<p>The Supreme Court is likely to direct the CBI to probe into the “element of criminality” as emerged in some of the conversations of corporate lobbyist Niira Radia with prominent people, including politicians and journalists.<br /><br />A bench of Justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhyaya on Friday said the court wants to know the details of the officers who could be deputed to probe the matter.<br /><br />“We have gone through the transcripts of some of the conversations. Some of them are innocuous but others are not. It needs to be scrutinised by a team of officers. It cannot be done by us. Even if we shuffle through, it would take hours,” the bench said.<br /><br />The court pointed out the voluminous transcripts needed to be scrutinised to find out element of criminality in them.<br /><br />Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for industrialist Ratan Tata, said that if the court came across something which concerned safety and security of the country, it could be referred to the probe but utmost secrecy had to be maintained with regard to individual privacy.<br /><br />“We don’t want any mud-slinging. The scrutiny should confine to the issues relating to elements of criminality and administration of justice,” the court said.<br /><br />Tribunal criteria<br /><br />The apex court also asked the Centre to take steps, including the passage of a bill, within four weeks to bring uniformity in age criteria, qualification and pay structure of members and chairmen of different tribunals performing quasi-judicial functions in the country.<br />Expressing its displeasure over the Centre’s failure to act in this regard, a bench warned that the court would pass an order in the matter.<br /><br />“In the facts and circumstances, four weeks’ time is given to the respondent (Union government) to fulfil the commitment made on February 24 through the attorney-general and on December 4 through the additional solicitor general. Else, the court may have to consider the desirability of issuing suo motu directions as raised in the petition,” the bench said.<br /><br />Hartal response<br /><br />The court also sought sought response from the Centre and all state governments on a PIL contending that they failed to implement the guidelines issued by it on demonstration and agitation leading to destruction of public and private properties.<br /><br />A bench issued notice to the union as well as state governments on a petition referring to the directions passed by the apex court in 2007 and in 2009.The court gave them eight weeks time to file their response on the petition, contending that a plea seeking information from states under the RTI on action initiated including, amount recovered from political parties, on a number of hartals called by them in the states during the period 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 till date was not answered.<br /><br />Christian law<br /></p>.<p>The apex court has decided to examine a petition contending if a divorce granted by a Christian court set up under its personal law would be valid.</p>.<p>A bench issued notice to the Centre on the PIL which raised the legal question if Catholic Christian men could be prosecuted under bigamy charges for marrying again after getting a divorce under the Canon Law.<br /><br />The PIL by 84-year-old lawyer, Clarence Pais, has sought a direction to all criminal courts in the country to recognise a decree of annulment of marriage granted by the “ecclesiastical courts/tribunal.” If the dissolution of marriage by such courts was not held to be legally valid, thousands of Catholic Christian men could face criminal charges of bigamy, the petition contended.<br /></p>
<p>The Supreme Court is likely to direct the CBI to probe into the “element of criminality” as emerged in some of the conversations of corporate lobbyist Niira Radia with prominent people, including politicians and journalists.<br /><br />A bench of Justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhyaya on Friday said the court wants to know the details of the officers who could be deputed to probe the matter.<br /><br />“We have gone through the transcripts of some of the conversations. Some of them are innocuous but others are not. It needs to be scrutinised by a team of officers. It cannot be done by us. Even if we shuffle through, it would take hours,” the bench said.<br /><br />The court pointed out the voluminous transcripts needed to be scrutinised to find out element of criminality in them.<br /><br />Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for industrialist Ratan Tata, said that if the court came across something which concerned safety and security of the country, it could be referred to the probe but utmost secrecy had to be maintained with regard to individual privacy.<br /><br />“We don’t want any mud-slinging. The scrutiny should confine to the issues relating to elements of criminality and administration of justice,” the court said.<br /><br />Tribunal criteria<br /><br />The apex court also asked the Centre to take steps, including the passage of a bill, within four weeks to bring uniformity in age criteria, qualification and pay structure of members and chairmen of different tribunals performing quasi-judicial functions in the country.<br />Expressing its displeasure over the Centre’s failure to act in this regard, a bench warned that the court would pass an order in the matter.<br /><br />“In the facts and circumstances, four weeks’ time is given to the respondent (Union government) to fulfil the commitment made on February 24 through the attorney-general and on December 4 through the additional solicitor general. Else, the court may have to consider the desirability of issuing suo motu directions as raised in the petition,” the bench said.<br /><br />Hartal response<br /><br />The court also sought sought response from the Centre and all state governments on a PIL contending that they failed to implement the guidelines issued by it on demonstration and agitation leading to destruction of public and private properties.<br /><br />A bench issued notice to the union as well as state governments on a petition referring to the directions passed by the apex court in 2007 and in 2009.The court gave them eight weeks time to file their response on the petition, contending that a plea seeking information from states under the RTI on action initiated including, amount recovered from political parties, on a number of hartals called by them in the states during the period 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 till date was not answered.<br /><br />Christian law<br /></p>.<p>The apex court has decided to examine a petition contending if a divorce granted by a Christian court set up under its personal law would be valid.</p>.<p>A bench issued notice to the Centre on the PIL which raised the legal question if Catholic Christian men could be prosecuted under bigamy charges for marrying again after getting a divorce under the Canon Law.<br /><br />The PIL by 84-year-old lawyer, Clarence Pais, has sought a direction to all criminal courts in the country to recognise a decree of annulment of marriage granted by the “ecclesiastical courts/tribunal.” If the dissolution of marriage by such courts was not held to be legally valid, thousands of Catholic Christian men could face criminal charges of bigamy, the petition contended.<br /></p>
