FIRSTPOST YOUSPEAK
Friday, May 24th 07:42 AM IST
Gallery
Supreme Court Of India GALLERY.
The verbal roasting that Italian Ambassador Daniele Mancini got from the Supreme Court yesterday was well deserved. Saying it no longer had faith in his word, the court also peremptorily rejected Mancini's claims of diplomatic immunity. Chief Justice a href=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-bars-italian-envoy-from-leaving-india/article4521565.eceAltamas Kabir said:/a A person who has come to court as a petitioner, I don't think he has any immunity. Some people are writing that we are nave. What do they think about our judicial system? We don't expect the Republic of Italy to behave like this. He (the Ambassador) has lost the trust. However, given the weight of international opinion and our own domestic a href=http://www.firstpost.com/world/sc-vs-italy-order-why-mr-mancini-should-get-away-with-lying-665541.htmllegal opinion on the sanctity of diplomatic immunity /aunder the Vienna convention, neither the Supreme Court nor the Indian government can afford to continue in this vein. The only way forward is for India to play power politics - assuming it has the guts to do so. This is what it could do. emFirst/em, the government has to convince the court that Mancini should not get anything more than a verbal censure. After that he should be declared empersona non grata/em and the Italian mission in India shut down. India should end all diplomatic relationships with Italy and allow a small desk in Switzerland or France to handle India's Italian ties. Once Mancini is out of India, the Supreme Court should issue a contempt notice to him and declare him an absconder if he fails to turn up without immunity. [caption id=attachment_666867 align=alignleft width=380 The verbal roasting that Italian Am
Slower government approval for testing new medicines is threatening India's aspirations to be a fast-growing, low-cost hub for clinical trials, and has prompted some drugs firms to shift operations elsewhere, adding to their costs. While India's drug regulator and the health ministry's medical research body deny any slowdown, interviews by Reuters with pharmaceutical companies, lobby groups, industry watchers and healthcare activists tell a different story. Drugs firms complain that sluggish bureaucracy in New Delhi and a lack of legal clarity on how to conduct clinical trials have created a climate of regulatory uncertainty in the market. That has been exacerbated by a high profile case in the Supreme Court between the regulator and health activists, who allege that companies used poor people as human guinea pigs to trial unsafe drugs without their knowledge or consent, and without proper state scrutiny. They have asked the court to suspend all trials for new chemical entities (NCEs) - substances that may be turned into a new drug after tests. Drugmakers, speaking on condition of anonymity, say the case has made government officials more cautious in considering new approvals, asking more questions and being tougher to convince. The situation was never quite easy in India, said Siddhant Khandekar, a healthcare analyst at ICICI Direct brokerage in Mumbai. But with the Supreme Court case the scenario has worsened and getting new approvals has become more time consuming, he said. strongANYWHERE IN THE WORLD/strong The legal case has prompted Piramal Enterprises. a $1.8 billion Indian drugmaker, to look abroad to trial new drugs, its vice chairperson Swati Piramal told Reuters, warning that India was losing its innovation edge. The approval time for initiating drug trials in India typically stretches to 6-8 months, compared to just 28 days in Europe and Canada, said Piramal. Post the Supreme Court case, certainly companies like us will look anywhere in the world to see if we get good trials, she said. [caption id=attachment_623782 align=alignleft width=380 Slower government approval for test
Gyan Chaturvedi, a famous Hindi writer of this era, makes a very interesting point in the introduction to his 2004 book emMarichika/em . He writes emjungle ke apne niyam hote hain aur wahan kissi tark ka koi sthan nahi hota/em (a jungle has its own rules and there is no space for any reasonable arguments to be made there). Nobody understands this much better than politicians operating in the jungle of politics. They rush to save their own skins and keep justifying what they had said earlier, despite evidence to the contrary. My position is right because I had said so in the past, is the logic on which they operate. There is no scope for a reasonable argument there. Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal's jubilant reaction to the Supreme Court's opinions on the Presidential Reference to it asking for broad-sweep clarifications on its policy of allocating natural resources is a very good example of the same. We welcome the Supreme Court (SC) opinion. SC has confirmed what the government has been saying, Sibal said yesterday. This comment came after a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court answered the questions it had been asked by the government of India on 12 April 2012. Among other things the government had asked the Supreme Court to clarify whether the only permissible method for disposal of all natural resources across all sectors and in all circumstances is by the conduct of auctions. This question had arisen in light of the Supreme Court judgment cancelling the licences given to 122 telecom companies in 2008, when A Raja was the Telecom Minister. The government had given out these licences, allegedly on the basis of the first-come-first-served (FCFS) principle rather than auctioning them, and thus causing a huge loss to the exchequer. That Raja may have played ducks and drakes with the FCFS system is another matter. [caption id=attachment_472039 align=alignleft width=380 Gyan Chaturvedi, a famous Hindi wri
