

PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni In SC Seeks Directions To Resolve Shortage Of PPE For Health Workers

COVID-19: Another Plea In SC by Advocate Amit Sahni for ensuring availablity of protection kits for doctors and paramedical staff etc.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard a batch of petitions over the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) for medical professionals in the wake of coronavirus spread and seeking directions to avail WHO-approved protective gears. Three petitions, filed by Dr Jerryl Banait, lawyer and activist Amit Sahni and Dr Arushi Jain, were filed in the apex court over the shortage of PPE kits amid the COVID-19 crisis. One of the petitions also sought directions for the deployment of security for the protection of medical professionals.

The PIL, filed by by lawyer and activist Amit Sahni, said healthcare professionals and security personnel are performing the most challenging job and governments should resolve the shortage of PPE kits including “body coveralls, N-95 masks and 2-ply/3-ply surgical masks” for them.

The PIL, filed by by lawyer and activist Amit Sahni, said healthcare professionals and security personnel are performing the most challenging job and governments should resolve the shortage of PPE kits including “body coveralls, N-95 masks and 2-ply/3-ply surgical masks” for them.

Doctors and healthcare professionals are “warriors” in fight against coronavirus and have to be protected, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday even as the Centre assured that it is doing its best by providing them personal protective equipment (PPE) and other facilities. Another petition filed by advocate Amit Sahni has sought a direction to the Centre and state governments to resolve the issue of shortage of PPE kits for healthcare professionals to combat coronavirus.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard a batch of petitions over the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) for medical professionals in the wake of coronavirus spread and seeking directions to avail WHO-approved protective gears.A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan and also comprising Justice S Ravindra Bhat heard the matter via video conferencing. Three petitions, filed by Dr Jerryl Banait, lawyer and activist Amit Sahni and Dr Arushi Jain, were filed in the apex court over the shortage of PPE kits amid the COVID-19 crisis. One of the petitions also sought directions for the deployment of security for the protection of medical professionals.

Doctors and healthcare professionals are “warriors” in fight against coronavirus and have to be protected, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday even as the Centre assured that it is doing its best by providing them personal protective equipment (PPE) and other facilities.
Another petition filed by advocate Amit Sahni has sought a direction to the Centre and state governments to resolve the issue of shortage of PPE kits for healthcare professionals to combat coronavirus.

A plea has been filed by Advocate and activist, Amit Sahni in the Supreme Court seeking an urgent hearing into his plea regarding “right to life of homeless persons, labourers and beggars amid Covid-19 lockdown.”

A plea has been filed by Advocate and activist, Amit Sahni in the Supreme Court seeking an urgent hearing into his plea regarding ‘right to life of homeless persons, labourers and beggars amid Covid-19 lockdown.’

A petition was moved by Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni in Delhi High Court on Friday seeking its direction to Delhi government to constitute the State Mental Health Authority (SMHA) and mental health review boards for district or group of districts and to enforce the provisions of Mental Health Care Act.

In his plea, advocate and social activist Amit Sahni sought directions to the Delhi government to constitute state mental health authority and district mental health review boards. Sahni also sought directions to Delhi Police to sensitize officers to ensure that provisions of Act are adhered to in letter and spirit.

Petitioner advocate and social activist Amit Sahni sought a direction to the Delhi government to constitute a state mental health authority and district mental health review boards, and to enforce the provisions of the Act with immediate effect.

The plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni said the object of the Act is to provide mental health care and services for persons with mental illness.

A PIL filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni has been filed in the Delhi High Court, seeking direction to the Delhi government to enforce the provisions of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 with immediate effect.

Delhi high court on Monday sought response from the AAP government and Delhi Police on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking enforcement of provisions of Mental Health Care Act.

A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice D.N. Patel issued notice to the Delhi government and the police seeking their response on the plea within four weeks and listed the matter for further hearing on September 11.
The court was hearing a plea filed by advocate Amit Sahni seeking to implement certain provision of the Mental Healthcare Act with immediate effect.

A PIL has been filed in the Delhi High Court by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni for seeking direction to the Delhi government to enforce the provisions of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 with immediate effect.

The court was hearing a plea filed by advocate Amit Sahni seeking to implement certain provision of the Mental Healthcare Act with immediate effect.

The PIL by social activist & advocate Amit Sahni raised the issue with concerns for rights of mental health patients, which is likely to come for hearing in the coming week.
The petition stated that according to a study by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2015 one in five Indians may suffer from depression in their lifetime.

The Delhi government and the Delhi Police are under pressure from the High Court concerning implementation of the Mental Health Care Act 2017 on a plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni.

The PIL was filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, seeking Court’s direction to NCT of Delhi, to constitute the State Mental Health Authority and Mental Health Review Boards(MHRB) for District or group of District and to enforce the provisions of Mental Health Care Act, 2017 with immediate effect.

The Delhi High Court Monday sought responses of the AAP government and police on a plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking enforcement of provisions of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, with immediate effect.

The Delhi High Court on July 1 sought response from Delhi government and city police over a plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist seeking enforcement of certain provisions of Mental Healthcare Act

Advocate Amit Sahni has filed a petition asking for a direction to the Delhi government to constitute the State Mental Health Authority and the Mental Health Review Board.

Petitioner advocate and social activist Amit Sahni pronounces in his PIL that the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 which came into effect on May 29 2018, has been defined in its introductory paragraph as, “An Act to deliver for mental healthcare and services for persons with mental illness and to protect, promote and fulfil the rights of such persons throughout delivery of mental healthcare and services and for matters associated therewith or incidental thereto.”

