•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student
other

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

SJ Mukhopadhaya

12 November 2014

Supreme Court justices SJ Mukhopadhaya and NV Ramana have set aside declined to interfere with a Calcutta high court order that declined to cancel the bail of former NUJS Kolkata assistant registrar Siddhartha Guha, who is accused of having sexually harassed another staff member at the college, reported the Times of India.

Correction: We understand that the Times of India story was erreneous and we regret republishing their report. The Supreme Court did not interfere with the lower court's order, but said on 11 November:

There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner brought to the notice of the High Court that the accused/Respondent No.2-Siddhartha Guha who has been granted bail is threatening the petitioner. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order refusing cancellation of bail but give liberty to the petitioner to move before the High Court for cancellation of bail, in case of threat given by accused-respondent No.2. If any such petition is filed for cancellation of bail on the ground of threat given by the accused respondent NO.2, the Court may consider the same uninfluenced by the earlier order passed by the High Court or this Court.

The alleged victim, represented by advocates Siddharth Dave and Phiroze Edulji, alleged before the apex court that Guha had threatened her with an acid attack, as set out in a police complaint. The Supreme Court told her to approach the high court with evidence of why Guha should not be granted bail.


There is nothing on record to suggest that the
petitioner brought to the notice of the High Court that the
accused/Respondent No.2-Siddhartha Guha who has been granted
bail is threatening the petitioner. In that view of the
matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order refusing cancellation of bail but give liberty to the
petitioner to move before the High Court for cancellation of
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi bail, in case of threat given by accused-respondent No.2. If
Date: 2014.11.14
10:41:51 IST
Reason:
- 2 -




any such petition is filed for cancellation of bail on the
ground of threat given by the accused respondent NO.2, the
Court may consider the same uninfluenced by the earlier order
passed by the High Court or this Court.
11 July 2013

A Supreme Court bench of Justices AK Patnaik and SJ Mukhopadhaya ruled that lawmakers can be disqualified if they have been convicted of a criminal offence.

The bench struck down as ultra vires section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), which protected MPs, MLAs and other legislators in their posts if they had appealed their criminal convictions in a higher court, reported the Indian Express.

The ruling, which will not apply retrospectively to those who have already filed their criminal appeals, was made in petitions filed by Lily Thomas and the NGO Lok Prahari, which challenged a number of RPA provisions as unconstitutional.

According to disclosures made by candidates to the Election Commission, 1,460 MPs and MLAs have criminal cases pending, of which 688 were serious, reported the Express.

[Download judgment here]