In what cannot but be seen as a brazen attempt to violate the spirit of the Supreme Court's orders on the return of investor funds emonly/em after due verification of the documents, the Sahara Group is reported to be continuing to make direct refunds without Sebi's consent. On 31 August, the Supreme Courta href=http://www.firstpost.com/business/finally-sc-order-2-sahara-firms-to-pack-up-and-repay-20000-cr-438087.html directed two Sahara group companies/a - Sahara India Real Estate Corporation (SIREC) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation (SHIC) - to refund an estimated Rs 24,000 crore raised from investors through optionally full convertible debentures (OFCDs) by 30 November. The payment has to be made directly to Sebi, which then has to verify the documents of investors and get the payments organised only to bonafide claimants. But even as the deadline for payment approaches, the Sahara Group appears to be cocking a snook at both the regulator and the Supreme Court by asking its commission agents to make refunds clandestinely. a href=http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/sahara-collecting-consent-lettersofcd-investors-showing-refunds/493971/emBusiness Standard/em said today/a that Sahara agents have been asked to collect sehmat patras (consent letters) from OFCD holders indicating that their money has been returned. The newspaper reports attempts by Sahara or its agents to doctor the documentation, by pre-dating the consent letters to dates as early as April - well before the Supreme Court verdict. The newspaper, after talking to some unnamed Sahara agents, says that the agents have been ordered to collect these letters, failing which their commissions are being stopped. A chunk of the money has been transferred to the Sahara Q-Shop plan, another money raising plan being marketed as a retail venture. [caption id=attachment_539453 align=alignleft width=380 In what cannot but be seen as a bra
Indian Hindu Shiv Sena party activists wave flags as they celebrate the Supreme Court verdict on Mohammed Kasab in Mumbai on August 29, 2012. India's Supreme Court on August 29 confirmed the death sentence handed down to Mohammed Kasab, the lone surviving gunman from the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 166 people were killed. Pakistan-born Kasab, one of 10 gunmen who laid siege to India's financial capital in attacks that lasted nearly three days, had appealed against the sentence claiming that he had not received a fair trial. Indian Hindu Shiv Sena party activi
Indian Hindu Shiv Sena party activists wave flags and light fire crackers as they celebrate the Supreme Court verdict on Mohammed Kasab in Mumbai on August 29, 2012. India's Supreme Court on August 29 confirmed the death sentence handed down to Mohammed Kasab, the lone surviving gunman from the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 166 people were killed. Pakistan-born Kasab, one of 10 gunmen who laid siege to India's financial capital in attacks that lasted nearly three days, had appealed against the sentence claiming that he had not received a fair trial. Indian Hindu Shiv Sena party activi
Indian Hindu Shiv Sena party activists distribute sweets among each other as they celebrate the Supreme Court verdict on Mohammed Kasab in Mumbai on August 29, 2012. India's Supreme Court on August 29 confirmed the death sentence handed down to Mohammed Kasab, the lone surviving gunman from the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 166 people were killed. Pakistan-born Kasab, one of 10 gunmen who laid siege to India's financial capital in attacks that lasted nearly three days, had appealed against the sentence claiming that he had not received a fair trial. Indian Hindu Shiv Sena party activi
Indian Hindu Shiv Sena party activists wave flags and light fire crackers as they celebrate the Supreme Court verdict on Mohammed Kasab in Mumbai on August 29, 2012. India's Supreme Court on August 29 confirmed the death sentence handed down to Mohammed Kasab, the lone surviving gunman from the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 166 people were killed. Pakistan-born Kasab, one of 10 gunmen who laid siege to India's financial capital in attacks that lasted nearly three days, had appealed against the sentence claiming that he had not received a fair trial. Indian Hindu Shiv Sena party activi