PIL filed in Delhi High Court Monday by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni seeking enforcement of provisions of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, with immediate effect.

A petition was moved in Delhi High Court by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking its direction to Delhi government to constitute the State Mental Health Authority (SMHA) and mental health review boards for district or group of districts and to enforce the provisions of Mental Health Care Act.

Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni has filed a petition asking for a direction to the Delhi government to constitute the State Mental Health Authority and the Mental Health Review Board.

A PIL has been filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni in the Delhi High Court for implementation of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

The Delhi High Court Tuesday asked the Centre to respond to a plea seeking to make various penal provisions, including unnatural sex and kidnapping minors for begging, which entail imprisonment up to life term be tried by a sessions judge and not a magistrate.
A bench of justices Siddharth Mridul and Anu Malhotra sought responses of the ministries of Home Affairs and Law and Justice on a plea filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahni.

A bench of justices Siddharth Mridul and Anu Malhotra sought responses of the ministries of Home Affairs and Law and Justice on a plea filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahni.

The Delhi High Court Tuesday asked the Centre to respond to a plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking to make various penal provisions, including unnatural sex and kidnapping minors for begging, which entail imprisonment up to life term be tried by a sessions judge and not a magistrate.

Delhi HC issues notice in plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni to make offences punishable by ten years or more triable by Sessions Courts

Offences with 10-yr jail term being tried by a magistrate who cannot award more than 3-yr jail.
A bench of justices Siddharth Mridul and Anu Malhotra sought responses of the ministries of Home Affairs and Law and Justice on a plea filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahni.

The Delhi High Court on Monday agreed to hear a plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking to increase the prescribed length of a pregnancy from a period of “20 weeks to 24 weeks”.

The petition filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni, which sought that unmarried females and widows too should be allowed to undergo legal abortion under the law, was mentioned before a bench bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Brijesh Sethi on Monday which listed it for hearing tomorrow.

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday agreed to hear a plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking to increase the prescribed length of a pregnancy from a period of “20 weeks to 24 weeks”. A division bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Brijesh Sethi said it will hear the plea on Tuesday.

Delhi High Court had agreed to hear plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking to increase the prescribed length of a pregnancy from a period of 20 weeks to 24 weeks.

The Delhi High Court on Monday agreed to hear a plea seeking to increase the prescribed length of a pregnancy from a period of “20 weeks to 24 weeks”.
A division bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Brijesh Sethi said it will hear the plea on Tuesday. The plea filed by social activist and lawyer Amit Sahni was mentioned before the bench on Monday.

A division bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Brijesh Sethi will today hear the plea filed by social activist and lawyer Amit Sahni.

The petition filed through Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni sought that unmarried females and widows too should be allowed to undergo legal abortion under the law, was mentioned before a bench bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Brijesh Sethi on Monday which listed it for hearing tomorrow.

Delhi High Court on Monday agreed to hear a plea filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni seeking to increase the prescribed length of a pregnancy from a period of “20 weeks to 24 weeks”.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought a response from Central government on a plea seeking to extend the length of pregnancy termination by further four to six weeks in case of any health risk to mother or the foetus.
The petition filed by Amit Sahni sought direction to the government to replace or suitably extend the length of pregnancy from present legally permissible duration of twenty weeks by a further period of four to six weeks by bringing suitable amendments in Section 3(2)(b) of Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.

Delhi High Court directed the Central government to file a reply on a plea filed by Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni seeking to increase the time limit from “20 weeks to 24 or 26 weeks” to terminate a pregnancy. A division bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Brijesh Sethi listed the matter for August 6.

The petition filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahni has contended that unmarried females and widows too should be allowed to undergo a legal abortion.

Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought a response from Central government on a plea filed by Social Activist and Advocate seeking to extend the length of pregnancy termination by further four to six weeks in case of any health risk to mother or the foetus.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Brijesh Sethi observed that the issue needs a scientific consideration, and slated the matter for August 6, while asking the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Law and Justice and National Commission for women, to file a reply to the PIL filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the Central government to file a reply on a plea seeking to increase the time limit from “20 weeks to 24 or 26 weeks” to terminate a pregnancy.
The court was hearing a plea filed by social activist and lawyer Amit Sahni, who sought direction to the government to replace or suitably extend the time limit to terminate a pregnancy from 20 weeks by a further period of four to six weeks by bringing suitable amendments in Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.

Delhi HC issues notice in plea to allow Termination of Pregnancy at 24-26 weeks to terminate pregnancy.
The court was hearing a plea filed by social activist and lawyer Amit Sahni, who sought direction to the government to replace or suitably extend the time limit to terminate a pregnancy from 20 weeks by a further period of four to six weeks by bringing suitable amendments in Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.
A division bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Brijesh Sethi listed the matter for August 6 and said that some issues need scientific consideration.

The Delhi High Court sought the Centre’s response Tuesday on a PIL filed by Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni for raising the time limit for terminating pregnancy in case of health risk to the mother or the foetus to 24-26 weeks, from the current cap of 20 weeks.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought a response from Central government on a plea filed by Social Activist and Advocate Amit Sahni seeking to extend the length of pregnancy termination by further four to six weeks in case of any health risk to mother or the foetus.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the Central government to file a reply on a plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking to increase the time limit from “20 weeks to 24 or 26 weeks” to terminate a pregnancy.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the Central government to file a reply on a plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking to increase the time limit from “20 weeks to 24 or 26 weeks” to terminate a pregnancy.

Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni moved the Delhi HC, said that the way State forces women to bear children, abortion laws need to be checked.

HC seeks Centres response on plea filed by Activist and Lawyer Amit Sahni to extend pregnancy termination period.

The plea filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahni sought direction to the Ministries of Health and Law and Justice to apprise the court as to when the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 would be amended in terms of proposed draft amendment of 2014 by changing provision that does not allow abortion beyond 20-week pregnancy.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the Central government to file a reply on a PIL filed by Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni seeking to increase the time limit from “20 weeks to 24 or 26 weeks” to terminate a pregnancy.
A division bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Brijesh Sethi listed the matter…

The petition filed by Social Activist and Lawyer Amit Sahni has also contended that unmarried females and widows too should be allowed to undergo legal abortion.

The affidavit was filed in response to a PIL by social activist and lawyer, Amit Sahni, seeking raising of the time limit for terminating pregnancy in case of health risk to the mother or the foetus to 24-26 weeks, from the current cap of 20 weeks.

The Centre has informed the Delhi High Court that it has initiated the process for an inter-ministerial consultation on raising the gestation period for terminating pregnancy. The Health Ministry’s response came on a petition by social activist and lawyer, Amit Sahni, for raising the time limit for terminating pregnancy in case of health risk to the mother or the foetus to 24-26 weeks from the current cap of 20 weeks.

The Delhi High Court sought the Centre’s response Tuesday on a PIL filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahni for raising the time limit for terminating pregnancy in case of health risk to the mother or the foetus to 24-26 weeks, from the current cap of 20 weeks.

Response was submitted by the Central Government to the PIL filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni stating that the Centre To Soon Finalize Extending Time Limit For Abortion Beyond 20 Weeks.

Government approves new changes in MTP law, women will now be allowed an abortion at 24 weeks. Last year, the Union government in an affidavit to Delhi High Court said that they are working to amend the MTP act, 1971. This happened after a petition was submitted by activist Amit Sahni asking for changes in the existing bill.

Social activist Amit Sahni filed a public interest litigation (PIL) before the High Court earlier this year, seeking that the gestation period in which abortion is permitted be extended to between 24 and 26 weeks. Currently, Indian law permits abortion only in the first twenty weeks of pregnancy in cases where “the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury physical or mental health; or there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.” This would require the assent of one medical practitioner in the first twelve weeks and two medical practitioners thereafter.

Delhi High Court on Thursday agreed to hear a PIL filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking the court’s intervention in issuing a direction to Tihar Jail authorities for arrangements to provide conjugal visitation rights to the prisoners.

PIL filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni says conjugal visits would lead to reformation, cut down sex crimes in jail.

A petition moved before the Delhi High Court has sought to hold conjugal visits in jail as a fundamental right of prisoners and their spouses.The petition was filed by lawyer and social activist Amit Sahni.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday agreed to hear a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) plea seeking to hold conjugal visits as fundamental rights. The plea, filed by lawyer and social activist Amit Sahni, said conjugal visitation rights were not provided in prisons in the State though most of the prisoners fall under sexually active age group. “Despite courts taking a progressive approach and various countries allowing conjugal visits considering it an important human right and also in the light of studies backing conjugal visits as a factor to cut down crimes in jail and reform inmates, the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 are totally silent on the issue,” it said.

Delhi high court on Friday sought a response from Delhi government and prison authorities on a PIL filed by Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni seeking conjugal visitation rights for prisoners.

Delhi HC Issues Notice On PIL For Allowing Conjugal Visits To Jail Inmates. The Petition was filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni.

Responding to PIL filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni, the Director General (Prison) said it grants temporary leave to prisoners in the form of parole and furlough for maintaining family and social ties and the purpose of conjugal relation can be served during such period.

Prison authorities responding to PIL filed by Social Activist and Advocate Amit Sahni told the Delhi High Court that it is not practical to permit conjugal visits for prisoners as rules do not provide for such facility.

Prison authorities have told the Delhi High Court that it is not practical to permit conjugal visits for prisoners as rules do not provide for such facility and there is limited infrastructure available.
Petitioner Amit Sahni, a lawyer and social activist, has claimed in his plea that conjugal visits in jail should be treated as a fundamental right of prisoners and their spouses.

Prison authorities have told the Delhi High Court that it is not practical to permit conjugal visits for prisoners as rules do not provide for such facility and there is limited infrastructure available.
Petitioner Amit Sahni, a lawyer and social activist, has claimed in his plea that conjugal visits in jail should be treated as a fundamental right of prisoners and their spouses.

The PIL by lawyer-social activist Amit Sahni claimed conjugal visitation rights were not provided at prisons in the state.

In response to PIL filed by Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni, the Prison authorities have told the Delhi High Court that it is not practical to permit conjugal visits for prisoners as rules do not provide for such facility and there is limited infrastructure available.

In Response to the PIL filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni, the prison authorities infomed Delhi High Court that it annot allow conjugal visits inside jails.

Prison authorities have told the Delhi High Court that it is not practical to permit conjugal visits for prisoners as rules do not provide for such facility and there is limited infrastructure available.
Petitioner Amit Sahni, a lawyer and social activist, has claimed in his plea that conjugal visits in jail should be treated as a fundamental right of prisoners and their spouses.

