SC refuses plea seeking clemency for Balwant Singh Rajoana

 The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking clemency for Balwant Singh Rajoana, convicted for assassinating Punjab’s former chief minister Beant Singh.

The petition was moved by an NGO seeking a stay on Rajoana’s proposed execution on March 31.

Rajoana has himself neither challenged his conviction nor filed any mercy petition although Beant Singh’s relatives had forgiven him.

He had earlier asked the Akalis in a letter not to save him and claimed that they were pushing for a pardon out of fear of losing support in Punjab.

Chief Minister Beant Singh was assassinated by a human bomb, Dilawar Singh, just outside the Punjab secretariat on August 31, 1995. Rajoana was to serve as a back-up bomb in case Dilawar failed.

Rajoana and Jagtar Singh Hawara, the alleged mastermind, were awarded the death sentence. Hawara’s death sentence was commuted to life by Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appeal of another co-accused, Lakhwinder Singh, is pending before the Supreme Court.

Attorney general: Centre fully accepts decriminalization of gay sex

 Attorney general G E Vahanvati informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the Centre has fully accepted the Delhi high court verdict, which decriminalized consensual gay sex between adults in private. The Centre clarified its stand on homosexuality, saying there is no error in decriminalization of gay sex.

The Supreme Court had sought assistance from the attorney general in view of contradictory stand taken before the Supreme Court and high court.

Vahanvati said though the government had opposed dilution of Section 377 as far as consensual gay sex in private was concerned, it later realised that the high court verdict was correct. The HC verdict decriminalizing homosexuality is acceptable to us, he stressed. We learnt and got subsequently enlightened after the verdict, he added.

Criminalizing gay sex among consenting adults in private is violation of fundamental rights, the attorney general added on the Centre's behalf.

SC dismisses PIL against Shah Rukh Khan

Observing that Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan cannot be targeted merely because of his celebrity status, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition accusing him of building his palatial Mumbai bungalow Mannat in violation of various laws.

A bench of justices DK Jain and AR Dave felt had the petitioners brought to its notice similar purported violations by others in the area, it could have examined the issue, but as the petition was solely aimed against Shah Rukh there was no reason for it to interfere.

The petition filed by two Mumbai residents Simpreet Singh and Amit Maruan, who claimed to be social activists, had alleged that the actor had violated various environmental, coastal regulations zone and archaeological laws in building his bungalow.

"What about others? Why have you selected only one building. Is it because he happens to be a celebrity?

"Did you check as to how many others have constructed similar bungalows and buildings. Why haven`t you done it?," asked Justice Jain, heading the bench, from the petitioners` counsel Munawwar Naseem.

The Bombay High Court had, on January 28, dismissed the PIL filed by the duo and imposed a cost of Rs20,000 on them saying it was a "publicity petition".

The apex court said while the petitioner may be bonafide individuals, yet, if there are 1000 such violators, they cannot pick one person along merely because of his/her celebrity status.

"Why don`t you file against others in respect of similar properties if you are serious about it. If there are 1000 such violations you cannot complain against only one person, " the bench remarked.

Later in a terse order the apex court said, "We find no reason to interfere" with the high court order.

Senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi and others appearing for Khan had, however, contended that there was no violation of rules and the construction was allowed by the municipal body and the high court had rightly dismissed the PIL.

Election results: CBI’s sword hangs over Mulayam, family

The Samajwadi Party pedalled to a podium finish in the UP polls, but a five-year-old Supreme Court order asking the CBI to inquire into an alleged disproportionate assets case of Mulayam Singh and kin could queer their victory pitch.

Going by the popular perception that the CBI heeds to the Centre's command in political cases, the Yadavs could ill-afford not to take note of the spoiler that the Congress-led UPA may prove for them. And the danger is neither far off nor improbable to be brushed aside. For, on October 26, 2007, the CBI had filed an application in the SC seeking permission to proceed ahead with the case on the ground that during the preliminary probe it had stumbled upon prima facie evidence on the alleged DA case of the SP chieftain, his sons, Akhilesh and Prateek, and daughter-in-law Dimple.

