While fixing Karuna Shankar’s release, Supreme Court CJI Chandrachud directed her to file a consent affidavit within a month and said we look at UP first. After this, orders will be issued for other states as well.
The 68-year-old has been in jail for the past 20 years Karuna Shankar’s release for Supreme Court Chief Justice Md DY Chandrachud Notice issued to Uttar Pradesh DGP within one month Compliance Report Directed to file compliance report. is Karuna Shankar, a resident of Unnao in Uttar Pradesh, has been in jail for 19 years and four months. Although his remission petition is also pending with the government for almost three and a half years.
Rishi Malhotra, counsel for petitioner Karuna Shankar in the court case, said, “This is not one case, there are many such cases. Moreover, there are such cases everywhere in the country. which needs to be considered. During the hearing, the state government said that we are formulating a policy and it will be ready by April.
Will issue orders for other states too: CJI Chandrachud
Petitioner’s lawyer Rishi Malhotra said the court should first order his release in this case. Formulating government policies may take time.
While fixing Karuna Shankar’s release, CJI Chandrachud directed to file an affidavit of compliance within a month and said we look at UP first. After this, orders will be issued for other states as well. CJI Chandrachud also said that we will issue detailed orders in this regard.
Supreme Court judgment not challenged in PIL: SC
On the other hand, a case came up in the Supreme Court on Friday, where the court’s decision was challenged in the form of a public interest litigation. Dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court made it clear that no decision of the court can be challenged in a petition filed under Article 32.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation against the decision in Narani Devi v. Central Govt. Advocate Siddharth Shukla filed the PIL before a bench of CJI DY Chandrachud. In this regard, the CJI said that the decision of this court cannot be challenged as a public interest case. You cannot come under Article 32 and say that one decision violates another decision. In such circumstances we reject the application.