Ani
The apex court on September 6, 2019 issued a notice to the Center on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2019 amendment in the illegal activity Act. The bench said that other High Courts can also investigate new petitions against UA amendments. The court was hearing the petitions filed by Sajal Awasthi, Association for Protection of Civil Rights and Amitabh Pandey.
The Supreme Court refused to hear the petitions against the amendment in the UAPA provisions to nominate individuals as terrorists and to seize assets. A bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Vishwanathan asked the Delhi High Court to hear the case. The Supreme Court said that we cannot become a prima facie court. There are many problems, sometimes issues are left in your favor. Sometimes in his favor, then we have to go to the big back. First, it should be decided by the High Court.
The apex court on September 6, 2019 issued a notice to the Center on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2019 amendment in the illegal activity act. The bench said that other High Courts can also investigate new petitions against UA amendments. The court was hearing the petitions filed by Sajal Awasthi, Association for Protection of Civil Rights and Amitabh Pandey. The CJI said that complex legal issues often come up in such cases and it would be appropriate for the High Courts to investigate it first. Senior advocate CU Singh, appearing for one of the petitioners, had urged the apex court to hear the case, saying that he had issued a notice five years ago.
The senior advocate said that instead of disposing of the petitions, the case could be transferred to the Delhi High Court as there were logical difficulties for the petitioners, many of which, said they were retired bureaucrats. In our case we are all retired iconic bureaucrats. We filed a petition before the Supreme Court, and we would find it inconvenient to get representation before many High Courts.
Other news