The CBI's plea that as an independent agency it did not take instructions from the government was filed in the court that was in the midst of hearing a petition filed by Akhilesh seeking review of the SC's March 2007 order passed on a PIL. The SC had ordered the CBI to submit the preliminary probe report to the Centre for further action.

When the matter was crucially poised before the court, there was a change in political equations with SP's 39 MPs rescuing the UPA during the 2008 trust vote on the Indo-US nuclear deal. Indebted by the SP's help, the UPA decided to pay back.

The CBI filed another application on December 6, 2008, seeking permission to withdraw its October 26, 2007 plea. The logic behind the flip-flop - a grave error in the calculation of assets had led the agency to believe that the SP chief and his family members had amassed wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income. A bench of Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph reserved orders on the plea. After three years, the order is yet to come and Justice Joseph has retired. This would warrant a fresh hearing in the case and possible fresh trouble.

What if the CBI does a somersault again? The fallout could be grave: prosecution of all the four important members of the SP first family.

SC pulls up Centre for shifting stand on homosexuality issue

The central government on Today changed its stand on homosexuality issue in the Supreme Court, saying there is no error in decriminalising gay sex.

The SC pulled up the central government for shifting its stand on homosexuality.

"Don't make mockery of the system and don't waste court's time," the Supreme Court told the Union government.

The Centre suffered a huge embarrassment in the Supreme Court on Feb 23 when its counsel termed homosexuality as immoral, disregarding the decision of the Union Cabinet not to oppose the Delhi high court's verdict on Section 377 of Indian Penal Code decriminalizing consensual sex among gay adults.

Appearing in the hearing on a petition challenging the HC order which decriminalized Section 377 and was celebrated as a major triumph by gay activists and liberal advocacy groups, additional solicitor general P P Malhotra launched into a sharp attack on homosexuality, calling it immoral.

SC blames Yoga Guru Ramdev, cops for Ramlila crackdown

In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Today held Baba Ramdev and Delhi Police guilty of negligence in a case related to midnight crackdown on yoga guru’s followers at the Ramlila Maidan on June 4-5 last year during his anti-corruption agitation.

The apex court, while stressing that the authorities could have avoided the violent incident, said that both Baba Ramdev and the police acted in an irresponsible manner.

“There was abuse of power by the Delhi Police and there was violation of fundamental rights of people,” the apex court bench of justices BS Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said.

“The incident shows might of the state which strikes at the foundation of democracy. It is a glaring example of trust deficit between people governing and people being governed,” it said.

The Supreme Court also ordered the state authorities to file criminal cases against those responsible for the crackdown on hundreds of innocent supporters.

The court also directed the authorities to give a compensation of Rs 5 lakh to the family members of Rajbala, the woman who died due to the injury suffered in the police crackdown.

Besides, the court also ordered a compensation of Rs 50,000 for those who sustained serious injuries and Rs 35,000 for those with minor injuries during the incident.

Importantly, the apex court asked the yoga guru to share 25% of the total compensation to be given to the victims.

The apex court had taken suo motu cognisance of media reports purportedly showing brutality of police action against the sleeping followers of Ramdev, including women and children.

Ramdev had alleged the police action was carried out on the instructions of their political masters and demanded action against all people who had directed the mid-night crackdown.

Ramdev was agitating along with his followers against corruption and demanding that the UPA government must make sincere efforts to bring back black money illegally parked in secret foreign bank accounts by tax evaders.

Delhi Police, however, claimed Ramdev had instigated his followers to indulge in violence, forcing the police to act at that time of the night.

Centre opposes decriminalisation of homosexuality in SC

The Centre on Today opposed dilution of Section 377 of Indian Penal Code by Delhi high court, which decriminalised sexual act in private between consenting adults. It tells SC that the HC erred because a vast section of Indian society still considered it to be an immoral act, hence the provision needs to be retained in full to reflect the society's views. Though the Centre had not appeal against the judgement, the ministry of Home affairs came out strongly against dilution of Section 377.

When the SC asked who decides what is immoral, the Union government said the society did so and argued that the laws can not but reflect the views of the society, which in India considers homosexuality as immoral. The government said the HC considered judgements of Foreign countries alone where homosexuality may not be resented.