strong10.05 am: Kerala CM promises opposition leaders that marines will be brought back/strong Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy has assured opposition leaders in the Kerala state assembly that the Italy marines will be brought back to India to face justice. Chandy made the statement in the assembly in response to an adjournment petition filed by opposition parties. Chandy had said that Italy had used diplomatic relations to cheat India, instead of ensuring good relations with the country, reported Times Now. Chandy had also said that he would do all he can to ensure justice is served. strong10.00 am:Will Italian envoy claim full immunity in SC?/strong Days after the Italian government refused to send back the two marines charged in the killing of two Indian fishermen in Kerala, Italian ambassador Daniele Mancini is expected to respond to the Supreme Court's notice today. Italian Ambassador Daniele Mancini may face tough questions today from the Supreme Court when it takes up the issue of Italy reneging on its undertaking to send back its marines. The apex court expects the Italian ambassador to explain why he didn't abide by his personal undertaking that the marines would return to India on 22 March. Law Minister Ashwani Kumar, who described the Italian government's refusal to send back the marines asunprecedented, still hoped that the Supreme Court's order will be complied with by Italy as the deadline for their return ends on 22 March. [caption id=attachment_664953 align=alignleft width=380 strong10.05 am: Kerala CM promises
Indian Hindu Shiv Sena party activists shout slogans as they celebrate the Supreme Court verdict on Mohammed Kasab in Mumbai on August 29, 2012. India's Supreme Court on August 29 confirmed the death sentence handed down to Mohammed Kasab, the lone surviving gunman from the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 166 people were killed. Pakistan-born Kasab, one of 10 gunmen who laid siege to India's financial capital in attacks that lasted nearly three days, had appealed against the sentence claiming that he had not received a fair trial. Indian Hindu Shiv Sena party activi
Members of the French non-governmental organization Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) (Doctors Without Borders) hold placards on September 19, 2012 during a protest against the attempt by the Swiss pharmaceutical group Novartis before India's Supreme Court to obtain a patent for its anti-cancer drug Glivec in India. Novartis filed in 2006 a patent application for Glivec in India. Indian courts rejected the request this year, saying the drug was a new formulation of an existing product. The Swiss company has appealed to the Supreme Court of India. NGOs said that Novartis' action threatens access to generic drugs in poor countries. Members of the French non-governmen
Members of the French non-governmental organization Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) (Doctors Without Borders) hold placards, reading in French 'Life Before Profits,' on September 19, 2012 during a protest against the attempt by the Swiss pharmaceutical group Novartis before India's Supreme Court to obtain a patent for its anti-cancer drug Glivec in India. Novartis filed in 2006 a patent application for Glivec in India. Indian courts rejected the request this year, saying the drug was a new formulation of an existing product. The Swiss company has appealed to the Supreme Court of India. NGOs said that Novartis' action threatens access to generic drugs in poor countries. Members of the French non-governmen
Sarosh Kapadia, in the course of his I-Day speech at a function organised by Supreme Court Bar Association in Delhi, is believed to have lauded India's secularism where a person from the minority community can aspire to the top judicial post in the country. According to a href=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Chief-Justice-of-India-cautions-government-against-tinkering-with-judicial-independence/articleshow/15502168.cmsemThe Times of India/em/a, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) said: I am proud to be an Indian and it is only in India that a person of (the) Parsi community of one lakh population can aspire to be Chief Justice. Such things do not happen in our neighbouring countries. It needs to be appreciated. Another version of his speech has the CJI saying this: I am proud to be an Indian where one from 1.6 lakh Parsis can aspire to the head of the Supreme Court. [caption id=attachment_419898 align=alignleft width=380 Sarosh Kapadia, in the course of hi
Did the Italian government pull a fast one on the Supreme Court when it pleaded that its marines, Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone, needed to return to Italy to vote in the general elections? The duo has been accused of killing two Kerala fishermen in February 2012 as they thought they were pirates likely to attack their ship Enrica Lexie. The Supreme Court allowed them to leave after the Italian Ambassador to India said they would remain under his control and custody during their visit to Italy for voting in the recent general elections for the chamber of deputies and the senate. But, as we now know, the Italian government never intended to let them return. Worse, they may have told white lies, if not black ones, to convince the court to let them go. While allowing the plea to allow the marines to vote in Italy, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir noted that under the Italian law, the marines are not entitled to cast their votes through postal ballot. It, therefore, allowed the marines to travel to Italy and later return to India. [caption id=attachment_657405 align=alignleft width=380 Did the Italian government pull a f