Petitioner Amit Sahni, a lawyer & social activist, has claimed in his plea that conjugal visits in jail should be treated as a fundamental right of prisoners & their spouses.
Jail Authorities, in response to the PIL, replied that its not practical to allow conjugal visits in Delhi Jails.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday agreed to hear on Thursday a PIL filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni, seeking fairness and impartiality in the functioning of Sentence Review Board (SRB) while dealing with the issue of premature release

The Delhi High Court while hearing a PIL filed by Social Activist and Lawyer Amit Sahni, said it appeared convicts were being granted premature release on whims and fancies of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) and observed transparency has to be ensured in the process.

There is apprehension, or likelihood, of bias against certain prisoners based on caste or religion, observes High Court while hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni.

In an affidavit submitted before a bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar, the additional standing counsel of the Delhi government, advocate Gautam Narayan told the court that no instances of bias were cited by the Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni.

The Delhi high court on Thursday expressed concern at the manner in which convicts were being granted premature release on the “whims and fancies” of the Sentence Review Board (SRB).
A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V K Rao said there has to be “transparency” in the process while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking fairness and impartiality in the functioning of SRB while dealing with the issue of premature release of convicts.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday asked the Arvind Kejriwal-led Delhi government to file its response to a plea for transparency in the premature release of convicts. The court was hearing a petition by social activist and lawyer Amit Sahni seeking impartiality and fairness in the working and functioning of the Sentence Review Board which considers the cases of convicts for pre-mature release.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday asked the Arvind Kejriwal-led Delhi government to file its response to a plea for transparency in the premature release of convicts. The court was hearing a petition by social activist and lawyer Amit Sahni seeking impartiality and fairness in the working and functioning of the Sentence Review Board which considers the cases of convicts for pre-mature release.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar is likely to hear on Monday the petition filed by advocate Amit Sahni. The SRB was constituted to review the sentence awarded to a prisoner undergoing life imprisonment and make recommendations about cases of premature release in appropriate cases.

The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the Kejriwal government to convene the meeting of Sentence Review Board (SRB) at an interval of every three months as per norms.During the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Amit Sahni, a bench of Justices DN Patel and C Harishanker was apprised that SRB meeting was convened only once in the last one year, as against the norms.

Advocate Amit Sahni, also a social activist, has claimed in his plea that according to the Delhi Prison Rules of 2018, the SRB meetings have to be held every quarter. Mr. Sahni argued that the High Court on October 21 last year had directed that SRB meetings be held in accordance with the prison rules.

A PIL has been filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni in the Delhi High Court seeking direction to the Delhi government and the Director General of Prisons to convene the meeting of Sentence Review Board (SRB) every three months in compliance with the rules.

The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the Kejriwal government to convene the meeting of Sentence Review Board SRB at an interval of every three months as per norms. During the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation PIL filed by advocate Amit Sahni, a bench of Justices DN Patel and C Harishanker was apprised that SRB meeting was convened only once in the last one year, as against the norms.

Delhi high court on Wednesday sought the AAP government’s stand on a plea alleging that meetings of Sentence Review Board (SRB) were not held every three months.
The plea by Amit Sahni, a lawyer and an activist, has claimed that meetings of SRB are not convened as per prison rules.

The Delhi High Court while hearing a Petition filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni, directed the AAP government to convene periodic meetings of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) which reviews jail terms awarded and makes recommendations for premature release in appropriate cases.

PIL in High Court seeks Direction to Authorities to Convene SRB Meeting Every 3 Months. A bench of CJ D N Patel & Justice C Hari Shankar is likely to hear on Monday the petition filed by advocate Amit Sahni.

A PIL has been filed by Advocate & Social Activist Amit Sahni in the Delhi High Court seeking direction to the Delhi government and the Director General of Prisons to convene the meeting of Sentence Review Board (SRB).

A public interest litigation PIL was moved in Delhi High Court on Wednesday seeking directions to convene Sentence Review Board SRB meetings more frequently so more eligible inmates can be released from prisons in order to decongest the jails.

A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in Delhi High Court by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking directions to convene Sentence Review Board (SRB) meetings more frequently so more eligible inmates can be released from prisons in order to decongest the jails.

The PIL, moved by social activist and lawyer Amit Sahni seeking directions to convene meetings of Sentence Review Board (SRB) more frequenlty to decongest jails.

PIL has been filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni to convene Sentence Review board meetings more frequently to decongest jails

Advocate Amit Sahni, also a social activist, has claimed in his plea that according to the Delhi Prison Rules of 2018, the SRB meetings have to be held every quarter. Mr. Sahni argued that the High Court on October 21 last year had directed that SRB meetings be held in accordance with the prison rules.

The PIL, moved by social activist and lawyer Amit Sahni, said that apart from interim bails, parole and furlough, the jails can also be decongested if SRB meetings for releasing convicts are convened in a more frequent manner, as provided in the rules.

During the hearing of a PIL filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni, Delhi government told Delhi High Court that a meeting of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) was underway today to consider releasing eligible convicts in a bid to decongest jails amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown.

The PIL, moved by social activist and lawyer Amit Sahni, said that apart from interim bails, parole and furlough, the jails can also be decongested if SRB meetings for releasing convicts are convened in a more frequent manner, as provided in the rules.

The Delhi High Court has agreed to hear next week a PIL filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni, seeking direction to the authorities to convene frequently the meetings of sentence review board (SRB) so that the convicts eligible for premature release could be benefitted and jails be decongested for containing the spread of Covid-19.

The Delhi High Court has agreed to hear the PIL filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni to convene frequently the meetings of sentence review board (SRB) so that the convicts eligible for premature release could be benefitted and jails be decongested for containing the spread of coronavirus pandemic.

