Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 969

K. M. JOSEPH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Bilkis Yakub Rasool – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Shobha Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Pratik R. Bombarde, Advocate, Mr. Yogesh Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Nizam Pasha, Advocate, Ms. Rashmi Singh, Advocate, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Advocate, Ms. Vrinda Grover, Advocate, Ms. Devika Tulsiani, Advocate, Mr. Soutik Banerjee, Advocate, Mr. Aakarsh Kamra, Advocate, Ms. Mannat Tipnis, Advocate, Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shadan Farasat, Advocate, Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Advocate, Mr. Rohin Bhatt, Advocate, Ms. Mriganka Kukreja, Advocate, Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Advocate, Ms. Hrishika Jain, Advocate, Mr. Aman Naqvi, Advocate, Ms. Natasha Maheshwari, Advocate, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Advocate, Ms. Karishma Maria, Advocate, Mr. Nizam Pasha, Advocate, Mr. Adit Subramaniam Pujari, Advocate, Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Advocate, Ms. Aparajita Sinha, Advocate and Ms. Maitreya Subramaniam, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Advocate, Ms. Himanshi Shakya, Advocate, Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Advocate, Mrs. Shraddha Deshmukh, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Dharamadhikari, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Advocate, Mr. Jaydip Pati, Advocate, Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Shrey Sharawat, Advocate, Mr. Vishal Arun, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advocate, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Jaiswal, Advocate, Mr. Divik Mathur, Advocate, Mr. Sheezan Hashmi, Advocate, Mr. Pankaj Singhal, Advocate, Mr. Ayush Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Astik Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Advocate, Mr. Vipul Abhishek, Advocate, Ms. Ayushi Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Praneet Pranav, Advocate, Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Advocate, Ms. Megha Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Akanksha Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Singh, Advocate, Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji, Advocate, Mr. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Advocate, Ms. Shreya, Advocate, Mr. Sushil, Advocate, Mr. Vishnu Kant, Advocate, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Advocate, Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Advocate, Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Advocate, Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Shrey Sharawat, Advocate, Mr. Vishal Arun, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advocate, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Jaiswal, Advocate, Mr. Divik Mathur, Advocate, Mr. Sheezan Hashmi, Advocate, Mr. Pankaj Singhal, Advocate, Mr. Ayush Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Astik Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Advocate, Mr. Vipul Abhishek, Advocate, Ms. Ayushi Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia, Advocate, Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Advocate, Mr. Jaydip Pati, Advocate, Mr. Prashant Padmanabhan, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. Simarjeet Singh Saluja, Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Jaiswal,, Advocate, Mr. Divik Mathur, Advocate, Ms. Prerna Dhall,, Advocate, Ms. Pratiksha Mishra, Advocate, Ms. Ronika Tater, Advocate, Ms. Rupakshi Soni, Advocate, Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Advocate, Mr. Narsimha Reddy, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advocate, Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Shreyas Balaji, Advocate and Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Advocate, for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel would submit that he is present before this Court because he is aware of the fact that connected cases are listed today before this Court but his client, namely, respondent No.7-Bipin Chand Kanaiyalal denies having received notice in W.P. (Criminal) No.491 of 2022. He would submit that a false affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. (Criminal) No.491 of 2022.

2. The allegation is made by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.7 that even though the respondent No.7 was not present at station and the report is to the effect that he was not present at the station and, therefore, service could not have been effected upon him, it is made to appear as if he refused service of notice. This is in respect of respondent Nos.7 and 9, he submits.

3. Ms. Shobha Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.(Criminal) No.491/2022 disputes the allegations which have been raised in relation to the service.

4. Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned counsel, appears on behalf of respondent No. 3. He would submit that he does not intend to file any counter affidavit. He, no doubt,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 969

K. M. JOSEPH, B. V. NAGARATHNABilkis Yakub Rasool – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

K. M. JOSEPH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Bilkis Yakub Rasool – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent