Yuva Sai Sagar

Online news channel!

Tag: solicitor

Navy offers job in private company to transgender ex-sailor

The navy today offered a job in a private company, which works for the government, to a transgender ex-sailor who was removed from service after she underwent a sex change surgery to become a female.The offer was made by the Indian Navy in the Delhi High Court before a bench of Justices G S Sistani and V K Rao.It said that while there was no job in the naval force for the former sailor, it could facilitate her to get employed as a data entry operator in a private company. The submission on behalf of the Navy was made by Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain and central government standing counsel Anil Soni. Senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for the ex- sailor, said the offered job paid much less than what his client was getting while being on the rolls of the navy.The senior lawyer said he would need to speak to his client on whether to accept the offer, which he termed unfair. The bench thereafter listed the matter for hearing on December 15 by when the stand of the former sailor has to be indicated. The court was hearing the ex-sailor’s plea challenging an October 6 order of the Navy removing her from service. She had claimed that she was suffering from gender identity issues since 2011 and, when she had told her parents, they forced her to marry a woman.Also readIndia’s first transgender soldier vows to fight for her jobShe further claimed that she was absent from service without leave several times as she suffered from bouts of depression, owing to her gender identity issues. The court had on the last date of hearing called for a change in mindset while asking the Navy to consider her for another job. It had said that while the person deserved to be punished for indiscipline for being absent without leave, but where there was a medical condition of this sort, it may be seen from a different perspective.The bench was also of the view that the petitioner who was posted onboard INS Eksila at Visakhapatnam, could give up the claim for the job of a sailor and may accept a clerical position so that the family, comprising aged parents, the individual’s wife and child, need not suffer. The Navy had removed her from service as women cannot be employed as sailors.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consecwq tetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore
Yogi Adityanath

–>

Join the discussion<!–end of artlbotbor–>

Supreme Court bats for CCTV during proceedings

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Observing that there was no need for privacy in courtrooms, the Supreme Court on Tuesday favoured installation of CCTVs in courts. Suggesting that there was nothing private about court proceedings, the apex court opined that installation of CCTVs would be beneficial in larger public interest. It would also bring about a certain sense of discipline and security. “What privacy? This is not a case of privacy. We don’t need privacy here. Judges don’t need privacy in court proceedings. Nothing private is happening here. We all are sitting in front of you,” the bench observed.In pursuance to an earlier order, a bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit directed the Centre to file a report on its progress. Representing the Centre, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Pinky Anand said the Ministry of Law and Justice needs to sanction the financials for the proposal, which may happen soon. Anand agreed with the court’s observation that the installation of CCTVs and video recording to court proceedings was important and beneficial for all. To this, the court responded: “Don’t delay it. This step is in larger public interest, discipline and security. You file the report by November 23.” At an earlier hearing, the top court had favoured installation of CCTVs with audio recording of all court proceedings. These CCTVs – which would help bring in more transparency to proceedings, would be installed within the apex court complex as well as those of all high courts and tribunals.

Rohingya crisis: SC to hear plea against deportation on December 5

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today said it would next month hear the plea of two Rohingya refugees who have approached it against the Centre’s decision to deport Rohinigya Muslims to Myanmar.A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud agreed to the request of senior advocate Fali S nariman, who appeared for the Rohingyas, and deferred the matter for hearing on December 5. The apex court had on October 13 said the Rohingya refugee problem was of a “great magnitude” and the state would have to play a “big role” while dealing with the contentious issue. Two Rohingya immigrants Mohammad Salimullah and Mohammad Shaqir had approached the apex court opposing the Centre’s decision to deport over 40,000 refugees who came to India after escaping from Myanmar due to widespread discrimination, violence and bloodshed against the community there.Various other petitions, including those by former RSS ideologue and Rashtriya Swabhiman Andolan leader K N Govindacharaya, the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), the youth wing of of the CPI(M), the West Bengal child rights body, and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, have been filed in the apex court on the issue. The top court had earlier decided to give a detailed and holistic hearing from today on the government’s decision to deport Rohingya Muslims to Myanmar, observing that a balance has to be struck between national interest and human rights as the issue involved national security, economic interests and humanity.The court had suggested to the Centre not to deport these refugees but the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta had urged that it should not be written in the order as anything coming on record would have international ramifications.The top court had made it clear that in case any contingency arose during the intervening period, the petitioners have the liberty to approach it for redressal. The Rohingyas, who fled to India after violence in the Western Rakhine State of Myanmar, were settled in Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan. In a communication to all states, the union home ministry had said the rise of terrorism in last few decades had become a serious concern for most nations as illegal migrants were prone to recruitment by terrorist organisations. It had directed the state governments to set up a task force at district level to identify and deport illegally- staying foreign nationals.

‘Can Karti Chidambaram travel abroad?’ SC asks CBI

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the CBI to apprise it of its stand on November 16 on whether Karti Chidambaram, son of former Union Minister P Chidambaram, can be conditionally allowed to go abroad for 4-5 days.A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud asked Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing CBI, to seek instruction on the issue and apprise it next Thursday.During the hearing, the bench perused the documents supplied by CBI in a sealed cover relating to materials found during the investigation conducted so far.The CBI FIR, lodged on May 15, had alleged irregularities in Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to INX Media for receiving overseas funds to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when Karti’s father was the Union Finance Minister.

Cleaning up politics: SC wants spl courts for tainted netas’ trial

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court made a strong pitch for decriminalisation of politics on Wednesday and asked the Central government to come back, within six weeks, with a plan to set up special courts to try cases involving MPs and MLAs. The court said speedy disposal of these cases was in the “interest of the nation.”The court said that each court in the subordinate judiciary is dealing with more than 4,000 cases, and it will be impossible to dispose those involving politicians unless dedicated courts were set up to complete trial in a year.The observations were made by a bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha when the court was hearing a petition that seeks a life ban on convicted politicians from contesting elections.The Representation of the People Act says a politician sentenced to two years or more is disqualified from contesting elections for six years from the date of his/her release from prison after the conclusion of the term.Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Atmaram Nadkarni submitted that the Central government was not “not averse to setting up of special courts, besides quick and early disposal of criminal cases involving politicians.” He said that recommendations forwarded by the Election Commission and the Law Commission were under “active consideration.””Government of India’s stand is that decriminalisation of politics has to be done,” Nadkarni said. To which, the court asked: “Can there be any other stand?”However, when the Centre asked if these courts could be merged with existing special CBI courts, the bench said, “No, do not combine them with anything else, it is in the interest of the nation.”The bench then asked the Centre, how many of the 1,581 cases involving MLAs and MPs (as declared at the time of filing of nomination papers in 2014) have been disposed of within the timeframe of one year as envisaged by the top court in its March 2014 order. The court sought data on how many of these cases, which have been decided, have ended in acquittal/conviction. It also sought additional details on recent criminal cases lodged against any present or former legislator between 2014 and 2017.The apex court was hearing a petition filed by Ashwini Upadhyay that seeks life ban on convicted lawmakers from contesting elections. He has also sought directions for special courts to decide cases involving legislators and public servants within one year.The court wants fast track courts set up by the Central government for a period of five years, which were extended further, but the scheme has now been discontinued.

Over 4,000 cases still pending in each subordinate court: SC weighs in on overworked lower courts

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>In a grim reflection of the burden of cases on the judiciary, the Supreme Court today said a subordinate court in the country was grappling with an average of around 4,000 pending cases.The top court, while favouring creation of special courts to exclusively deal with criminal cases involving politicians and their speedy disposal, said the average number of cases being dealt with by a subordinate court was far more than what should have been there.”The average number of cases each court has in the country is about 4,000 in trial courts. 4,000 is far more than what should be there,” a bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha said.”Even if the Supreme Court says that complete the trial (in cases involving politicians) within one year, unless the judge is only hearing these cases, it would be difficult,” it said.Representing the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Atmaram Nadkarni asked the bench whether these special courts, which would exclusively deal with criminal cases involving politicians, could be combined with special CBI courts which already exist across the country.”No, do not combine it with anything else,” the bench said, adding “it is in the interest of nation”.”Insofar as setting up of special courts are concerned, setting up of special courts and infrastructure would be dependent on the availability of finances with the states,” the bench noted in its order.It said the problem could be resolved by having a central scheme for setting up of such special courts on the lines of fast-track courts which were established by the Centre for a period of five years and extended further, a scheme that has now been discontinued.The apex court said a scheme in this regard should be laid before it on December 13, the next date of hearing, indicating the amount of funds that could be earmarked for setting up of special courts.After this, the issues of appointment of judicial officers, public prosecutors, court staff and requirement of manpower and infrastructure would be dealt with, if required, by interacting with representatives of the respective states, it said.The Centre told the court that it would place the details as sought by it within six weeks.The top court was hearing petitions seeking to declare the provisions of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, which bar convicted politician from contesting elections for six years after serving jail term, as ultra vires to the Constitution.

Delhi High Court stays demolition of Kathputli Colony

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Delhi HC on Tuesday stayed the demolition of Kathputli Colony for 16 days. This came after a petition was moved by an NGO and some residents seeking time for voluntary relocation of the residents and filing of appeals by those ineligible for rehabilitation.A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Harishankar also directed the police officers of Ranjit Nagar to maintain “strict status quo” in the West Delhi colony thereby restricting the residents to carry out any permanent construction in the area.The court’s direction came on the plea filed by an NGO, Centre for Holistic Development and some residents who had challenged the demolition drive carried out by the DDA at the colony spread across 14 acres. The court also issued a notice to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), Delhi Police, Delhi government, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) and Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, and sought their responses on the plea filed through advocate Kamlesh Kumar Mishra.Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General, Sanjay Jain informed the court that substantial demolition has already been carried out on the spot and that the DDA is working on its project of effecting relocation of the eligible slum dwellers from the colony in order to implement rehabilitation.

Consider accommodating transgender officer: Delhi High Court

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A transgender Navy officer, who was ousted out of service for undergoing a sex change operation, on Monday knocked the doors of the Delhi High Court which asked the Centre to consider his plight and accommodate him for some alternative stream. A bench of Justices GS Sistani and V Kameswar Rao asked the Centre to think over the issue and come out with a solution considering the present case as“out of the box”.“This falls in a special domain. Imagine if she had suppressed the information, then it would have been dangerous,” the bench said, adding, that she can be penalised for indiscipline but something could be done to accommodate her. Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain said that this is a matter of policy decision and the Navy is the best placed to see if they can accommodate the female sailor.“Here the question is not about transgenders. Its a case of whether a woman can continue as a sailor,” Jain said. The court was hearing the petition filed by the transgender sailor posted onboard INS Eksila at Visakhapatnam. It said that the petitioner can give up his claim for the job of a sailor and may accept a clerical position so that the family, comprising aged parents, the individual’s wife, and child, need not suffer.While hearing the plea, where the sailor had challenged an order of October 6, the bench said, “the mindset should change. In today’s situation, a medical condition like this cannot be suppressed.”ASJ Jain informed the court that the petitioner has a history of indiscipline and at several instances, had been absent from duty without prior information. Hence, giving an alternative work would block a seat. The court, while stating that they would not get into the territory of the Navy, but ask them to consider the situation. In her plea, the petitioner had claimed that she was suffering from gender identity issues since 2011 and when she told her parents, they forced her to marry a woman.

Bofors: CBI wanted to file appeal, but DoP disagreed

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>With the Supreme Court set to hear a plea seeking restoration of charges against the Hinduja brother in the Bofors kickback case next week, spotlight is back on the three-decade old controversy, especially after Fairfax Group chairman Michael J Hershman’s interview to the DNA, in which he claimed that the then Rajiv Gandhi-led Congress government had sabotaged his investigation.While Hershman’s fresh allegation on Bofors matter has kicked up a political row, documents available with DNA show how different officers in the CBI then took different stands on the issue and while a number of officers were in favour of filing an SLP against the Delhi High Court judgment to drop charges against the Hinduja brothers, others chose to ignore these views.Among those who disagreed was the then Director of Prosecution (DoP) SK Sharma, a Congress-led UPA government appointee.The plea for restoration of charges against Hinduja brothers filed by lawyer Ajay Agrawal, a BJP leader who unsuccessfully contested against Congress President Sonia Gandhi from Raebareli in last Lok Sabha polls, is set to be heard next week.Documents, including a note recorded in the file by Joint Director, Economic Offiences Wing), CBI, in August 2005, show that therecommendation of all the officers connected to the case investigation, including the investigating officer, was that an SLP should be filed in the Supreme Court of India to get set aside the HC judgment and for”restoration of the case from the point immediately after framing of charges in the trial court.”As per the note, a CBI officer also said that, in his view, the relevant issues, which should have been considered were whether Justice RS Sodhi, who deliver the HC judgment, had jurisdiction to recall the earlier order of Justice JD Kapoor of the Delhi High Court, who had on February 4, 2004 and also whether the High Court was justified in examining the case in depth, with reference to authenticity of documents at the stage of framing of charges.The officer also called for seeking the opinion of the Ministry of Law and Justice/Attorney General of India.The then DOP SK Sharma, who, incidentally, was given several extensions post-retirement by the UPA Government, opined on September 2, 2005 – almost a fortnight before the limitation for filing the SLP was to expire, saying,”Viewed from every angle, I am of the view that the judgment of the High Court lays down the correct proposition of law and accordingly, I am not inclined to recommend the SLP against the order.”Sharma, also, however, said that keeping in view the importance and sensitivity of the case, he would like to suggest that reference may be made to Ministry of Law and Justice through Department of Personnel and Training to determine the issue authoritatively in consultation with the then Additional Solicitor General B Dutta, who had appeared for CBI in the Delhi High Court.Later KP Pathak, another Additional Solicitor General, in his opinion dated October 7, 2005, said that even with regard to Ottavio Quattrochi, the Italian businessman who faced criminal charges for acting as a conduit for bribes in Bofors scandal, there was no authentic evidence to connect him with the alleged offence and that the case against him would not stand scrutiny in a court of law.Talking to DNA, advocate Agrawal alleged that it was due to the influence of the UPA government that the SLP was not filed against the judgment of the High Court.

Passive euthansia case: SC reserves verdict on ‘living will’

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>On Thursday, the SC reserved its verdict on ‘living will’ in cases of passive euthanasia. The petitioner had argued that Right to Die peacefully is part of Right to Life, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.The government had earlier opposed granting recognition to “living will” in cases of passive euthanasia, telling the Supreme Court that it could be misused and may not be viable as a public policy.The Centre told a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that a draft bill based on the guidelines for passive euthanasia made by the top court in the Aruna Shanbaug’s case and recommendations of the Law Commission were under its consideration.Passive euthanasia is a condition where there is withdrawal of medical treatment with the deliberate intention to hasten the death of a terminally ill-patient.”We have been following the guidelines laid down by this court in Aruna Shanbaug’s case and a medical board is the final authority to decide on passive euthanasia, not the living will created by a person,” Additional Solicitor General P S Narasimha, appearing for the Centre, said.He said if “living will” is created by a person and is recognised, then there are possibilities of it being misused and this would not be viable as public policy.”If a person is not of sound mind, then he is a not a competent person to make a living will and in that case, it is a medical board which will have to look into the affairs and not the individual. Safeguards have to be there and nothing more could be done,” he said.The ASG said the court can work out modalities about the safeguards as the living will to dilute the treatment could be misused.The bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, questioned whether any medical board is permanently constituted to take a call on passive euthanasia.”No, the medical board is not permanently constituted and is set up on case-to-case basis,” Narasimha said.The bench then asked advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO ‘Common Cause’ which is seeking recognition to living will, whether an individual has a right to refuse medical treatment or can the State interfere to safeguard life.Bhushan said various countries recognise living will made by persons. In India, where resources are so limited, it should be legally acceptable in order to avoid creating a hopeless situation for the middle-class, he said.”Under Article 21 of Constitution, person has the right to die peacefully without any suffering and therefore he has right to create a living will that when he can’t recover from illness, his life should not be prolonged,” Bhushan said.He said it is contradictory that the court allows passive euthanasia but does not recognise execution of living will.Justice Chandrachud then expressed concern over elderly people being treated as a burden by some people and said that safeguards need to be created to avoid misuse, if the living will is recognised.Bhushan said that forcing prolonged medical treatment on someone who does not want it, amounts to assault and added that passive euthanasia in the Aruna Shanbaug’s case was distinct from living wills.The hearing remained inconclusive and would continue tomorrow.The bench also asked senior advocate Arvind Datar to assist in the matter as senior lawyer and former Solicitor General T R Andhyarujina who was appointed as an amicus curiae in the case in 2016, had passed away.The bench was hearing a PIL filed in 2005 by the NGO, which said when a medical expert opines that the person afflicted with a terminal disease has reached a point of no return, he should be given the right to refuse life support system.In 2014, the apex court had referred the petition to a five-judge constitution bench which sought to recognise the execution of a ‘living will’ of persons suffering from chronic terminal diseases and likely to go into a permanent vegetative state.On January, 15, 2016, the Centre had told the court about the 241st report of the Law Commission which stated that passive euthanasia should be allowed with certain safeguards and there was also a proposed law –Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patient (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill, 2006.The government had said that its stand will also be based on 6.7 regulation of 2002 under Medical Council of India Act which says that practicing euthanasia shall constitute unethical conduct.It had said that on specific occasions, the question of withdrawing supporting devices to sustain cardio-pulmonary function even after brain death, shall be decided only by a doctors’ team and not merely by the treating physician alone.The apex court had said its verdict of 2011 allowing passive euthanasia was delivered on a “wrong premise”.It had said that its earlier Constitution Bench verdict, which was wrongly relied in Aruna Shanbaug case, had held that the right to live with dignity will be inclusive of the right to die with dignity, but the judgement did not arrive at a conclusion on validity of euthanasia. With inputs from PTI

Issued lookout notice against Karti Chidambaram to prevent him from travelling abroad: CBI to SC

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The apex court, which was hearing the matter relating to a corruption case against Karti, was informed by the agency that several issues have come out during the investigation and many others were expected to be revealed.The CBI wanted to place the documents concerning its investigation in a sealed cover before a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, which was opposed by Karti’s counsel and senior advocate Kapil Sibal.”What he did abroad is part of this sealed cover,” Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench which also comprised Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud.Sibal repeatedly protested the ASG’s submissions that the agency be allowed to place before it the documents in a sealed cover.The ASG took the opportunity to briefly submit about the contents of the documents enclosed in the cover.”Let me say what is contained in the sealed cover. What he has done when he was abroad. He said (during interrogation) he has only one account abroad. But when he went abroad, he closed several bank accounts. I don’t want to say all this as it will embarrass him but I have been compelled,” he told the bench.Sibal countered his submission and asked the ASG “did you ask a single question about the bank accounts and property?” “They interrogated me (Karti), but not a single question was asked on this,” Sibal said, adding “if they can show any signature of Karti on any account, they can prosecute him under FEMA or blackmoney law”.The case against Karti pertains to an FIR lodged by the CBI on May 15, alleging irregularities in Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to INX Media for receiving overseas funds to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when his father was the Finance Minister during the then UPA regime.

Only Advocates-on- Record (AoRs) can mention out-of-turn listings: SC

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The old practice of designated senior lawyers mentioning cases for out-of-turn listing and urgent hearing came to an abrupt end, with the Supreme Court making it clear that from now on, only Advocates-on- Record (AoRs) can mention such matters.The courtroom of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), where matters for out-of-turn hearing are mentioned, had yesterday witnessed noisy scenes after a lawyer complained that while his senior colleagues were being allowed to mention such cases, junior members of the bar were denied such opportunity.”Only Advocates on Record will mention henceforth,” CJI Dipak Misra thundered as soon as Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta started mentioning a matter for urgent hearing.Deafening silence dawned in the otherwise chirpy and crowded courtroom, the moment the CJI made public the decision that lawyers, except AoRs, cannot mention matters for urgent hearing.AoRs are the lawyers authorised by the apex court to file cases and pleadings before it. The apex court conducts examinations to designate a lawyer as an AoR.The bench, also comprising Justices Amitava Roy and A M Khanwilkar, had yesterday expressed annoyance when a lawyer had complained that junior members of the bar were not allowed to mention cases.”We cannot spend the whole day and allow mentioning to go on like this,” it had observed.Yesterday, senior lawyers including former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and Anand Grover had mentioned their matters, following which the court had started hearing the already listed cases.One of the lawyers, P V Dinesh who was in the queue, had then objected and alleged that senior advocates have been allowed to mention multiple cases, but others should also get at least a chance as all litigants cannot afford big advocates.Some lawyers, who were also in the queue, supported their colleague, leading to noisy scenes in the packed courtroom.

WhatsApp to clarify what it shares with Facebook

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court has asked messaging app WhatsApp to come clean if it is sharing any data with Facebook or any other third party platforms. And if it is, the top court has asked WhatsApp clarify what the data is.Senior advocate K V Vishwanathan and advocate Madhvi Diwan, representing the petitioners who have challenged WhatsApp’s privacy policy, alleged that the messaging app is sharing personal user information and other details that could profile a user with its parent company Facebook and other third party apps. The change in WhatsApp’s privacy policy came after it was bought over by Mark Zuckerberg in 2014.The information gleaned by sharing this personal data and other metadata is used by Facebook for targeted advertising, Vishwanathan said before a five-judge constitutional bench led by the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.The petitioners also sought an injunction on any data that is being shared until such time a cohesive data protection law comes into force.However, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Arvind Datar who represent WhatsApp and Facebook denied the assertations made and submitted only limited content is being shared. “We are merely sharing the mobile number, last seen status (on WhatsApp), and the registration model number of the phone,” Sibal said.Opposing any move for an injunction, Sibal said: “We are sharing information, and it is going to be used at some point.” However, they would file an affidavit clarifying what is being shared and with whom.Representing the Centre, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta submitted that the Centre has constituted a panel under the aegis of former supreme court judge Justice BN Srikrishna “to identify key data protection issues in India and recommend methods of addressing them.”This report could result in a comprehensive data protection law, the Centre submitted to a bench that also comprised Justices AK Sikri, Amitava Roy, AM Khanwilkar and MM Shantanagouder.

Appoint nodal officers to curb cow vigilantism: Supreme Court

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed all state governments to appoint a senior police officer as a nodal officer in each district to ensure that incidents of cow vigilantism are prevented and dealt with effectively. The job of these nodal officers, the court said, will be to ensure that vigilantes did not become a law unto themselves.”The senior police officer shall take prompt action and will ensure vigilante groups and such people are prosecuted with promptitude,” the bench said.Hearing a petition filed by Tushar Gandhi, great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, seeking directions to the Centre and states to take preventive measures against cow vigilantism, the bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also directed the chief secretaries of all states to file a status report giving details of the actions taken to prevent incidents of cow vigilantism. It also asked the state governments to list steps they will take to step up security on highways.In the past, cow vigilantes have stopped vehicles carrying cattle on highways and attacked people.While passing the order, the bench also rejected the contentions of Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for four BJP-ruled states.The bench also sought the Centre’s response to the petitioner’s plea that the Centre issue directions under Article 256 of the Constitution to all state governments on issues related to law and order.Gandhi’s lawyer Indira Jaising also submitted details of various incidents of lynching and armed attacks on the pretext that the victims were either transporting or in possession of beef.The latest attack in the name of cow protection happened last month when villagers in West Bengal stopped a cattle-carrying truck, dragged out its two occupants and beat them to death.

Curb cow vigilantism: Supreme Court directs states to appoint nodal officer

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed all state governments to appoint a senior police officer as a nodal officer in each district to ensure that incidents of cow vigilantism are prevented and dealt with effectively.A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also directed the chief secretaries of every state government to file a status report giving details of the actions taken to prevent incidents of cow vigilantism.The bench, also comprising Justices Amitava Roy and A M Khanwilkar, asked the Centre to respond to the submission that it (Central government) could issue directions under Article 256 of the Constitution to all state governments on issues related to law and order.
ALSO READ Muslim man’s houses set on fire over alleged cow slaughter in JharkhandThe apex court was hearing a PIL filed by Tushar Gandhi, great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, seeking various reliefs, including a direction to all the governments to take preventive measures against cow vigilantism.Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Gandhi, referred to various incidents of lynching and assault on the pretext that the victims were either carrying or in possession of beef or had eaten it.She also referred to an earlier statement of Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar that the Central government did not approve of such incidents of people taking law into their hands.Besides Gandhi, Congress leader Tehseen Poonawalla had earlier filed a similar petition on the issue.

HC sets aside LG order cancelling bungalow allotted to AAP

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Delhi High Court today set aside an order of the Lieutenant Governor (LG) cancelling the allotment of a bungalow to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in the heart of the capital, saying no reason was given for the action. Justice Vibhu Bakhru remanded the matter back to LG Anil Baijal to pass a reasoned order within eight weeks after hearing the political party. The court said the April 12 order cancelling the allotment did not say which law or rule has been violated. It told the central government that if there is a policy for alloting accommodation to political parties, it has to be applied uniformly. The court also kept in abeyance two consequential orders passed by the Public Works Department of the Delhi government on June 13 rejecting the party’s request for alternative accommodation and directing it to pay dues of over Rs 27 lakh towards the market rent of the property up till May 31. According to AAP, represented by senior advocate Arun Kathpalia, the party was allotted bungalow number 206 at the Rouse Avenue here on December 31, 2015. Thereafter, on April 12 this year, AAP received a communication informing it that the LG has cancelled the allotment of the bungalow on the ground that it was contrary to law and the rules, the petition filed through advocate Aaditya Vijaykumar, said. AAP, in its plea, also claimed it was being singled out for such action as other parties are enjoying accommodation allotted to them in the heart of the national capital. The party had contended that as per the central government’s policy, all registered political parties are entitled for an accommodation. During the arguments, Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain and the central government standing counsel said an accommodation was offered to the party in Saket in South Delhi, but AAP had refused to accept it.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC verdict on triple talaq signifies nation’s progress: ASG

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The landmark verdict of the apex court setting aside the practice triple talaq among Muslims, “speaks volume about the progress of the nation”, Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand said today. The ASG, who was part of the central government’s legal team led by former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, also said that the judgement heralded good things for the country as the practice has been condemned by almost all quarters. “I think it (judgement) heralds good things for the country and its citizens. We have been able to deal with the malpractice and degrading practice and cast them away with the taint,” Anand said. The Supreme Court, through a majority verdict, today set aside the practice of divorce through triple talaq among Muslims, saying the practice was void, illegal and unconstitutional. The apex court held that the triple talaq was against the basic tenets of Quran. “It speaks volume about the progress of the nation and all its stakeholders. This is the practice that has been condemned from almost all quarters but it needs the vision of our leaders and the institutions of the country to deal with it,” Anand said. “What is extremely important is the finding that all citizens have fundamental rights to life, liberty, dignity and equality and these inalienable rights are uncompromisable,” she added.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Waste at Ghazipur: NGT directs NHAI, EDMC to invite tenders

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The National Green Tribunal today directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) to invite tenders for segregation and management of waste at the Ghazipur landfill site here. A bench headed by NGT Chairperson Justice Swatanter Kumar said urgent steps were needed to reduce the pressure on the site on which waste in increasing by tonnes on daily basis. The green panel directed the stakeholders to choose an independent agency which would be responsible for segregation and reduction in height of dumped waste at the site. “Solid waste from Ghazipur landfill site in east Delhi would be used in the construction of road especially NH-24 and embankment of other roads where NHAI has commenced work,” the bench said. It also clarified that NHAI would be responsible for collection of construction and debris waste, plastic and other inert material from the landfill site and bear its cost for transportation. The tribunal sought a compliance report within 45 days and warned that in case of default, strict action would be taken against erring officials including imprisonment. It also directed the EDMC not to levy any environment compensation on the trucks which will be used for transportation of waste. Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand, appearing for NHAI, told the bench that assistance of specialised bodies like Central Road Research Institute can be used for the purpose. The direction came after EDMC lawyer Balendu Shekhar told the tribunal that it was not in a position to segregate waste at the site. The matter was listed for next hearing on October 10. Commissioned in 1984, Ghazipur landfill site is spread over nearly 30 hectares and about 2,500 tonne of garbage a day is dumped there. A total of 130 lakh tonne of garbage is currently dumped at the site and the average height of the dump stood at 50 metres.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Kerala love-jihad case: Supreme Court asks NIA to investigate matter

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked National Investigation Agency (NIA) to investigate a case of ‘love jihad’ involving a Muslim man’s marriage to a Hindu woman converted to Islam.Last week, the top Court had ordered the Kerala Police to share with the NIA the probe details of a case.The issue reached the apex court as the man challenged the annulment of the marriage by the Kerala High Court which ordered the state police to probe such cases.A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud had taken a serious note of the objection raised by the counsel for Kerala-native Shafin Jahan that the NIA should not be allowed to peruse the investigation records of the police in the case.Jahan, who had married a Hindu woman in last December, had moved the apex court after the Kerala High Court annulled his marriage, saying that it was an insult to the independence of women in the country.The woman, a Hindu, had converted to Islam and later married Jahan.It was alleged that the woman was recruited by Islamic State’s mission in Syria and Jahan was only a stooge.The NIA, represented by Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh, had moved the apex court in the forenoon seeking an order that it be allowed to access the records of the investigation carried so far by the state police.The bench, which allowed Jahan to file his response to the NIA’s plea, had said that the central probe agency would not be able to assist the police in a fair manner if it was not allowed access to the probe records.(With PTI inputs)

No kurta-pajama stuff: Lawyer’s comment about Subramanian Swamy’s attire heats up Babri land dispute case

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>BJP MP Subramanian Swamy’s intervention plea in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute was opposed in the Supreme Court by several parties on the ground that he had no locus standi (right or capacity to appear) in the title suit.While the matter was being the heard by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, the counsel opposing the proponents of a Ram temple, said that his plea to argue as an intervenor had not yet been acceptedDuring the deliberations lasting an over one-and-half hours, Swamy tried to impress upon the bench, also comprising justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, about his stand saying that he was raising the issue of Hindu fundamental right to religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.His intervention plea was opposed by parties including the All India Sunni Waqf Board, which was one of the main contestants in the matters.Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who was opposing the counsel for Lord Ram Lalla (diety) and the Uttar Pradesh government, said that only the main parties should be allowed to argue in the matter and “kurta-pyjama stuff should not be permitted”.His statement was strongly opposed by Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta as Dhavan’s remark was apparently targeted at Swamy, who was clad in the traditional Indian attire and a waist jacket.”He (Dhavan) should not be permitted to make such statements. I strongly object to such comments,” the ASG, who was appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, said.Dhavan quickly defused the situation stating that his statement was for others “except Swamy”. Mehta supported the intervention plea of Swamy and said, “He can be heard.” “I would like make out a case based on the Constitution that fundamental right gets precedent over property right,” Swamy said.Another key party in the suit was the Nirmohi Akhara.

Ayodhya suit: Parties oppose Swamy’s intervention plea in SC

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>BJP MP Subramanian Swamy’s intervention plea in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute was opposed in the Supreme Court today by several parties on the ground that he had no locus standi (right or capacity to appear) in the title suit. While the matter was being the heard by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, the counsel opposing the proponents of a Ram temple, said that his plea to argue as an intervenor had not yet been accepted During the deliberations lasting an over one-and-half hours, Swamy tried to impress upon the bench, also comprising justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, about his stand saying that he was raising the issue of Hindu fundamental right to religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. His intervention plea was opposed by parties including the All India Sunni Waqf Board, which was one of the main contestants in the matters. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who was opposing the counsel for Lord Ram Lalla (diety) and the Uttar Pradesh government, said that only the main parties should be allowed to argue in the matter and “kurta-pyjama stuff should not be permitted”. His statement was strongly opposed by Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta as Dhavan’s remark was apparently targeted at Swamy, who was clad in the traditional Indian attire and a waist jacket. “He (Dhavan) should not be permitted to make such statements. I strongly object to such comments,” the ASG, who was appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, said. Dhavan qickly defused the situation stating that his statement was for others “except Swamy”. Mehta supported the intervention plea of Swamy and said, “He can be heard.” “I would like make out a case based on the Constitution that fundamental right gets precedent over property right,” Swamy said. Another key party in the suit was the Nirmohi Akhara.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC raps Centre for not framing safety guidelines for schools

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today pulled up the Union government for not coming up with guidelines on disaster management to make schools safer even after the death of a large number of children in fire incidents in Dabwali and Kumbakonam. The apex court asked the National Disaster Management Authority to file its response by August 14. “Your affidavit goes round and round but does not say in explicit way what needs to be done. So many years have gone by but still there are no guidelines,” a bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said. It said that Centre has to say in clear terms whether it wants to do it or not. “Please give us guidelines and we will pass orders. You tell us nothing, there is nothing to hide. We want states to be alive to the situation,” the court said. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, said the NDMA and state and district level disaster management authorities look after disaster related incidents. “Tell them to file their response by August 14,” the court said, adding there should be focus on implementation as just framing guidelines will not suffice. “Responsiblity should also be fixed if there is dereliction (of duty),” it said. Earlier, the apex court had criticised the central government for treating court orders with disdain by not taking action on its order passed last year. A PIL has been filed by and individual Avinash Mehrotra seeking safety guidelines for school after the Dabwali fire incident in Haryana and the Kumbakonam tragedy in Tamil Nadu. The court had earlier asked the NDMA to come up with comprehensive guidelines to prevent such incidents and take measures for safety of school children.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC indicates Right to Privacy verdict in next one week

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today indicated it may deliver its verdict on whether right to privacy constitutes a fundamental right under the Constitution next week. A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said by next week the judgement on the status of Right to Privacy could be pronounced. The court’s remark came on a plea by senior advocate Salman Khurshid who sought urgent listing of his petition challenging passing of the Aadhaar Bill as a Money Bill. “There are some Aadhaar matters in which notices have been issued while in some notices have not been issued till now,” Khurshid said. To this, the court said, all Aadhaar matters will be taken up once the verdict on Right to Privacy is delievered. “We can’t fix the date for your bill. You wait for one week by which time Right to Privacy verdict may come, then we will give the date for listing of your plea,” the court said. A nine-judge Constitution bench had reserved its verdict on the issue on August 2 after voicing concern over possible misuse of personal information in public domain. It had observed that protection of the concept of privacy in the technological era was a “losing battle”. The Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar, had heard marathon arguments on six days over three weeks. A battery of senior lawyers, including Attorney General K K Venugopal, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Arvind Datar, Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subaramaniam, Shayam Divan, Anand Grover, C A Sundaram and Rakesh Dwivedi, had advanced arguments in favour and against the inclusion of right to privacy as a fundamental right. The bench, which had favoured “overarching” guidelines to protect private information in public domain, said there was a need to “maintain the core of privacy” as the notion of privacy was fast becoming irrelevant in an all-pervading technological era. It had said, “We are fighting a losing battle of privacy. We do not know for what purpose the information will be used. This is exactly a cause of concern.”(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Destitute widows maltreated in shelter homes: SC

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Ostracised destitute widows belong to the “socially disadvantaged class” of society and are not treated with dignity they deserve in shelter homes in Vrindavan and elsewhere, the Supreme Court said today. A bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta noted encouraging widow re-marriage was a “subject of hope” that it would end stereotype view about them and constituted a 6-member committee to study reports furnished in the apex court about their condition, and come up with a common working plan by November 30 this year. The apex court said as a part of its constitutional duty, it was necessary to intervene in the issue so as to give voice to these “hapless widows”, who were dealt with in a manner as if they have ceased to be entitled to live a life of dignity. “One of the issues adverted to during the hearing of the petitions, but not mentioned in any of the reports, is the need to encourage widow re-marriage. This is a subject of hope that might enable our society to give up the stereotype view of widows. We request the committee to consider this during its deliberations,” the bench said in its 20-page order. The top court referred to the concept of public interest litigation (PIL) and said there was a need to remind from time to time about its efficacy in providing social justice. “The advantage of public interest litigation is not only to empower the economically weaker sections of society but also to empower those suffering from social disabilities that may not necessarily be of their making. The widows of Vrindavan (and indeed in other ashrams) quite clearly fall in this category of a socially disadvantaged class of our society,” the court said. It said, “It is a pity that these widows have been so unfortunately dealt with, as if they have ceased to be entitled to live a life of dignity, and as if they are not entitled to the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution”. The bench said that socially underprivileged groups were those people who have no real access to justice, are voiceless and were needed to be empowered. “There can be little or no doubt at all that widows in some parts of the country are socially deprived and to an extent ostracised. Perhaps this is the reason why many of them choose to come to Vrindavan and other ashrams where, unfortunately, they are not treated with the dignity they deserve,” it said. “It is to give voice to these hapless widows that it became necessary for this court to intervene as a part of its constitutional duty and for reasons of social justice to issue appropriate directions,” the bench said. While constituting the committee, the top court said that the effort put in by all authorities concerned in the reports should not go waste and it must be gainfully utilized, being in a sense a gold mine of pragmatic and workable suggestions. The committee would consist of Suneeta Dhar of NGO Jagori, Meera Khanna of Guild for Service, activist and lawyer Abha Singhal, advocate Aparajita Singh and a nominee each from NGOs HelpAge India and Sulabh International. The apex court has asked the National Commission for Women to assist in providing working space to the committee and said that adequate remuneration with an honorarium to be given to the panel members would be decided later. The bench has fixed the matter for resumed hearing on October 9. In its order, the court also noted the agreed action plan handed over to it by Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar which has highlighted several steps that were required to be taken to improve the situation of destitute widows in the country. During the earlier hearing of the matter, the solicitor general had read out in detail the steps, including creation of interactive database of destitute widows, mechanism to provide them legal aid, funds for infrastructural development of shelter homes, and skill development of such women so that they can be self-employed. The apex court had earlier taken note of the “pathetic” condition of widows after a petition was filed in 2007 highlighting how they lived in welfare homes in Vrindavan. It had referred to various reports filed by the National Legal Services Authority, District Legal Services Authority and National Commission for Women on the condition of shelter homes for widows in Vrindavan. One of the reports had said that there was lack of proper toilets and bathrooms in the shelter homes, besides poor water and electricity facilities.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

HC allows Dhinakaran’s plea to cross-examine in FERA case

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Madras High Court today allowed AIADMK leader T T V Dhinakaran to cross examine a prosecution witness in a court here in connection with a FERA case against him. The court allowed him to do so before August 31 in the FERA violation case against him in the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences) Court, which framed charges against him on August 1. Hearing Dhinakaran’s plea, seeking a direction to the trial court to allow him to cross examine the prosecution witness, Justice M S Ramesh in his order granted time till August 31 for the purpose. “It is made clear that no further time will be granted for cross examination. The petitioner shall personally appear before the court concerned on August 16 and after that shall ensure that the cross examination is completed on or before August 31,” the judge said and made it clear that no further time will be granted. In his petition, Dhinakaran submitted that after framing charges there has to be an adjournment and in his case it was not done. Only on the next hearing can the accused be questioned of his stand in respect of cross-examination of prosecution witness. However it was not done, the petitioner claimed. Alleging violation of relevant CrPC provisions, the petitioner said the magistrate questioned him on the same day when charges were framed, thereby “committing serious illegality”. The Additional Solicitor General, appearing for Enforcement Directorate (ED), said the current petition was only to protract the proceedings. The Special Public Prosecutor, who conducts trial on behalf of the ED in the Economic Offences court and was assisting the ASG, submitted that the prosecution witness was very much available and could be cross-examined by Dhinakaran today itself. However, the counsel for Dhinakaran submitted that his client may not be available for two days. The judge then allowed Dhinakaran to cross examine the prosecution witness before August 31. It may be recalled that on August 1 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EO Court) S Malarmathy framed charges against him in one of the FERA case against him. The charges were framed after the Madras High Court vacated an interim stay on proceedings against Dhinakaran. On July 24, the high court had set aside the charges framed against Dhinakaran by the economic offences court on April 19. It had then directed the trial court to re-do the process after granting adequate time to the accused to submit his objections and complete the trial within three months.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Vehicles’ insurance can’t be renewed without PUC certificate:

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Concerned over rising vehicular pollution, the Supreme Court today issued a slew of directions that included non-renewal of insurance policy of vehicles unless the owner provides pollution under control (PUC) certificate to the insurance firms. A bench comprising justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta took note of the fact that some fuel refilling outlets in the National Capital Region (NCR) did not have the PUC centres. It asked Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, to ensure within four weeks that all fuel refilling centres in NCR have a functional PUC centre. The Environment Pollution Control Authority (EPCA) has suggested strengthening inspection of PUC centres for quality control and introduce well-equipped mobile test centres and a programme to check visibly polluting vehicles. Taking note of the suggestions, mooted by EPCA through amicus curiae Aprajita Singh, the bench asked the Centre to implement most of these as these would help in curbing pollution. Singh alleged that almost 96 per cent vehicles clear pollution tests at PUC centres and either the machines required re-calibration or there was something wrong with the way such centres are functioning. EPCA has sought to enforce penalty for PUC centres for non-compliance and malpractices. The court also asked the Centre to consider creating a national database of vehicles to monitor as to whether they are complaint to emission norms. The apex court had earlier granted three months time to the Centre to come out with standards for emissions by industries in the National Capital Region (NCR) to bring down the level of air pollutants. The apex court had in May directed the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to prepare standards for emissions by industries in the NCR to curb level of air pollutants. It had asked CPCB to prepare the standards for emissions by June 30, which should be followed by industries by December end. The bench was hearing a PIL filed by environmentalist M C Mehta way back in 1985 dealing with various aspects of pollution.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC seeks assistance on audio recording of court proceedings

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today sought a senior law officer’s assistance in deciding whether the CCTV cameras installed in court rooms should be allowed to record the audio of the proceedings. A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar told Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh that he has been appointed amicus curiae (friend of the court) to assist it in the matter. The apex court had on March 28 directed installation of CCTV cameras, without audio, in at least two districts in every state and Union Territory. It had made it clear that the CCTV footages would not be available under the the Right to Information Act and would not be given to anyone without the permission of the high court concerned. The bench said it would hear a petition filed in this regard on August 14. The apex court had earlier directed that CCTV cameras be installed in the court rooms within three months. The Centre had told the court that audio-video recordings could contribute to transparency in judicial proceedings.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC refers to 3-judge bench issue of stay in graft case trials

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today referred to a larger bench a batch of petitions challenging the stay granted in trials in graft cases by higher courts despite a specific prohibition against it under the Prevention of Corruption Act. An apex court bench, headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar, referred the vexatious legal issue to a three-judge bench which will hear the matter on August 29. The top court’s verdict will decide the fate of 45 cases pending in various courts where trial has been stayed by the apex court and high courts in corruption cases. The bench referred the matter to the larger bench after senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for one of the petitioners whose trial has been halted, sought four weeks time to make his submission. Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar told the court that stay in 45 cases had resulted in trials in 146 matters under the Prevention of Corruption Act getting stalled. He contended before the bench, also comprising Justice D Y Chandrachud, that some of these appeals were pending in the apex court for the last 15 years and most of the cases were Delhi-centric. The solicitor general said the stay in graft cases were granted despite a statutory ban under Section 19(3)(c) of the Act which stated, “No court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any enquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.”(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC to hear environmentalist MC Mehta’s plea in air pollution matter

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> The Supreme Court will today hear the plea filed by the noted environmentalist, M.C. Mehta, in connection with the air pollution case. Earlier on January 17, the apex court had warned that the problem of air pollution was very serious and it is important to find a solution for the same, on an urgent basis. The observation was made by the court after amicus curiae and senior advocate Harish Salve said there was a need to ensure 100 percent compliance of Pollution Under Certificate (PUC) and linking them with the insurance of vehicles. The bench of judges questioned Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, who was appearing for the Centre, to specify the number of PUC centres in Delhi. Following which, Kumar said there were 962 such centres in Delhi and each of them inspects around 5,000 vehicles every three months.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Karti Chidambaram moves HC against ‘look out circular’

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Former union minister P Chidambaram’s son Karti Chidambaram on Friday moved the Madras High Court for quashing a “look out circular” issued against him under the Passport Act over a corruption case filed by the CBI.In his petition, Karti contended that the July 18 circular had been issued arbitrarily and without jurisdiction by the Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) and The Bureau of Immigration under the Union home ministry at the behest of different agencies to prevent him from travelling abroad.”The circular is a well thought out and meticulously orchestrated fraudulent plan of the CBI to stop me at the airport as and when I proceed abroad by springing an unpleasant surprise on me and leak it to the media that I was detained at the airport and cause embarrassment to me,” he alleged.He said he had responded to the summonses issued by the CBI in connection with the case and there was “no absolute cause of action” for issuance of the LOC.The case related to alleged irregularities in the FIPB clearance to INX Media for receiving overseas funds when his father was the Finance Minister in 2007.When the matter came up for hearing before Justice D Duraiswamy, he adjourned it to August 7 after Additional Solicitor General G Rajagopalan sought time to get instructions on whether such a circular had been issued.The petitioner had been summoned twice by the CBI since June this year to appear before it for questioning in connection with alleged irregularities in the clearance given by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) to the media group for allegedly receiving funds from Mauritius when hisfather was the finance minister in 2007.Karti had sought time to appear before the CBI, which had on May 15 registered an FIR against him and others alleging that a firm “indirectly controlled” by him had received money from INX Media, run by Indrani and Peter Mukerjea.In his petition, Karti submitted that the LOC, which was used to monitor the arrival departure of foreigners and Indians or to restrict their movement, had been issued to restrain him from going abroad.Claiming that the CBI issued the summons when he was abroad on personal work, Karti said his counsel had duly informed the CBI about this through a letter dated June 20.He said the LOC was a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency only if it was amply demonstrated that he repeatedly and deliberately failed to cooperate with the investigation.

SC rejects plea for abortion of 10-yr-old rape survivor

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A 10-year-old rape survivor has lost her legal battle with the Supreme Court refusing to allow termination of her 32-week-old pregnancy, relying on a medical report that it would not be good for her or the foetus. A bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud yesterday also asked Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar to convey its suggestion to the Centre that a permanent medical board be set up in each state to take prompt decisions in cases where women and girls seek nod for abortion. The bench perused the report of the medical board set up by the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Chandigarh to examine the child and the consequences if the termination of pregnancy was allowed. “In view of the recommendations made in by the medical board in its report, it would neither be in the interest of the girl child nor the alive foetus, which is approximately 32-weeks-old, to order abortion,” it said. The court expressed satisfaction on the care being provided to the girl at a government hospital in Chandigarh and said that it was a “fully equipped” to provide the best medical help. The court, while disposing of the plea, rapped the counsel for the petitioner for approaching the apex court directly without availing the remedy at the high court level. “The matter was before the district court and you should have gone to the high court, but you directly came to the Supreme Court,” the bench said, adding as the girl was running against the time, it did not pass any order on this issue. The court then asked the solicitor general, present in the courtroom, to ask the Centre to consider asking states to set up a permanent medical board to take up such cases. It said that such matters were coming more to the Supreme Court and precious time was being lost in setting up of a medical board for examination. The solicitor general said that he would convey the court’s suggestion to the Centre and get back to it. The apex court had on July 24 issued notice to the Centre on the plea seeking its nod for the abortion and had ordered the child’s examination by a medical board consented to by one of her parents. The PIL was filed after a Chandigarh district court on July 18 refused to let the girl undergo the abortion after it was confirmed that she was almost 28 weeks pregnant. Courts allow medical termination of pregnancy up to 20 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and can make an exception if the foetus is genetically abnormal.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Supreme Court denies 10-year-old rape survivor consent to abort

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court has turned down an abortion plea filed by a 10-year-old rape survivor. The survivor, who is 32 weeks pregnant, had moved the SC seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy.The order was passed after a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India JS Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud took into consideration the observation of a medical board set up by PIMER (Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research) Chandigarh that examined the case. According to the board, aborting the foetus would risk the life and health of the 10-year-old, who is almost eight months pregnant now. “The report says continuing with the pregnancy would risk the mother’s life,” CJI Khehar said.Soon after passing the order, CJI Khehar asked the Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar to look into the feasibility of setting up permanent medical boards at the state level to help dispose of the rising number of cases that deal with permission to abort a foetus without delay.”In light of the rising matters reaching us, look into setting up a board at the state level so that these matters can be disposed of at the first step itself,” CJI Khehar said at the end of the hearing. The top court further directed the doctors at the government hospital treating the child to give her “due medical care”.The victim was allegedly repeatedly raped by her maternal uncle, who was arrested by the police following a complaint. The incident was reported when the girl was taken to a hospital by her mother after she complained of severe stomach ache on July 15.The permission to abort the child was denied by the local court on July 18 under the MTP Act, 1971, highlighting the serious health risks involved. The medical board, comprising of doctors from a government hospital in the city, had concluded that her pregnancy had gone beyond 26 weeks and could be fatal if she is forced to give birth.According to the MTP Act, abortion is allowed only up to 20 weeks of gestation. Mother’s who want to abort the foetus beyond this deadline, will get permission only if ‘the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury physical or mental health.’Though, keeping pace with the changing times, the new MTP Amendment Draft Bill 2014 (which is yet to be passed), plans to extend the abortion cut-off to 24 weeks.

Centre’s roadmap on destitute widows lacks various aspects: SC

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today said the Centre’s roadmap to improve condition of destitute widows has not addressed issues like national policy on empowerment of women, nourishment, sanitation and hygiene at shelter homes. After going through the roadmap given by the Centre, a bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta also observed that the important aspect of re-marriage of widows aged between 16 and 20 years was missing and the government should encourage it. The apex court said it was “not doubting” the Centre’s plan to improve the condition of destitute widows across the country, but “it has to be done in a proper manner”. “A national policy for empowerment of women had come in 2001. Over 15 years have gone by, but no empowerment of women is there,” the bench observed after Solicitor General (SG) Ranjit Kumar read out the contents of government’s roadmap. “There are two-three things which we want to say. You need to update the national policy for empowerment of women. You have not addressed the issue of nourishment. Most of these women are malnourished. “It is a huge problem. You address this issue or else we are not going to reach anywhere,” it said. The apex court reserved its order on the pleas seeking directions to the Centre and the state government to provide shelter and other necessary facilities to widows in Vrindavan in Uttar Pradesh who have been abandoned by their family members and other parts of the country. The bench said it was contemplating constituting a committee which would go through various reports filed before it in the matter and would give suggestions on the steps which were required to be taken to improve the situation. It asked the parties to give names so that a committee could be formed after which the SG suggested three names — Anuradha Kapoor of the NGO ‘Swayam’, Suneeta Dhar of the NGO ‘Jagori’ and Meera Khanna of ‘Guild of Service’. The bench, however, asked the parties to give five names, but the SG said he would give it within two days. During the hearing, the solicitor general read out in detail the steps, including creation of interactive database of destitute widows, mechanism for providing them legal aid, funds for infrastructural development of shelter homes, skill development of such women so that they can be self-employed, which the government was planning to take. The government said that besides these, they also have a roadmap for imparting training to staffs employed at shelter homes, vocational training of destitute widows, appointment of counsellors and steps to ensure access to health facilities for them. However, the bench observed, “Another important aspect which is missing is that there is nothing about re-marriage of widows aged between 16 to 20 years. You should encourage them to re-marry. There is nothing about it in the report. “One thing is to say that everything is very good. The other thing is what is actually happening on the ground. We have a report of the member secretary of the legal services authority which says it is a hopeless situation. It says nothing is there in these (shelter) homes,” the bench said. When the SG said that this report was of 2014 and the situation has improved, the bench said, “Yes, but the government report of 2014 said that there is everything. “We are not saying whatever you are saying is useless,” it said and asked about the budgetary allocation for carrying out the works as suggested by the Centre. On the issue of providing nutrition to destitute widows, the bench observed, “Every person requires some basic nourishment whether he or she is a child or an adult. There are newspaper reports about it. Maharashtra is in such a bad shape. The country is in a bad shape as far as malnutrition is concerned”. The apex court had earlier asked the Centre to convene a meeting to consider the suggestions mooted by the National Commission for Women (NCW) and formulate directions to improve the condition of destitute widows. The court had taken note of the pathetic situation faced by the widows after a petition was filed in 2007 portraying their condition in the welfare homes at Vrindavan. It had earlier referred to various reports filed by the National Legal Services Authority, the District Legal Services Authority and the NCW on the condition of shelter homes for widows in Vrindavan. One of the reports had said that there was lack of proper toilets and bathrooms in the shelter homes, besides poor water and electricity facilities.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC notice to DUSIB on railways’ plea against toilets on its

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today sought a response from the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) on a plea of the Centre challenging a Delhi High Court order asking the railways to allow the installation of a prefab cubical toilet complex on its land in an area here. “Issue notice to DUSIB, returnable on July 20,2017. Liberty is granted to the petitioner (Centre) to serve DUSIB through the same counsel who appeared on behalf of the said respondent before the High Court,” a bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said. The bench was hearing the appeal of the Centre against the May 12 order of the Delhi High Court asking the railways to allow the DUSIB to construct “prefab cubical toilet complex” on its land at Shakurbasti here. Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Centre, said that the railways has no problem with the mobile toilet vans and the main concern is the part of the order which asks the railways to allow a prefab cubical toilet complex on its land. He said the toilet complex would lead to concrete structures such as septic and water tanks on the railways’ land. The high court, while dealing with a PIL filed by Congress leader Ajay Maken, had passed a slew of directions for welfare of persons displaced during an anti-encroachment drive at Shakurbasti here. It had also asked the DUSIB to provide an adequate number of hygienic toilets for the displaced slum dwellers. The Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, in it affidavit, had said that at present there were five mobile toilet vans (MTVs) with 70 toilet seats in the area. The DUSIB had also said that it was willing to provide a prefab cubical toilet complex in addition to the existing 70 seats in 5 MTVs at its own cost. It had said that the railways had not agreed to the installation of such a prefab cubical toilet seats.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Process to bring in DNA profiling bill has begun: Centre to SC

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A legislative process is in progress to bring in a human DNA profiling bill to enable the authorities maintain records of unidentified and unclaimed dead bodies or missing persons, the government told the Supreme Court today. A bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra and comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and M M Shantanagoudar was informed by Additional Solicitor General P S Narasimha that the process to bring in the measure has been initiated. “The process to bring in the legislation has begun. Government is mulling to bring in human DNA profiling bill,” he said. The bench posted the matter for further hearing after 12 weeks. The court was hearing a PIL filed by NGO Lokniti Foundation stating that India does not have a national DNA database to address the issue of thousands of unclaimed dead bodies that are reported annually. It had suggested that maintaining of the DNA profiles of the bodies before their disposal could help in their identification by the family members. The apex court had in 2014 issued notice to Ministry of Home Affairs, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, seeking their responses to the petition. The NGO in its plea had said that “since the bodies cannot be identified using traditional methods, the perpetrators of the possible crime remain untraced and the families, to which the victims belonged, never come to know about the fate of their near and dear ones.” It had said that the DNA profiling of unidentified bodies can help match the missing persons and trace them. The NGO had claimed that though the government had been considering a proposal for DNA profiling of unidentified bodies since 2007, but no decision had been taken as yet. “One of the main reasons for a large number of bodies remaining unidentified is that a person freely moves from one part to another in search of work and members of poor families have no means to keep in touch with their near and dear ones. “It becomes difficult for the local police to identify persons who have no local connection and who have died without anyone complaining of death caused by any mischief,” the plea had said.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Calcutta HC asks Centre to send 4 CRPF companies in Darjeeling

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Calcutta High Court today directed the Centre to provide four additional companies of CRPF within 48 hours in Darjeeling to quell violence in the hills. A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Nishita Mhatre and Justice T Chakraborty directed the Centre to provide the forces from the CRPF in addition to 11 companies of the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) already deployed there. The court also directed the state government to provide additional forces from its own resources in order to bring back normalcy in the hills, where an indefinite bandh demanding separate statehood has been going on for the last one month. The bench has repeatedly expressed concern over the sufferings of the people in the stir-hit Darjeeling hills amid the ongoing tussle over replacement of forces, sought by the state for ‘operational reasons.’ The Centre, in reply to the state’s request for replacement of three Mahila companies of CRPF, today said through an affidavit that the women members of the force could not be discriminated against. On the state’s request for replacing three companies of SSB from the restive Darjeeling hills claiming that they were familiar with the local people, the Centre submitted that it was not a cogent reason to replace the SSB companies as they worked without bias. Hearing both the Advocate General for the state and the Additional Solicitor General for the Centre, the division bench directed the deployment of four companies of CRPF in addition to the 11 companies already deployed in Darjeeling and Kalimpong districts in the hills. Out of the 11 companies of CAPF, there are three from SSB, three Mahila CRPF companies and the rest are CRPF companies comprising men.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Delhi HC asks Centre to ensure appointment of NCMEI chief

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Delhi High Court has asked the Centre to appoint a chairperson in the National Commission of Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) as soon as possible, as the post is vacant since December 2014. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar said that it is an important body and the vacant post is “extremely important”. “Please ensure that the appointment is done as soon as possible,” the bench said. The court’s direction came during hearing of a PIL filed by Delhi-resident Mohd Khalid Ansari who said there is no chairperson in NCMEI since the previous incumbent demitted office in December 2014. The petition said the commission’s chairperson has to be from a minority community and must also have served as a judge of a high court. It further said that without the chairperson, all orders passed by the commission are liable to be set aside as being of no legal consequences and void ab initio (to be treated as invalid from the outset). To which the bench asked the Centre to produce details of all decisions taken till date by the commission in absence of the chairperson. It also said the appointment should be done in accordance with the NCMEI Act. Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for the Centre, said that the matter is under consideration before the competent authority and a decision is likely to be taken. The court has now fixed the matter for further hearing on October 16. The NCMEI Act came into effect from November 2004 and in January 2005 the central government issued the notification identifying Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Zoroastrian (Parsis) communities as minorities for the purpose of the Act. The commission was established to protect and safeguard the educational institutions which are established by the minorities in India and also to ensure rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Tell us why no law has been made: SC asks Centre on lack of legislation on appointment of CEC, ECs

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today asked the Centre why no enabling law as mandated under the Constitution for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners has yet been framed.”The Election Commissioners supervise and hold elections across the country and this is the significance of their office and their selection has to be made in the most transparent manner,” a bench comprising Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud said.The bench referred to the mandate of Article 324(2) of the Constitution and said, “it is expected from Parliament to make the law, but it has not been made.” Article 324(2) reads: “The Election Commission shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such numbers of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to time fix and appointment of the CEC and other ECs shall, subject to provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament, be made by the President.”The court, however, acknowledged that till now, the appointments of Election Commissioners has been “very, very fair and politically neutral”. Referring to the void in the law, the bench said that to ensure “fair and transparent” selection process, it may step in to lay down guidelines. Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, representing the Centre, said the President and the Prime Minister appoint the CEC and ECs and the court cannot be asked by the petitioner to intervene.”Tell us, why no law has been made,” the bench then asked. When the Solicitor General said the Centre had made a law on appointment of judges in the higher judiciary, the bench replied in a lighter vein “forget judges.” The Centre had enacted the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act which was struck down by the apex court. “None other than the Prime Minister is involved in the selection of the Election Commissioners. Besides, it is for Parliament to decide whether there should be a law or not,” he said.The CEC and ECs perform the onerous duty of conducting election in the country and their appointment should be the conducted in “the most transparent” manner under the law enacted by Parliament, the bench said. The bench said it would accord the final hearing in the matter and fixed it for hearing after two months. At the outset, Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner Anoop Baranwal, said a direction should be issued for making the law to ensure a “fair, just and transparent process of selection by constituting a neutral and independent selection committee to recommend the name for the appointment of the members of the Election Commission”.He also said that the Law Commission and parliamentary and statutory committees have also favoured transparent and fair procedures for appointing the CEC and ECs. “The independence of the Election Commission is paramount,” he said, adding that the selection and appointment cannot be left at the hands of the political executives. The bench expressed unhappiness over the fact that an officer of the rank of Deputy Secretary has filed the response on behalf of the Centre in such an important issue. “Who should be short-listed? Who short-lists these names? What is the eligibility? There is nothing to show the procedure followed in selecting them,” the bench observed.”We would acknowledge that till now, all the appointments have been excellent,” it said, adding however, Parliament has not enacted the law yet. The plea said that successive governments have not acted and did not set up a “fair, just and transparent process” for selection of election commissioners. It said the appointments have been made by the President on the basis of the advice given by the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers.

SC questions Centre on enabling law on appointment of CEC, ECs

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today asked the Centre why no enabling law as mandated under the Constitution for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners has yet been framed. “The Election Commissioners supervise and hold elections across the country and this is the significance of their office and their selection has to be made in the most transparent manner,” a bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said. The bench referred to the mandate of Article 324(2) of the Constitution and said, “it is expected from Parliament to make the law, but it has not been made.” Article 324(2) reads: “The Election Commission shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such numbers of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to time fix and appointment of the CEC and other ECs shall, subject to provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament, be made by the President.” The court, however, acknowledged that till now, the appointments of Election Commissioners has been “very, very fair and politically neutral”. Referring to the void in the law, the bench said that to ensure “fair and transparent” selection process, it may step in to lay down guidelines. Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, representing the Centre, said the President and the Prime Minister appoint the CEC and ECs and the court cannot be asked by the petitioner to intervene. “Tell us, why no law has been made,” the bench then asked. When the Solicitor General said the Centre had made a law on appointment of judges in the higher judiciary, the bench replied in a lighter vein “forget judges.” The Centre had enacted the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act which was struck down by the apex court. “None other than the Prime Minister is involved in the selection of the Election Commissioners. Besides, it is for Parliament to decide whether there should be a law or not,” he said. The CEC and ECs perform the onerous duty of conducting election in the country and their appointment should be the conducted in “the most transparent” manner under the law enacted by Parliament, the bench said. The bench said it would accord the final hearing in the matter and fixed it for hearing after two months. At the outset, Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner Anoop Baranwal, said a direction should be issued for making the law to ensure a “fair, just and transparent process of selection by constituting a neutral and independent selection committee to recommend the name for the appointment of the members of the Election Commission”. He also said that the Law Commission and parliamentary and statutory committees have also favoured transparent and fair procedures for appointing the CEC and ECs. “The independence of the Election Commission is paramount,” he said, adding that the selection and appointment cannot be left at the hands of the political executives. The bench expressed unhappiness over the fact that an officer of the rank of Deputy Secretary has filed the response on behalf of the Centre in such an important issue. “Who should be short-listed? Who short-lists these names? What is the eligibility? There is nothing to show the procedure followed in selecting them,” the bench observed. “We would acknowledge that till now, all the appointments have been excellent,” it said, adding however, Parliament has not enacted the law yet. The plea said that successive governments have not acted and did not set up a “fair, just and transparent process” for selection of election commissioners. It said the appointments have been made by the President on the basis of the advice given by the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Resolve differences over CAPF deployment in Darj: HC to WB,

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Empathising with the sufferings of people in and around Darjeeling under indefinite shutdown, the Calcutta High Court today asked the Centre and the West Bengal government to resolve their differences over need and and deployment of Central Armed Police Force in the hills. A division of Acting Chief Justice Nishita Mhatre and Justice T Chakraborty asked the Centre and the state government to resolve the issue of CAPF’s requisition and deployment in the hills immediately and inform it tomorrow. Appearing for the Centre during the hearing of plea for restoration of normalcy in Darjeeling hills, Additional Solicitor General Kaushik Chanda submitted that the state’s requisition is under examination. The state government through a communique on June 30 had requested the Centre for replacement of three women companies of the CRPF with three male CRPF companies and replacement of three companies of SSB with those CRPF or RAF. Chanda submitted that the state government was requested to provide details of availability and deployment of state armed police in Darjeeling and Kalimpong districts. This was disputed by Advocate General Kishore Dutta who submitted that the state government was yet to receive any such request. There are at present 11 companies of CAPF in Darjeeling hills, comprising the districts of Darjeeling and Kalimpong, along with state police force to tackle the disturbances there. The matter will be taken up for hearing again tomorrow.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Plea for declaring PG medical fees to be fixed by Pondy panel

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A PIL has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking that fees payable for admission to PG medical/dental courses in self-financing and deemed universities in Puducherry be fixed by the Puducherry Fees Committee. The PIL also sought a direction to ensure that the fees is fixed in accordance with the law and procedures laid by the Supreme Court. When the PIL came up today, the court issued notice to the Puduchery government and impleaded the Union HRD ministry, UGC, five private medical colleges of Karaikal and Puducherry as respondents, returnable by June 13. The petitioner also sought a direction to the concerned authorities of Puducherry government to provisionally admit applicants who have been issued allotment orders by the Centralised Admission Committee by collecting the fees fixed by the Puducherry Fees Committee, “pending disposal of the petition.” The petitioner said it is just and necessary that the Puducherry Fees Committee shall fix reasonable fees for all categories of medical colleges, including those under deemed universities, to bring in some extent of uniformity in the fee structure and to avoid fleecing of students by managements. The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M. Sunda, issued notice to Su. Srinivasan, Assistant Solicitor General of India, on behalf of UGC and also issued notice to all the five private medical Colleges. Notice was also issued to Puducherry government pleader A. Gandhirajan. The petition was filed by advocate V.B.R. Menon.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC to hear plea against making Aadhaar mandatory for schemes