The Delhi High Court was informed by the AAP Government on Monday that the Sentence Review Board (SRB) meetings of sentence review board (SRB) so that the convicts eligible for premature release could be benefitted and jails be decongested for containing the spread of coronavirus pandemic.
Advocate and activist Amit Sahni, in his plea, said the SRB had convened its first quarter meeting of this year on February 28 and its meeting for the second quarter is not convened till date.

The Delhi high court on Monday asked the Centre and the Delhi government to consider the suggestion of an advocate and social activist Amit Sahni for providing body camera.

The Delhi High Court Monday asked the Centre and the Delhi government to consider the suggestion of an advocate for providing body cameras to police officials to monitor their conduct as also of the public.
A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar asked the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Delhi government and Delhi Police to consider the representation given by advocate and social activist Amit Sahni and take a decision on it.

Notably, the said representation was made by Advocate & Social Activist Amit Sahni with the object to monitor the interaction of police with the public and to make sure that the police behaves appropriately with the public while preforming their duties.

Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni sought direction to implement the suggestions made by him through a representation to curb the use of excessive force by the police and on overall monitoring of the functioning of the police.

A Bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice C. Hari Shankar asked the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Delhi government and Delhi Police to consider the representation given by advocate and social activist Amit Sahni and take a decision on it.

The Delhi High Court Monday asked the Centre and the Delhi government to consider the suggestion of Social Activist and Advocate Amit Sahni for providing body cameras to police officials to monitor their conduct as also of the public.

Delhi HC seeks Centre, Delhi govts response on PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni claiming difficulties post amended MV Act – Delhi High Court on Thursday asked Central and Delhi government and Delhi police to file their response on a public interest litigation PIL, which claimed people were facing difficulties post amendment in MV Act.

“Why don’t you notify officers to compound offences under the MVA; it’s beneficial to all of us,” said a division bench of Delhi HIgh Court while hearing a plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking directions to notify officers to collect traffic violation penalties on the spot.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday questioned authorities for not notifying the officers authorised to compound challans issued under the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA). “Why don’t you notify officers to compound offences under the MVA; it’s beneficial to all of us,” said a division bench, while hearing a petition filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought responses from the Centre and the AAP government on a PIL filed by Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni seeking direction to issue a notification empowering officers to compound traffic violations offences on the spot.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought responses from the Centre and the AAP government on a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking direction to issue a notification empowering officers to compound traffic violations offences on the spot.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought responses from the Centre and the AAP government on a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking direction to issue a notification empowering officers to compound traffic violations offences on the spot.

During the hearing of the Petition filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, the bench asked the Delhi government to notify the officers for compounding traffic violation offences on the spot.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar issued notice in a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions to notify officers to collect traffic violation penalties.

Delhi high court on Wednesday said it will hear on Thursday a PIL filed by Social Activist and Lawyer Amit Sahni seeking direction to the government to issue notification empowering officers for collecting traffic violation penalties.

Delhi High Court on Thursday asked Central and Delhi government and Delhi police to file their response on a public interest litigation (PIL), which claimed people were facing difficulties while compounding the challans for traffic violation on the spot.

Delhi High Court on Thursday asked Central and Delhi government and Delhi police to file their response on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, which claimed people were facing difficulties while compounding the challans for traffic violation post the implementation of Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act.

The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni about problems faced by the public in seeking compounding of challans issued under the MVA, 1988, particularly after the amendment on September 1 2019, whereby the penalties for traffic rules” violation have been raised manifold.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday questioned authorities for not notifying the officers authorised to compound challans issued under the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA).
“Why don’t you notify officers to compound offences under the MVA; it’s beneficial to all of us,” said a division bench during hearing of a PIL filed by Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday questioned authorities for not notifying the officers authorised to compound challans issued under the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA). “Why don’t you notify officers to collect challan on the spot” asked HC while hearing a PIL filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni.

Plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni also seeks issuance of directions for accepting payment of challan beyond Rs2,000 using debit cards

The PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni had sought the court’s direction to the Reserve Bank of India and the Finance Ministry to use OTP or any other layer of security to put account-holders to notice before they make online payments on international websites. He also prayed that the authorities should ask banks to not release any amount using debit or credit cards that allow deduction without entering a PIN or password.

A writ petition filed by Amit Sahni asking for directions to the central government to introduce mandatory OTP for transactions made on international websites was rejected by the Delhi High Court.The petition suggested urgent need of mandating requirement of OTP for transactions made on international websites as it would reduce the vulnerability of the customer of being cheated or stolen.

Delhi HC refuses to entertain a PlL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking mandatory requirement of OTP for transactions on international websites.

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Delhi High Court by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking a waiver of school fees or charges in light of the lockdown.

Advocate Amit Sahni, the petitioner, sought urgent hearing of the matter stating that lakhs of parents are facing financial problems due to lockdown and Health Emergency in the wake of coronavirus outbreak.

The Delhi High Court has refused to give an urgent hearing to a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni for seeking a waiver of school fees for the COVID-19 lockdown period.

The PIL was seeking relief for parents, who are facing financial crunch due to lockdown implemented in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak. Educational institutions are closed in the country in the wake of the lockdown.
Social Activist and Advocate Amit Sahni on Wednesday mentioned the matter before the Registrar of Delhi HC for an urgent hearing in the matter, who did not find it sufficiently urgent.

The Delhi High Court has refused to give an urgent hearing to a PIL filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni seeking direction to the private school in the national capital to waive off fees for the period when they are not fully operational due to the coronavirus nationwide lockdown.