Prosecution lawyer Gopal Subramaniam, second from left, along with senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, right, who had been appointed amicus curiae by the Supreme Court to defend Mohammed Ajmal Kasab address the media outside the Supreme Court in New Delhi, India, Wednesday, Aug. 29, 2012. India's Supreme Court Wednesday upheld the death sentence of Kasab, the only surviving gunman of the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks that killed 166 people. Prosecution lawyer Gopal Subramania
Prosecution lawyer Gopal Subramaniam, right, along with senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, second from left, who had been appointed amicus curiae by the Supreme Court to defend Mohammed Ajmal Kasab exit the Supreme Court in New Delhi, India, Wednesday, Aug. 29, 2012. India's Supreme Court Wednesday upheld the death sentence of Kasab, the only surviving gunman of the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks that killed 166 people. Prosecution lawyer Gopal Subramania
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who had been appointed amicus curiae by the Supreme Court to defend Mohammed Ajmal Kasab addresses the media outside the supreme court in New Delhi, India, Wednesday, Aug. 29, 2012. India's Supreme Court Wednesday upheld the death sentence of Kasab, the only surviving gunman of the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks that killed 166 people. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran,
Prosecution lawyer Gopal Subramaniam, left, along with senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, right, who had been appointed amicus curiae by the Supreme Court to defend Mohammed Ajmal Kasab address the media outside the Supreme Court in New Delhi, India, Wednesday, Aug. 29, 2012. India's Supreme Court Wednesday upheld the death sentence of Kasab, the only surviving gunman of the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks that killed 166 people. Prosecution lawyer Gopal Subramania
It's a rather strange coincidence that the much-celebrated execution of Ajmal Kasab this morning comes just a day after the UN General Assembly adopted a draft resolution against death penalty, and the Indian Supreme Court's observation that there was little or no uniformity in applying the rarest of rare principle before sentencing people to death. India was among 36 countries - in the company of Pakistan, the US, Japan, China, Korea and Sri Lanka - who opposed the UN resolution on Tuesday, which asked for a moratorium on executions. Probably with Kasab's hanging already scheduled, the resolution could have been something forbidding or ominous for India. In its objection, India said that it couldn't support the text in the present form. Interestingly, on one side, the UN and 110 nations want the practice to stop, while on the other, the Supreme Court is not happy with the way in which death penalty is awarded by the Indian courts. Yet, on another side, a small minority continues to campaign against the practice which the Amnesty International calls the ultimate denial of human rights and the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. [caption id=attachment_530225 align=alignleft width=380 It's a rather strange coincidence t
Now that Sebi has used the Brahmastra against the Sahara Group - frozen its bank accounts and many assets owned by its promoters - there are several larger points worth commenting on in the case involving Sahara India Real Estate Corporation (SIREC) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation (SHIC). In an order dated 31 August 2012, both SIREC and SHIC were ordered to return the money invested in their optional fully convertible debentures (OFCDs) for failing to comply with regulatory requirements. The total amount involved was believed to be in excess of Rs 24,000 crore. strongemFirst/em, there is the deathly silence of politicians./strong From the start, it is the regulators - Reserve Bank and Sebi - that have been trying to collar the group for its many efforts to stay out of regulatory reach and indulge in barely legal money circulation schemes. The harsh words have come from the regulators and the Supreme Court, but there is not one yip out of politicians. This silence is itself an indicator of the deep links the Sahara Group has with the political class. strongemSecond/em, Indian cricket is inextricably linked to Sahara cash/strong, which has now been shown to be of doubtful origin. But there is deathly silence here too. The Board of Control for Cricket in India is a huge beneficiary of Sahara's sponsorship largesse, and many cricketers are Sahara brand ambassadors. If Indian cricket is funded by Sahara's cash, isn't it time for the BCCI to start looking for more kosher alternatives? strongemThird/em, even the courts have been more than indulgent with Sahara./strong It's a point we have made a href=http://www.firstpost.com/business/sebi-sc-have-tied-themselves-in-knots-over-sahara-616889.htmlbefore/a. But now there is a tacit admission that the group may be in contempt. Today's a href=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Will-Sebi-move-help-recover-funds/articleshow/18509168.cmsemTimes of India/em/a, for example, quotes Sahara counsel Kishore Lahiri as claiming that the group refunded money to OFCD investors iafter /ithe Supreme Court judgment of 31 August 2012. [caption id=attachment_626469 align=alignleft width=380 Now that Sebi has used the Brahmast