SC stays TADA proceedings in 2 cases against gangster Abu Salem

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed TADA proceedings in two cases against alleged gangster Abu Salem in view of Portugal court's order terminating his extradition to India.

However, the apex court refused to stay proceedings in other cases and issued notice to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Centre on Salem's plea to quash all criminal cases against him.

"We have to respect the order passed by the Portuguese court," the SC said while delivering its judgement.

Salem, extradited from Portugal in 2005, was booked under the act for allegedly making extortion calls to Delhi-based businessman Ashok Gupta, demanding Rs 5 crore as protection money.

The Supreme Court of Portugal recently rejected India's appeal and cancelled the extradition of Salem, saying the CBI had violated the extradition treaty between the two countries.

The court in Portugal accused the Indian agencies of violating the conditions under which he was permitted to be taken to India in November 2005 to face trial in eight cases, including the 1993 Mumbai blasts.

A trial court in 2009 dismissed the police plea seeking to withdraw charges under the MCOCA against Salem.

SC to decide Kasab’s plea to commute his death or life imprisonment

The Supreme Court is set to hear Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab’s plea to commute his death sentence to life imprisonment. Kasab, who is the sole convict in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case, has citied his age and being not part of the larger conspiracy, as the basis on which he seeks leniency.

Yesterday, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who has been appointed as amicus curiae by the apex court to defend Kasab, told a bench headed by Justice Aftab Alam that Kasab was drawn into the conspiracy by exploitation of religious faith and false ideology.

"The choice before the Supreme Court is life (imprisonment) and irreversible death penalty. It would not be prudent to affirm the extreme penalty," Ramachandran said.

"Even if I am guilty under section 302 (punishment for murder) of the IPC and other provisions, it cannot be said that I was a part of the larger conspiracy of waging war," he submitted on behalf of Kasab.

Maintaining that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against him beyond doubts, he told the bench that his right against self-incrimination as well as his right to get himself adequately represented by a counsel to defend himself in the case have been violated during the trial.

The apex court had on October 10 last year stayed the death sentence of 24-year-old Kasab, the lone surviving terrorist involved in the November, 2008, Mumbai attack.

In the special leave petition filed by Kasab challenging the Bombay High Court judgement, he claimed he was brainwashed like a "robot" into committing the heinous crime in the name of "God" and that he does not deserve capital punishment owing to his young age.

Kasab has been lodged in Arthur Road prison in Mumbai and had moved the SLP through jail authorities. He had challenged his conviction and death sentence in the terror attack case.

Kasab, along with nine other Pakistani terrorists, had landed at Budhwar Park in south Mumbai on November 26, 2008, night after travelling from Karachi by sea and had gone on a shooting spree at various city landmarks, leaving 166 people dead and many more wounded.

While Kasab was captured, the other terrorists in the group were killed by police in counter-terror operations. He was sentenced to death by a special anti-terror court on May 6, 2010.

The Bombay High Court had on February 21, 2011, upheld the trial court order of death sentence to Kasab for the "brutal and diabolical" attacks aimed at "destabilising" the government.

Kasab's death penalty was upheld on charges of criminal conspiracy, waging war against the nation and various other provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the anti-terror law -- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

The High Court had upheld Kasab's conviction on 19 counts under the IPC, Arms Act, Explosives Act, Explosive Substances Act, the Foreigners Act, the Passport Act and the Railway Act.

Pakistan SC to indict PM Gilani with contempt of court

Pakistan's embattled Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was on today indicated by the Supreme Court for contempt of court over his refusal to reopen graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.

A seven-member bench of the Supreme Court said that Gilani was given two years to act on its repeated orders to revive cases of alleged money laundering against Zardari in Switzerland but he failed to comply.

All the judges on the bench concurred with the charges and signed the chargesheet. 59-year-old Gilani, who was personally present in the court, was asked whether he understands the charge against him, to which Gilani said, “I have done no wrong.”

Gilani refused to accept the charges and maintained that President Zardari enjoy immunity. Importantly, the Prime Minister was asked to stand on the rostrum as the charges were read out against him.

Meanwhile, the hearing on the contempt case has been adjourned till February 27. PM Gilani has been exempted from appearing in person during the next hearing.

Also, the Attorney General has been asked by the court to submit relevant documents by February 16.

On February 22 and 27, the prosecution and defence would put up evidence.

With Gilani refusing to bow down, the stage is set for a protracted battle in the court. Gilani is the first Prime Minister of Pakistan to have been indicted for contempt of court.

The Prime Minister had, earlier too, appeared in the court when it took up the contempt case on January 19 and said the government could not reopen the cases against the President because he enjoys complete immunity in Pakistan and abroad.

Refusing to buy his arguments, the SC told Gilani that he had no option but to write to Swiss authorities to revive graft cases against Zardari as no one was above the law.

If Gilani is convicted, he could be imprisoned for six months and face possible removal from office after being disqualified from holding public office for five years.

Pakistan's I&B Minister Firdaus Ashiq today backed PM Gilani, saying the Constitution provides immunity to President Zardari.

However, legal experts pointed out that the President had the power to pardon him after his conviction. SM Zafar, a noted lawyer and parliamentarian, said such a presidential pardon would apply only to the punishment handed down by the court while the conviction would remain on record.

Therefore, the premier could be disqualified despite the pardon, he remarked.

The apex court has been pressuring the government to reopen the cases since December 2009, when it struck down the National Reconciliation Ordinance, a graft amnesty issued by former military ruler Pervez Musharraf that benefited Zardari and over 8,000 others.

Army Chief General VK Singh’s age row: Govt to file reply in SC today

The hearing on Army Chief General VK Singh’s age row will resume in the Supreme Court on Friday.

After being pulled up by the apex court during the last hearing, the government is likely to file its reply on the matter today.

The SC on February 3 had given an option to the government to "withdraw" its December 30, 2011 order rejecting the Army Chief’s statutory complaint, saying it "appears to be vitiated".

Gen Singh had earlier this week submitted before the Supreme Court additional documents to support his case for restoring his date of birth as May 10, 1951. The documents relate to the Army Rules on Commissioning of officers.

The petition filed by Gen Singh seeks to set aside two orders rejecting his plea.

During the last hearing, the SC had said that there were other remedies available for Gen Singh if the government withdraws its December 30, 2011 order.

"Be clear whether you want to withdraw this December 30 order, or we quash the order," the court had said at one point prompting Attorney General GE Vahanvati to say he would take instructions from the government.

Posing questions to the government, a bench comprising justices RM Lodha and HL Gokhale had said in that case Gen Singh's statutory complaint against July 21 order can be reconsidered by the authorities and there was also an option for him to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal or the High Court.

However, later the bench observed that approaching the Tribunal would not be the best option as only four months are left for him to retire.

It also said that though the tribunal is headed by a retired judge of the apex court, there are also members who come from the services and there is a possibility that they could either be junior or senior to Gen Singh at some point of time.

The apex court felt that the December 30 order rejecting Gen Singh's statutory complaint for treating his age as May 10, 1951 was vitiated as the decision taken by the authority was in consultation with opinion of the Attorney General on whose opinion also the first order was passed on July 21 last year.

Gen Singh had moved the apex court in January this year accusing the government of treating him in a manner reflecting total lack of adherence to procedure and principles of natural justice in deciding his age.

The Army Chief took the unprecedented step of dragging the government to the apex court after the Defence Ministry had insisted upon treating May 10, 1950 as his official date of birth, necessitating his retirement on May 31 this year.

Challenging the government's decision to determine May 10, 1950 as his date of birth, Gen Singh, in a 68-page petition, has maintained that his acceptance of 1950 as the year of his birth was given in good faith at the behest of the then chief of Army Staff and not due to agreement with the conclusion of the Military Secretary's Branch.

"The respondent (government) needs to explain as to why the senior most officer of the Army could be treated in a manner which reflects total lack of procedure and principles of natural justice and that too on an opinion obtained from the Attorney General," his petition said.

Gen Singh stated that the government's action and conduct in refusing to accept his contention on his birth date was affecting his image before the general public and the armed forces.