The plea by advocate Amit Sahni was mentioned before the High Court Registrar, seeking direction to schools not to pressurise its students to pay fees or charges and also direction to the Delhi government to provide sufficient funds to schools to bear their liabilities like salary of staff and other expenses.
Sahni said that he has mentioned the matter before the registrar on Wednesday and also uploaded a letter on the link provided by the High Court registry explaining the urgency. But he was informed by the registry that “your request for urgent listing has been rejected”.

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant urgent hearing to a plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni for seeking direction to private schools in the national capital to waive off fees for the period they are not fully operational due to coronavirus.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking relief to lakhs of parents, who are facing financial crunch due to lockdown and Health Emergency arisen out of COVID-19, was submitted before Delhi High Court on Thursday (April 16), but the Registry refused to list the matter before the court citing no urgency.
Advocate Amit Sahni sought urgent hearing of the matter stating that lakhs of parents are facing financial problems due to lockdown and Health Emergency in the wake of coronavirus outbreak.

Advocate and social activist Amit Sahni said he mentioned the matter before the registrar on Wednesday and also uploaded a letter on the link provided by the high court registry explaining the urgency but he was informed by the registry that “your request for urgent listing has been rejected.”

The plea said lakhs of parents are facing financial crunch due to the lockdown and health emergency arising out of COVID-19 and most of the people are working in unorganised sectors like shops, vendors, small manufacturing units or factories and everyone does not have a secured job.

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant urgent hearing to a plea seeking direction to private schools in the national capital to waive off fees for the period they are not fully operational due to coronavirus.
Advocate and social activist Amit Sahni said he mentioned the matter before the registrar on Wednesday and also uploaded a letter on the link provided by the high court registry explaining the urgency but he was informed by the registry that “your request for urgent listing has been rejected”.

Advocate Amit Sahni sought urgent hearing of the matter stating that lakhs of parents are facing financial problems due to lockdown and Health Emergency in the wake of coronavirus outbreak.

The Delhi High Court has refused to give an urgent hearing to a PIL seeking a waiver of school fees for the COVID-19 lockdown period. The PIL filed by Advocate & Social Activist Amit Sahni was seeking relief for parents, who are facing financial crunch due to lockdown implemented in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak.

Delhi high court on Thursday refused to grant an urgent hearing to a PIL filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking a waiver of school fees for the Covid-19 lockdown period.

Considering the issue of charging school fees from the student as a huge burden on the parents because of the financial crisis they are facing due to the implementation of nation wide lock down, a PIL ( Public Interest Litigation ) was filed by the Social Activist and Advocate Amit Sahni on Wednesday seeking waiver of school fees during lockdown.

The Delhi High Court has refused to give an urgent hearing to a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking a waiver of school fees for the COVID-19 lockdown period.

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant urgent hearing to a plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking direction to private schools in the national capital to waive fees during lockdown.

Advocate and social activist Amit Sahni said he mentioned the matter before the registrar on Wednesday and also uploaded a letter on the link provided by the high court registry explaining the urgency but he was informed by the registry that your request for urgent listing has been rejected.

The PIL has been filed by lawyer-activist Amit Sahni citing urgency and have sought a prompt listing of the case before the Delhi HC.

The plea filed by Advocate & Social Activist Amit Sahni stated that lakhs of parents are facing financial crunch due to the lockdown and health emergency arising out of COVID-19

Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni filed the petition seeking relief for parents, who are facing financial crunch due to lockdown implemented in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak. Educational institutions are closed in the country in the wake of the lockdown.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni seeking relief to lakhs of parents, who are facing financial crunch due to lockdown and Health Emergency arisen out of COVID-19, was submitted before Delhi High Court on Thursday (April 16), but the Registry refused to list the matter before the court citing no urgency.

A fresh Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate and Activist Amit Sahni in the Delhi High Court has sought a waiver of fees charged by all private and unaided schools during lockdown.

The plea said lakhs of parents are facing financial crunch due to the lockdown and health emergency arising out of COVID-19 crisis.Advocate and social activist Amit Sahni said he mentioned the matter before the registrar on Wednesday and also uploaded a letter on the link provided by the high court registry explaining the urgency but he was informed by the registry that “your request for urgent listing has been rejected.”

Advocate and social activist Amit Sahni said he mentioned the matter before the registrar on Wednesday and also uploaded a letter on the link provided by the high court registry explaining the urgency but he was informed by the registry that your request for urgent listing has been rejected.

The plea filed by Lawyer and Social Activist Amit Sahni sought direction to schools not to pressure its students to pay fees or charges and also direction to the Delhi government to provide sufficient funds to schools to bear their liabilities like salary of staff and other expenses.

The PIL sought the Delhi government and the Directorate of Education to issue directions to all schools under its jurisdiction not to charge school fees or charges from students for a period from April 2020 till the school becomes operational.
Social activist and advocate Amit Sahni on Wednesday had mentioned the matter before the Registrar of Delhi HC for an urgent hearing. Later, the Registry informed that his request had been rejected, the lawyer claimed.

In the petition filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, this circular has been described as shocking. The petition states that interest will continue to be charged during the moratorium period and in this way it does not make sense to pay additional interest. Sahni has urged the Supreme Court to direct the central government and RBI to provide that no bank or financial institution will take any interest from the borrower for any period of moratorium.

The circular of RBI has been challenged in the Supreme Court for three months’ deferment regarding the payment of EMI of the loan amid the lockdown imposed to prevent the outbreak of Corona. In the petition filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, this circular has been described as shocking.

