Sunanda Pushkar died of poisoning, says Delhi Police

In a sensational turn of events, the Delhi police have registered a case of murder against ‘unknown persons’ in connection with the death of Sunanda Pushkar, wife of former Union Minister Shashi Tharoor. This startling development comes nearly a year after Sunanda Pushkar, wife of former Union Minister Shashi Tharoor, was found dead at a hotel room in Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. 

File Picture: Sunanda Pushkar

Delhi Police Commissioner B.S. Bassi, disclosing this development on Monday said that the conclusions made in a medical report submitted to them on December 29 confirmed that Pushkar was poisoned. He however hastened to add that it was not clear whether she had consumed the poison on her own or it was administered forcefully or by injection.

The report, prepared by the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences after studying the viscera report, contradicted the preliminary report, which concluded that it was caused by “overdose of Alprax.”

The new report, it is learnt, rules out the presence of Alprax in the body. 

“To ascertain the quantity of poison we will have to send the samples abroad as it cannot be done in the country. For sending the viscera samples outside India for tests, we are required to register a case which we have. Further, medical reports make it amply clear that it was a case of unnatural death and hence section 302 (murder) of Indian Penal Code has been invoked,” he said. 

The police also said that if needed, Mr. Tharoor could be called for questioning about the incident, which took place on January 17 last year.

 

Man granted interim bail arrested by police after registering second crime in respect of similar offence; Bombay HC orders probe into the 'high-handed' conduct of the investigating officer

The Bombay High Court has taken strong exception to the act of the Bandra Police in arresting a city resident despite being given interim protection from arrest in a similar case by the Court before.

Bombay High Court

The Bandra Police registered a second case, lodged by the same complainant, just 30 minutes before the man, Abid Hussain, was to arrive at the police station on the High Court's orders. Livid at the circumvention of the court orders, Justice Sadhna Jadhav directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (zone 9) to look into the conduct of the probe officer.

"It is apparent on the face of record that the investigating officer has been hand-in-glove with the complainant.Only to bypass an order passed by this court granting interim relief in favour of Hussain, (the officer) has attemp ted to register a fresh FIR and arrested him although (the officer) was fully aware that in a similar transaction, he (Hussain) has been protected by this court," Justice Jadhav said.

The High Court also pointed out that police had violated procedure by not sending a copy of the FIR to the magistrate and by detaining Hussain's family at the police station to secure his arrest.

"The high-handedness of the police officer is writ large on the face of record. The DCP, zone-9, shall personally look into the manner of the functioning of the investigating officer," the Bombay High Court said, giving the DCP six weeks to conduct an inquiry and file a report in the court before the next hearing of the case on February 6. 

Constitutional validity of National Judicial Appointments Commission Act challenged in 3 separate petitions before the Supreme Court

Three petitions seeking quashing of the new law on appointment of judges were moved in the Supreme Court on Monday, saying the proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission was “unconstitutional and violative” of the basic structure of the Constitution.

The petitions were filed barely a few days after the Constitution Amendment Bill setting up the NJAC received the assent of the President of India. 

The petitions were moved separately by the SC Advocates on Record Association and senior advocates Bishwajit Bhattacharyya and Bhim Singh against the constitutional validity of the NJAC.

The petition filed by the SC AoR Association, drafted by advocate Subhash Sharma and settled by senior lawyer Fali S Nariman, contends that the NJAC Act laid down framing of regulations for appointment of judges after due approval by both the Houses of Parliament. The petitioner said that this power could not be delegated to Parliament in the wake of the constitutional provisions that specifically envisaged how judges were to be selected and appointed.

“It is also submitted that the ‘primacy’ of the opinion of Chief Justice of India is sought to be done away with by passing the NJAC Act of 2014, by giving veto powers to any two members of the NJAC (being either the eminent person or the law minister), thereby overruling the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India and other two senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court,” stated the petition. It added that a nine-judge bench had already declared that independence of judiciary was a facet of the basic structure of the Constitution and that Parliament could not hence amend it.

Bhattacharyya’s petition described the NJAC as a “severe attack” on the institution of the Chief Justice of India, who will be vetoed out by an overpowering Executive in matters of making appointments. 

The NJAC Act and the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act are ultra vires of the basic structure of the Constitution, as various clauses stipulated therein make a frontal attack on the independence of the Judiciary and on the doctrine of separation of powers, as per the petitions by Bhattacharya and Bhim Singh.