- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Seeking Imposition of President's Rule Over Rising Crime Rate in UP
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Seeking Imposition of President's Rule Over Rising Crime Rate in UP The Supreme Court of India (SC) rejected a plea to direct the imposition of President's rule under Article 356 of the Constitution of India in Uttar Pradesh (UP), claiming the lawlessness, especially against women, is higher than in other States. A Bench of Chief Justice Bobde and Justices...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Seeking Imposition of President's Rule Over Rising Crime Rate in UP
The Supreme Court of India (SC) rejected a plea to direct the imposition of President's rule under Article 356 of the Constitution of India in Uttar Pradesh (UP), claiming the lawlessness, especially against women, is higher than in other States.
A Bench of Chief Justice Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian asked the petitioner-in-person, advocate C.R. Jaya Sukin, the ground on which he based his claim and asked him to produce his research, comparing the crime rate in UP with other States, on record.The SC warned the petitioner for imposing a heavy cost on him for wasting its time.
The Top Court also asked him to prove that how the alleged situation in UP has affected his fundamental rights and that prompted him to file the petition to which he replied that "I am a citizen".
A petition was filed before the SC for seeking imposition of President's rule in UP citing an alleged breakdown of Constitutional machinery and rising crime in the State of UP.
Advocate Sukin submitted before the Apex Court that "A lot of extra-judicial killings, arbitrary killings are taking place in Uttar Pradesh". He claimed that "Of the total number of crimes in India, more than 30% are in Uttar Pradesh".
He emphasized in his petition over several incidents in the recent past, including the alleged gangrape and murder of a 19-year-old Dalit girl at Hathras in the State. He also highlighted the detention of Dr. Kafeel Khan, the police excesses in the AMU, the name-and-shame banners of the anti-CAA protesters, etc.
The advocate claimed that the State of UP is the "most unsafe for women". He sought imposition of Article 356 of the Constitution in UP and said that it is necessary to save the Indian democracy and lives of 20 crore people.
The petitioner stated that "According to the National Crime Record Bureau's Crime in India 2019 report, Uttar Pradesh recorded the highest number of crimes against women. India reported 4,05,861 cases in 2019 and of these, Uttar Pradesh had 59,853 such incidents".
CJI SA Bobde asked the advocate, "In how many states have you studied the crime record? Have you studied crime records of other states? What is your research of crime records in other states? Show us on what basis you are saying this".
According to the Apex Court, the Advocate has approached the Court without doing any research on the claim he is making before the Court.