A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by Advocate Amit Sahni in the Supreme Court on Saturday against the Reserve Bank of India’s March 27 circular on the three-month moratorium permitted for loan repayments due to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, terming it an “eyewash”.

A petition was filed in the Supreme Court by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking direction on setting aside the RBI’s March 27 circular on three-month moratorium on loan repayment between March 1 and May 31 amid coronavirus pandemic.

“The state cannot enrich itself nor permit anyone to enrich from the unfortunate situation by charging interest for moratorium period,” petitioner advocate Amit Sahni contended.

Petition Filed In Supreme Court by Advocate Amit Sahni to stop banks from charging interest during 3-Month Loan Moratorium. The lockdown announced by PM Modi for aperiod of 21 days to curb the spread of Covid-19 pandemic has brought theIndian businesses and market to a standstill.

In a petition filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, it is stated that interest will continue to be charged during the moratorium period and in this way it does not make sense to pay additional interest. Sahni has urged the Supreme Court to direct the central government and RBI to provide that no bank or financial institution will take any interest from the borrower for any period of moratorium.

The Petitioner Advocate & Social Activist Amit Sahni has taken issue in his motion to the Supreme Court. Sahni contends that interest accruals during the moratorium would unjustly enrich lending institutions. His plea states that the “state cannot enrich itself nor permit anyone to enrich from the pandemic”.

The court said it was allowing the petitioner in-person advocate Amit Sahni to withdraw the petition with liberty to advise the individual prisoners, who are suffering from any diseases to make a representation to the authorities for their release.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sharad Arvind Bobde refused to pass any interim order and or directions on hearing the petition filed by lawyer and activist Amit Sahni.

COVID-19: A PIL was filed in the Supreme Court by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni to consider releasing prisoners above the age of 50 years on emergency parole or interim bail amid the menace of coronavirus.

The Petitioner and Social Activist Amit Sahni has made the plea given that elderly persons and those with underlying ailments have been identified as more likely to be affected by the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19).

Plea filed by Advocate and Petitioner Amit Sahni in front of the Suprme Court for emergency parole of prisoners above 50 years

“We will not pass any blanket order. You make an individual representation before the government about your case,” the bench said. The top court said while disposing the Petition filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni.

The Supreme court on Tuesday refused to pass any general directions on a plea filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking directions to release prisoners above the age of 50 years as well as those suffering from serious ailments in view of the spread of COVID-19.

A petition was filed in the Supreme Court by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni seeking direction to the Centre and all the states to consider granting parole or interim bail to prisoners above 50 years.

Supreme Court today turned down the plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions for the release of prisoners from jail who are above the age of 50 years as well as those who are suffering from ailments and pre-existing medical conditions.

The top court said it was allowing the petitioner in-person advocate Amit Sahni to withdraw the petition with liberty to advise the individual prisoners, who are suffering from any diseases to make a representation to the authorities for their release.

The top court said it was allowing the petitioner in-person advocate Amit Sahni to withdraw the petition with liberty to advise the individual prisoners, who are suffering from any diseases to make a representation to the authorities for their release.

The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to pass any blanket order directing the Centre and states to consider granting parole or interim bail to prisoners above 50 years.

A public interest litigation PIL was filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni in the Supreme Court on Monday asking it to consider releasing prisoners above the age of 50 years on emergency parole or interim bail amid the menace of coronavirus.

A petition was filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni in the Supreme Court on Monday seeking direction to the Centre and all the states to consider granting parole or interim bail to prisoners above 50 years of age as also to those suffering from diabetes, high blood pressure, respiratory problem and other diseases.

A petition was filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni in the Supreme Court on Monday seeking direction to the Centre and all the states to consider granting parole or interim bail to prisoners above 50 years and prisoners with ailments.

The plea, filed by advocate Amit Sahni, said the apex court has already taken cognisance on its own about overcrowding in jails following the virus outbreak but the issue of vulnerability of certain category of persons including those above 50 years was not brought to its notice earlier.

The top court said it was allowing the petitioner in-person advocate Amit Sahni to withdraw the petition with liberty to advise the individual prisoners, who are suffering from any diseases to make a representation to the authorities for their release.

A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by Advocate Amit Sahni in the Supreme Court on Monday asking it to consider releasing prisoners above the age of 50 years on emergency parole or interim bail amid the menace of coronavirus.

The top court said it was allowing the petitioner in-person advocate Amit Sahni to withdraw the petition with liberty to advise the individual prisoners, who are suffering from any diseases to make a representation to the authorities for their release.

The Supreme Court, while hearing a PIL filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni, refused to pass any blanket order directing the Centre and states to consider granting parole or interim bail to prisoners above 50 years of age.

A petition was filed in the Supreme Court on Monday seeking direction to the Centre and all the states to consider granting parole or interim bail to prisoners above 50 years of age as also to those suffering from diabetes, high blood pressure, respiratory problem and other ailments. The plea, filed by advocate Amit Sahni, said the apex court has already taken cognisance on its own about overcrowding in jails following the virus outbreak but the issue of vulnerability of certain category of persons including those above 50 years was not brought to its notice earlier.

The petition, filed by advocate Amit Sahni, said the apex court has already taken cognizance of the congested prison situation following the virus outbreak, but the issue of vulnerability of certain categories of persons including those above 50 years was not brought to its notice earlier.

A petition was filed by Advocate Amit Sahni in the Supreme Court on Monday seeking direction to the Centre and all the states to consider granting parole or interim bail to prisoners above 50 years of age as also to those suffering from diabetes, high blood pressure, respiratory problem and other life threatening diseases.