strongBy R Jagannathan/strong After just a few days of gloating over its own failed spectrum auction, the UPA government received another knock on the head from the Supreme Court yesterday. Why, asked the court, did the government not auction all the spectrum vacated by its judgment of 2 February, when 122 licences were cancelled? The Supreme Court was miffed over the fact that the government chose to file its affidavits through a junior officer in the department of telecom, and also that it failed to inform the court about which spectrum it was offering for auction despite making several requests for postponements - which the court granted. a href=http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/sc-says-govt-casualspectrum-issue/493034/Government is very casua/al in dealing with the matter, Justices GS Singhvi and KS Radhakrishnan observed. With the court taking a tough stand now, the government - which has been claiming that everyone, from the courts down to the CAG and the media were trespassing on its policy space - will have to abandon its political posturing and address the issue: how to make the spectrum auctions work without crippling the tottering telecom industry. The issues are simple, and largely of the government's own making. Caught between the need to protect its government - especially Manmohan Singh and P Chidambaram - from the charge that they were party to selling spectrum cheap in 2008, and the pressure exerted by the courts and public opinion to hold an auction, the Congress decided to fix a high spectrum reserve price in the hope that it will fail and vindicate their stand. [caption id=attachment_529084 align=alignleft width=380 strongBy R Jagannathan/strong Afte
The Supreme Court did well to rap market regulator Sebi on the knuckles for beating around the bush with its a href=http://www.scribd.com/doc/104496061/Sahara-Judgment31 August 2012 order/a on the Sahara Group. At a hearing yesterday, the same two-judge bench that gave the August verdict asked Sebi, which is seeking a contempt order against the Saharas, to a href=http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/regulation/sebi-free-to-seize-properties-of-sahara-group-companies-supreme-court/articleshow/18368158.cmsstop pussyfooting around the judgment /aand implement it in toto. We wonder whether Sahara is committing contempt (of court) or you are committing contempt, the bench observed. You have done nothing, except issue notices after notices (to Sahara). Who is committing contempt? The facts do not do Sebi much credit. Five months after the judgment, Sahara continues to flout court orders to return the money raised by two of its companies - Sahara India Real Estate Corporation (SIREC) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation (SHIC) - and all Sebi has been doing is keep moving court for contempt against Sahara. While it is also true that the Saharas, true to form, have been moving the court for delaying the inevitable, Sebi has been inadvertently aiding the process by simply not doing what it had been asked to do: collect the money from Sahara, attach the Sahara accounts for any non-compliance, start collecting documents of genuine investors in Sahara's optionally fully convertible debentures, and set up processes to repay depositors. What we have seen instead is Sebi moving with extraordinary caution, assuming it is not dragging its feet. [caption id=attachment_617090 align=alignleft width=380 The Supreme Court did well to rap m
For Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, former minister Amit Shah is a key man. Shah is known for his dexterous management of resources especially during polls. However, the Modi aide has remained in jail for 26 months till September-end over his alleged involvement in the Tulsiram Prajapati encounter case. But with the CBI preparing to approach the Supreme Court, Shah's freedom may be curbed at the most crucial time. We really need him in the slog overs, a href=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Will-CBI-spare-Narendra-Modis-mainstay-for-slog-overs/articleshow/17028227.cms target=_blankthe emTimes of India/em quoted a senior BJP leader as saying/a. The hearing in the case is on 23 November in the Supreme Court. The investigating agency may reach the apex court early and get the stay order on the proceedings of the case vacated, the Times of India report said. If the order is vacated before 23 November, the lower court can initiate proceedings against Shah allowing CBI to immediately rearrest the former minister of state. [caption id=attachment_509243 align=alignleft width=380 For Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra
The Supreme Court's order of Thursday restraining the Italian Ambassador to India, Daniele Mancini, from leaving India pending further proceedings in the case relating to the two Italian marines who have flown the coop may prove something of a paper tiger - strongemif/em/strong Mancini too decides to take wing. The Supreme Court directive, which came on a special leave petition filed by Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy, is, of course, well-intentioned. The Ambassador had given a solemn undertaking on behalf of his government that the two marines, who are facing trial for the killing of two Kerala fishermen last year, would be brought back to India. But the Italian government subsequently announced that it would not be sending the marines back to stand trial in India, since - in its estimation - there were no charges pending against the them, and since it believed that it was on strong legal ground in seeking international arbitration, rather than submit to Indian courts. [caption id=attachment_662120 align=alignright width=380 The Supreme Court's order of Thursd
By strongPraveen Swami/strong I've got a gun and can kill you, the smartly-dressed man who had followed Carol Holmes into her New York apartment block told her that evening in 1981, before beating and raping her-just as he had 15 other women. Later she spotted her attacker, 19 year old Manual Aryee, on the street. He was arrested-and left the police station less than an hour later, reportedly laughing. Mr Aryee, the son of a diplomat at Ghana's mission to the United Nations, had claimed diplomatic immunity. For all I know, a href=http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20084065,00.htmlMs Holmes told emPeople/emmagazine/a, he could have been going to a French restaurant for dinner. Now, with India's Supreme Court saying Italian envoy Daniele Mancini can't leave until contempt proceedings against him are settled-and insisting he doesn't enjoy diplomatic immunity-plenty of people across the world will be delighted that diplomatic immunity doesn't mean diplomatic impunity. This is the wrong response. Focussing on Mr Mancini lets the government off the hook for punishing Italy for its decision to lie to India's Supreme Court. It also opens the door for Indian diplomats across the world to be harassed, often in environments that are hostile and dangerous to start with. India's behaviour has something of the quality of the kid who throws stones at the neighbour's dog, because he's angry that they confiscated his mis-aimed cricket ball-but can't actually do anything about it. In this case, though, India can act. It's choosing not to. [caption id=attachment_665645 align=alignleft width=380 By strongPraveen Swami/strong I've
A general view of the Indian Supreme Court in New Delhi on April 2, 2013. India's Supreme Court has cancelled its order preventing the Italian ambassador from leaving the country which it passed last month amid a diplomatic row with Rome. The court restrained ambassador Daniele Mancini after he negotiated the release on bail of two Italian marines facing murder charges in New Delhi, who travelled to Italy and vowed not to come back. A general view of the Indian Suprem
A view of the Indian Supreme Court in New Delhi on April 2, 2013. India's Supreme Court has cancelled its order preventing the Italian ambassador from leaving the country which it passed last month amid a diplomatic row with Rome. The court restrained ambassador Daniele Mancini after he negotiated the release on bail of two Italian marines facing murder charges in New Delhi, who travelled to Italy and vowed not to come back. A view of the Indian Supreme Court
A security guard opens the entrance gate to the residence of Indian Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt in Mumbai on April 16, 2013. Bollywood star Sanjay Dutt has asked India's top court for more time before going back to jail for possessing arms supplied by plotters of the deadly 1993 Mumbai blasts, his lawyer said April 16. India's Supreme Court last month struck down Dutt's appeal over his conviction and said he must return to prison by April 18, but the 53-year-old has asked for another six months of freedom to complete his filming obligations. A security guard opens the entrance
Security guards stand behind green shrouds obsucring the entrance gate to the residence of Indian Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt in Mumbai on April 16, 2013. Bollywood star Sanjay Dutt has asked India's top court for more time before going back to jail for possessing arms supplied by plotters of the deadly 1993 Mumbai blasts, his lawyer said April 16. India's Supreme Court last month struck down Dutt's appeal over his conviction and said he must return to prison by April 18, but the 53-year-old has asked for another six months of freedom to complete his filming obligations. Security guards stand behind green
Security guards are seen behind the entrance gate to the residence of Indian Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt in Mumbai on April 16, 2013. Bollywood star Sanjay Dutt has asked India's top court for more time before going back to jail for possessing arms supplied by plotters of the deadly 1993 Mumbai blasts, his lawyer said April 16. India's Supreme Court last month struck down Dutt's appeal over his conviction and said he must return to prison by April 18, but the 53-year-old has asked for another six months of freedom to complete his filming obligations. Security guards are seen behind the