It was his right to have a "dignified life", he pleaded in the petition, adding that an Army Chief has "a right to retire with dignity".

Mumbai attack: Supreme Court debunks Kasab claim

The Supreme Court Wednesday debunked Mumbai terror attack convict and Pakistani terrorist Ajmal Kasab's contention that he was not a part of the overarching conspiracy of waging war against the Indian government but merely an agent in executing it.

"You knew everything and preparing for it" before landing at Indian shores, the court said.

The attack Nov 26-28, 2008, in Mumbai left 166 people dead, including foreigners.

An apex court bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice C.K. Prasad described as "incredible and unimaginable" Kasab's contention, made through amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran.

Justice Alam said this when Kasab said: "I am not a part of the larger conspiracy of waging war against the government of India and my position at best is that of a contract killer in executing a conspiracy."

Your contention is that "you are not part of the overarching conspiracy of waging war against the government of India but an agent but if your confession is seen then you knew everything", Justice Alam said.

Kasab's counsel Ramachandran said "if my confession is accepted then I have no case".

As Ramachandran persisted with his contention that Kasab was not a part of the larger conspiracy, the court said "you all 10 landed together and then split into five groups of two each and created havoc in Mumbai".

Justice Prasad said: "You did not come by a public transport or conventional way of transportation" adding "the incident of such magnitude could not be without conspiracy".

As the court observed that "there is no doubt that there was some conspiracy", Ramachandran said "on that observation I will not join the issue".

The apex court is hearing Kasab's appeal challenging the upholding of his death sentence by the Bombay High Court Feb 21, 2011.

SIT gives clean chit to Modi in Gulberg case

A day after the Special Investigation Team (SIT), which is probing 2002 riots, filed its final report in the Gulberg Society case, a local court, Thursday, is expected to go into its details, amid reports that Chief Minister Narendra Modi has been given a clean chit.

The metropolitan magistrate will take cognizance of the SIT report and set up date for the hearing in the case. The court may also issue notices to the investigating team and the petitioner Zakia Jafri for the same.

Media reports suggest that the SIT report has found evidence of Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s alleged role in the case.

The report was submitted, yesterday, in a sealed envelope by SIT officials in a magisterial court here as directed by the Supreme court.

Zakia Jafri - her husband, ex-MLA Eshan Jafri, was killed by a mob at their Gulberg society home - had moved the petition seeking prosecution of Narendra Modi in the case.

On September 12, 2011, in a relief to Narendra Modi, the Supreme Court had ruled that a trial court would hear the petition by Zakia Jafri, who alleged deliberate inaction on the part of the Gujarat Chief Minister in the killing of her husband Ehsan Jafri and dozens of others in Ahmedabad's Gulberg Society during the 2002 riots.

The plea by Jafri, also alleged inaction on the part of Modi's cabinet colleagues and some high-ranking state officials.

The court said the magistrate, before deciding on the complaint, would give her afford an opportunity to be heard.

The court had also asked the special investigation team (SIT) headed by former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director RK Raghvan to file its status report before the concerned magistrate.

The amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran report, which differed with the findings of the SIT, was also referred to the magistrate.

After that, the magistrate was to take a final call on the alleged involvement of people named in the FIR.

Emboldened by the Supreme Court’s ruling, Modi had tweeted, ‘God is great’.

The apex court in 2009 had earlier handed over the task of probing the case to SIT which submitted its report in 2011.

Aarushi Case: CBI court adjourns hearing till Feb 29

A special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court in Ghaziabad on today adjourned the hearing in the Aarushi-Hemraj double murder case till February 29.

Dr Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, the prime accused in their 14-year-old daughter's murder, did not attend the hearing today.

Aarushi's parents had earlier moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of their case from Ghaziabad to Delhi citing security concerns.

14-year-old Aarushi, the only daughter of the Talwars, was found dead with her throat slit at the family's Noida residence on the intervening night of May 15-16, 2008 and the body of domestic help Hemraj was found on the terrace the next day.

The apex court had, on January 06 asked the dentist couple to face trial in the murder of Aarushi, a class nine student, and Hemraj.

The investigation in the case was initially carried out by the Uttar Pradesh Police which had arrested Aarushi's father on May 23, 2008.

The probe was subsequently handed over to the CBI on May 29, 2008 and Rajesh was granted bail by the Ghaziabad court on July 11, 2008.

The CBI after probing the murder for over two-and-half years filed its closure report in the case in the Ghaziabad special CBI court, saying it had been unable to find out any evidence to prosecute the Talwars.

The trial court, however, rejected the CBI closure report, saying there was enough prima facie material in the agency's report to put the couple on trial for their alleged involvement in the twin murders and had issued summons to them to face trial.

The magistrate took cognisance of the case and summoned Talwars on February 9, 2011.

Rajesh and Nupur had subsequently gone to the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed their pleas to quash the trial court summons and the proceedings initiated against them.

The Talwar couple then approached the apex court which had on March 19 last year stayed the trial against them but it vacated the stay on Friday.

SC adjourns hearing till Feb 10 on Army Chief General VK Singh's plea

The Supreme Court on today adjourned the hearing till February 10 on Army Chief General VK Singh's plea for a direction to the government to declare May 10, 1951, as his date of birth in place of May 10, 1950.

While hearing the case Justice RM Lodha asked Attorney General to seek instruction from the government on withdrawing its order rejecting the statutory complaint of Army Chief on age issue.

The apex court also questioned the procedure adopted by the govt in passing the December 30 order in not allowing the complaint of Army Chief Gen VK Singh.

Gen Singh's plea accuses the government of treating him in a manner, reflecting total lack of adherence to procedure and principles of natural justice in deciding his age.

Gen Singh took the unprecedented step of dragging the government to the apex court after the Defence Ministry had insisted upon treating May 10, 1950, as his official date of birth, necessitating his retirement on May 31 this year.

Challenging the government's decision to determine May 10, 1950, as his date of birth and not May 10, 1951, Gen Singh, in a 68-page petition, has maintained that his acceptance of 1950 as the year of his birth was given in good faith at the behest of the then chief of Army Staff and not due to agreement with the conclusion of the Military Secretary's Branch.

"The respondent (government) needs to explain as to why the senior most officer of the Army could be treated in a manner which reflects total lack of procedure and principles of natural justice and that too on an opinion obtained from the Attorney General," his petition said.

Supreme Court cancelled all 2G licences today issued by Raja

In a historic verdict, the Supreme Court on Today cancelled all 122 2G telecom licences granted during the tenure of former telecom minister A Raja in 2008.

An apex court bench comprising of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly held that 122 licences for 2G spectrum were granted in ‘arbitrary and unconstitutional manner’.

However, affected companies have been given four months to enter into talks with government based on current market rates.

The court directed TRAI to make fresh recommendation on grant of 2G licences, while making it clear that the allocation of spectrum will be done through auction.

Companies which stand to lose their licences include Videocon, Swan, Idea, Tata and Loop.

The bench had earlier issued notices to 11 private telecom companies, which were granted licences despite allegedly being ineligible to secure them or had failed to launch services within stipulated time-frame.

The private telecom companies which were issued notices included Etisalat, Uninor, Loop Telecom, Videocon, S-Tel, Allianz Infra, Idea Cellular, Tata Teleservices, Sistema Shyam Teleservices, Dishnet Wireless, Vodafone-Essar along with TRAI.

SC to pronounce its judgement on Vodafone tax dispute today

The Supreme Court will on today pronounce its judgement on Vodafone International Holdings' appeal challenging the income tax demand of Rs 11,000 crore on the overseas deal between Vodafone and Hutchison.

Vodafone had moved the apex court challenging the Bombay High Court judgement of September 8, 2010 which had held that Indian IT department had jurisdiction over the deal.

Through the USD 11.2 billion deal in May 2007, Vodafone acquired 67 percent stake in the Hutchison-Essar Ltd (HEL) from Hong Kong-based Hutchison Group through companies based in Netherlands and Cayman Island.