The plea, filed by advocate Amit Sahni, said the apex court has already taken cognisance on its own about overcrowding in jails following the virus outbreak but the issue of vulnerability of certain category of persons including those above 50 years was not brought to its notice earlier.
Sahni, in his plea, has said that persons over 50 years of age are “at more risk” if they are affected with coronavirus.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to pass a order directing the central and state governments to examine granting parole or interim bail to prisoners – above 50 years, suffering from diabetes, high blood pressure and respiratory problems – amid the coronavirus outbreak. The plea, filed by advocate Amit Sahni, said the apex court has already taken cognisance on its own about overcrowding in jails following the virus outbreak but the issue of vulnerability of certain category of persons including those above 50 years was not brought to its notice earlier.

New Delhi [India], May 1 (ANI): A PIL filed through Advocate Amit Sahni in Delhi High Court seeking directions to telephone operators and internet service providers (ISPs) not to charge any amount to businesses, etc that remained “compulsorily closed” during the lockdown was withdrawn on Friday.

Telephone internet bills “compulsorily not used” due to COVID-19 lockdown should be either wavied off or amount be deposited in the PM-Cares Fund to fight the disease, a petition filed through Advocate Amit Sahni in Delhi High Court on Thursday (April 30) pleaded.

[LOCKDOWN] Delhi HC refuses to entertain plea filed through Advocate Amit Sahni to waive off telephone, internet bills for offices, shops etc have remained compulsorily closed due to COVID-19 lockdown.

A PIL filed in Delhi High Court through Advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions to telephone operators and internet service providers (ISPs) not to charge any amount to businesses, etc that remained compulsorily closed during the lockdown was withdrawn on Friday.

A PIL filed in Delhi High Court through Advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions to telephone operators and internet service providers (ISPs) not to charge any amount to businesses, etc that remained “compulsorily closed” during the lockdown was withdrawn on Friday.

The Delhi High Court will on Friday hear a petition filed through Advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions to telecom firms and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to not charge offices, shops or business establishments which were “compulsorily” closed due to the lockdown in place to fight the Covid-19 pandemic.

A PIL filed in Delhi High Court through Lawyer Amit Sahni seeking directions to telephone operators and internet service providers ISPs not to charge any amount to businesses, etc that remained compulsorily closed during the lockdown was withdrawn on Friday.

The PIL, filed by SK Sharma through advocate Amit Sahni, sought directions that the amount received by such telephone operators or ISPs for this “unused period” may be transferred to COVID-19 Relief Fund initiated by the Prime Minister of India.

The PIL, filed by SK Sharma through advocate Amit Sahani, sought directions that the amount received by such telephone operators or ISPs for this “unused period” may be transferred to COVID-19 Relief Fund initiated by the Prime Minister of India.

The PIL, filed by SK Sharma through advocate Amit Sahani, sought directions that the amount received by such telephone operators or ISPs for this “unused period” may be transferred to COVID-19 Relief Fund initiated by the Prime Minister of India.

The Delhi High Court Friday refused to entertain a plea filed through Advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions to telecom firms and internet service providers (ISPs) not to charge offices, shops or business establishments which were “compulsorily closed” due to COVID-19 lockdown.

The PIL, filed by SK Sharma through advocate Amit Sahni, sought directions that the amount received by such telephone operators or ISPs for this “unused period” may be transferred to COVID-19 Relief Fund initiated by the Prime Minister of India.
Advocate Sahani argued that by virtue of compulsory lockdown, the public is unable to visit their workplace and therefore the telcos/ISP should not charge for lockdown period as the public was under compulsion not to avail services.

The Delhi High Court Friday refused to entertain a plea filed through Advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions to telecom firms and internet service providers (ISPs) not to charge offices, shops or business establishments which were “compulsorily closed” due to COVID-19 lockdown.

A PIL filed through Advocate Amit Sahni in Delhi High Court seeking directions to telephone operators and internet service providers (ISPs) not to charge any amount to businesses, etc that remained “compulsorily closed” during the lockdown was withdrawn on Friday.

The PIL, filed by SK Sharma through advocate Amit Sahani, sought directions that the amount received by such telephone operators or ISPs for this “unused period” may be transferred to COVID-19 Relief Fund initiated by the Prime Minister of India.
Advocate Sahni argued that by virtue of compulsory lockdown, the public is unable to visit their workplace and therefore the telcos/ISP should not charge for lockdown period as the public was under compulsion not to avail services.

The Delhi High Court Friday refused to entertain a plea filed through Advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions to telecom firms and internet service providers (ISPs) not to charge offices, shops or business establishments which were “compulsorily closed” due to COVID-19 lockdown.

The PIL, filed by SK Sharma through advocate Amit Sahani, sought directions that the amount received by such telephone operators or ISPs for this “unused period” may be transferred to COVID-19 Relief Fund initiated by the Prime Minister of India.

The court disposed of the petition filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahni who referred to May 24 circular of the Delhi government regarding payment for treatment issued by a private hospital.

A PIL was filed by Advocate and Social Activist Amit Sahni in Delhi HC seeking direction to AAP led Delhi Govt to ensure that the declared COVID-19 Private Hospitals do not charge patients excessively.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan said though the issue raised in the plea filed by Advocate & Activist Amit Sahni is good, it cannot pass any general directions in this regard.

The Public Interest Litigation filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahni sought modification of a circular issued by the Delhi government on May 24.

The court disposed of the petition filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahni who referred to May 24 circular of the Delhi government regarding payment for treatment issued by a private hospital.