The IT Department maintained that since capital gains were made in India through the deal, Vodafone was liable to pay the tax and issued a show cause notice to it asking as to why it should not be treated as a representative assessee of the Vodafone International Holding.

Vodafone, however, challenged the the show cause notice before the Bombay High Court saying it was share transfer carried outside India.

The appeal was rejected by the high court in December 2008 which was again challenged by Vodafone before the apex court.

The Supreme Court also dismissed Vodafone's appeal in January 2009 and directed IT Department to decide whether it had jurisdiction to tax the transaction.

The Supreme Court, however, observed Vodafone would be at liberty to challenge the IT department's decision if it went against Vodafone and the question of law would also be open.

The IT Department passed an order in May 2010 and held that it had competent jurisdiction to treat Vodafone as an 'assessee in default' for failure to deduct tax at source.

This decision of IT department was challenged by Vodafone before the Bombay High Court.

The high court by its September 8, 2010 judgement, dismissed Vodafone's petition and held that "the essence of the transaction was a change in the controlling interest in HEL which constituted a source of income in India".

It said the "the proceedings which have been initiated by the Income Tax Authorities cannot be held to lack jurisdiction".

The Bombay High Court judgement was challenged by Vodafone before the Supreme Court on September 14, 2010.

The Supreme Court by its interim order on September 27, 2010, refused to stay the high court verdict and asked the IT department to compute the tax liability of Vodafone.

On November 15, 2010 the apex court asked Vodafone to deposit Rs 2,500 crore and a bank guarantee of Rs 8500 crore before the hearing of the case began.

It also said that if the case goes in favour of Vodafone then the government will have to return the amount to Vodafone along with interest.

Supreme Court finally began hearing detailed arguments on in the case on August 3, 2011 and reserved its judgement on October 19, 2011.

PM-Antony meet over Army Chief’s age row

Even as its inept handling of the Army chief's age controversy comes under attack from various quarters, government sources insisted that they took what was the most sound legal course of action while handling General V K Singh's demand.

The Army chief's writ petition in the Supreme Court came even as the national security advisor, on the prime minister's instruction, and others in the government were trying to figure out a solution to the entire issue. In fact, as late as last week, a senior member of the Cabinet told TOI that he was hopeful of an "amicable settlement" to the issue.

Government sources said their decisions on Gen Singh's demand were shaped by what was legally the most sound advice available to them. It was precisely because of this that the defence ministry obtained three opinions from the attorney general on Gen Singh's demand. "At every stage, we wanted to be very sure that we are taking what is legally the most sound decision because we anticipated that our decision would be challenged in the courts," a senior government source said.

The government was also concerned that any decision which was not legally sound, and seemed to favour Gen Singh, would end up "dividing the Army", further adding to the fissures within the ranks. "We couldn't favour anyone at all," he said.

If the government were to accept Gen Singh's contention that he was born in 1951 and not 1950, it would have changed the accepted line of succession and resulted in Lt Gen K T Parnaik becoming the next chief.

According to the government's stand, Gen Singh's retirement on May 31, 2012 will pave the way for Lt Gen Bikram Singh, who heads the Eastern Army Command, to take over as the next chief. The government is generally guided by the seniority principle in selection of Army chief.

Government sources insisted that they had not looked at possible administrative decisions in response to Gen Singh's unprecedented decision to move court. Indications emerging from within the government are that it may not prefer a very aggressive line, such as dismissing him from service. While the Army chief enjoys the right to move a legal forum, the fact that he is challenging the government is an uncomfortable position for many within the system.

Sources also said the government was ready to present all documents related to the case before the Supreme Court. Among them are a host of documents attesting to its claim that Gen Singh's official year of birth is 1950. Most particularly, the MoD is expected to present before the court three undertakings given by Gen Singh since becoming a lieutenant general that he would abide by the decision of the Army Headquarters/MoD on the age issue. The last undertaking was given just a few days before he was appointed Army chief, and it was addressed to the then Army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor and copied to then defence secretary Pradeep Kumar.

In the last undertaking Gen Singh explicitly committed not to rake up the issue of age and to abide by the decision of the government. Sources said this was given by Gen Singh after some media reports appeared in the run-up to his selection as Army chief