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today agreed to hear on May 17 a plea challenging various notifications of the Centre to make Aadhaar card mandatory for availing benefits of government schemes. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar, which is currently hearing a batch of petitions challenging the practice of triple talaq, agreed to the contention of senior advocate Shyam Divan that the Aadhaar matter is very important and needed to be heard on an urgent basis. “Despite the order of this court that Aadhaar will be voluntary and not mandatory, the government has been coming out with a series of notifications making it mandatory to avail benefits of schemes like scholarships, Right to Food and mid-day meal in schools,” Divan, appearing for Shanta Sinha, former chairperson of National Commission For Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), one of the petitioners in the Aadhaar matter, said. He said let a two-judge bench hear the applications against making Aadhaar mandatory for various schemes. Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Centre, vehemently contested the submission saying even interim orders in Aadhaar matter have been passed by a five-judge bench and hence it would not be appropriate to list the plea before a two-judge bench. The Solicitor General also said that the petitioner has not informed the court that after passing of various orders by the Supreme Court making Aadhaar voluntary, the central government has come out with a new legislation. Several petitions, challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar are pending in the apex court and would be heard by a five-judge constitution bench, which is yet to be set up by the CJI. Earlier, the Supreme Court had passed a slew of orders asking the government and its agencies not to make Aadhaar mandatory for extending benefits of their welfare schemes. The apex court, however, had allowed the Centre to seek Aadhaar card voluntarily from citizens fro extending benefits of schemes like LPG subsidy, Jan Dhan scheme and Public Distribution System etc.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC moots Central Agency to hold judicial exams

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court, on the last working day before breaking for summer vacation on Tuesday, indicated its intent to suggest the establishment of a central common agency that would act as a gateway for selection of subordinate judiciary.A Bench led by Chief Justice JS Khehar, along with Justices AK Goel and AM Khanwilkar were hearing a suo moto writ petition that was born out of a letter written by the Centre addressed to the registry.The letter written by the law ministry referred to an April 8 meeting attended by members of the judiciary and the central government. The meeting was constituted to discuss various reforms to accomplish “a constitutional goal of speedy justice and justice for all.”The top court expressed its excitement over a few reforms suggested during this meeting, which included a centralised examination by a recruiting body for selection for candidates within a defined timeline.The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) could conduct this examination and the candidates could also be given options of various High Courts under which they preferred to serve.The top court heard Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, who was representing the union, before asking all states to file their responses before June 30.The apex court made it clear that it did not want to change the existing federal structure. “The endeavour is not to touch the federal structure. Even the mode of selection process followed by different states will not be touched. The object is to have a common agency to conduct the selection process.””This will help fill up vacancies,” the Chief Justice said. All states have been asked to file their response on this issue by June 30, after which the matter will be heard on July 10….& ANALYSISThe top court finds centralised examination by a recruiting body within a defined timeline to be a welcome move.
The court, however, has made it clear that it did not want to change the existing federal structure.
Even the mode of selection process followed by different states will not be touched. The move is expected to help fill up vacancies.

It is govt’s job to monitor unauthorised construction in

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Delhi High Court today said it is the job of the Union urban development minister to monitor the situation arising out of unauthorised construction in the national capital and not that of the judiciary. The court made the remarks while hearing several PILs filed by NGO Paardarshita and some individuals alleging illegal construction in the upscale Sainik Farms colony. “We do not want any affidavit from the Urban development minister. We want to inform the minister that this is the situation of unauthorised construction in Delhi and you have to monitor it. It not our job to monitor it,” a bench of justices S Ravindra Bhat and Yogesh Khanna said. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain, appearing for the South Delhi Municipal Corporation, said there is a need to find a solution in this regard and he will take instruction as to how it can be structurised. Senior standing counsel of the Delhi government Rajiv Mehra said there should be a time-frame within which both the AAP government and the Centre should sit together and find a solution to the problem of unauthorised construction. During the hearing, the court inquired about the number of unauthorised constructions across Delhi and how many people live in such buildings. To this, the court was informed that as per the 2011 census figure, there were around 1800 to 2000 illegal colonies in the city in which about 40 lakh people live. The bench had earlier questioned the Centre whether it was “sitting on the scheme” forwarded by the Delhi government for regularising the posh south Delhi colony. It had said that it was considering handing over the probe to the CBI as the SDMC had not taken any action against its errant officials. The corporation had later placed before the bench a roadmap on steps the civic body proposed to take to identify and penalise the officials who permitted illegal construction. The court had, however, said, “Just because people of Sainik Farms are rich, why should we differentiate between them and those in Neb Sarai (where the CBI is probing unauthorised construction)?” It had said, “Why should honest people pay a premium for buying land, while people in Sainik Farms get it for a song? Go and penalise them and collect your money.”(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

NGT surprised over transfer of plea on Yamuna pollution

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The National Green Tribunal today expressed surprise after being informed that a 23-year-old PIL on pollution in river Yamuna has been transferred to it and on which it had passed an order two years ago. “Has the Supreme Court transferred the Yamuna matter to us? But, we have already passed a detailed judgement on the river way back in 2015. This is the problem with you (lawyers) people. “Why didn’t you inform the Lordships about this? You people also like to play ping-pong here and there,” a bench headed by NGT Chairperson Justice Swatanter Kumar said. The observations came after some lawyers informed the bench that the apex court on April 24 had transferred the PIL to the NGT on the ground that there cannot be “parallel proceedings” on the same issue. The apex court had expressed satisfaction on the orders passed by the green panel on cleaning of the river and said the current matter also fell under the NGT’s jurisdiction. It had clarified that if the NGT was confronted with any constitutional or legal issue which it cannot deal with, then Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae, could file an application before it. The apex court had in 1994 taken suo motu (on its own) cognizance of a newspaper report ‘And Quiet Flows Maili Yamuna’ and initiated proceedings regarding its cleansing.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC to hear Teesta Setalvad’s plea for extension of interim bail

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> The Supreme Court on Friday will continue to hear plea of social activist Teesta Setalvad, who is accused of misappropriation of funds that were meant for rehabilitation of Gujarat riot victims, for the extension of interim bail. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta is appearing for the Gujarat Government, while senior advocate Kapil Sibal is appearing for Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand. Teesta, her husband and the two NGOs – Sabrang Trust and Citizens for Justice and Peace – approached the apex court challenging the October 7, 2015, verdict of the Gujarat High Court, which had rejected their pleas for defreezing their personal bank accounts. One of the residents of Gulberg Society had filed a complaint against Setalvad and others alleging that money was raised to make a museum at the Gulberg Society in the memory of those killed during the 2002 Gujarat riots, but it had not been utilised for the purpose. The high court had upheld the verdict of a lower court in this regard observing that the probe was at a serious point. In their plea before the apex court, the petitioners have alleged that their accounts were “illegally freezed” without following the due process of law. The Gujarat Police filed an affidavit in the apex court alleging that the funds collected by them for setting up of museum in memory of the riots victims of the Gulberg Society were spent on personal use.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC to continue hearing plea against Teesta Setalvad, others today

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> The Supreme Court on Wednesday will continue to hear the case involving social activist Teesta Setalvad, who is accused of misappropriation of funds which was meant for rehabilitation of Gujarat riot victims. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta is appearing for the Gujarat Government, while senior advocate Kapil Sibal is appearing for Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand. Teesta, her husband and the two NGOs – Sabrang Trust and Citizens for Justice and Peace – approached the apex court challenging the October 7, 2015, verdict of the Gujarat High Court which had rejected their pleas for defreezing their personal bank accounts. One of the residents of Gulberg Society had filed a complaint against Setalvad and others alleging that money was raised to make a museum at Gulberg Society in the memory of those killed during the 2002 Gujarat riots, but it had not been utilised for the purpose. The high court had upheld the verdict of a lower court in this regard observing that the probe was at a serious point. In their plea before the apex court, the petitioners have alleged that their accounts were “illegally freezed” without following the due process of law. The Gujarat Police filed an affidavit in the apex court alleging that the funds collected by them for setting up of museum in memory of the riots victims of Gulberg Society was spent on personal use.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC allows Delhi Police’s plea for registration of vehicles

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today allowed a plea of Delhi Police seeking its permission for registration of heavy vehicles, having engine capacity of above 2000cc, used for services like fire fighting and riots control. A bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta was informed that these vehicles, including water cannon vehicle, were needed by the force for emergency services. Besides water cannon vehicles, the police had also sought permission to get registered riot control vehicles and baggage scanner vehicles. Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar told the bench that these vehicles could be registered after paying one per cent cess, charged as environment protection charge, as per the apex court’s last year order. The bench allowed the plea and said that these vehicles would be registered as per its directions given in the order passed on August 12 last year. The apex court, in its August 12 last year order, had lifted its embargo on registration of high-end diesel cars and SUVs having engine capacity of 2000cc and above in Delhi and National Capital Region on payment of one per cent of the ex-showroom price of such vehicles as green cess. It had said that the one per cent amount shall be paid with Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) which will open a separate account with a scheduled public sector bank. It had said that registration of vehicle would be done by the Regional Transport Officer on the satisfaction that one per cent of the cost of the vehicle has been deposited with the CPCB by the vehicle manufacturers/dealer/sub-dealer. The embargo on registration of high-end diesel cars and SUVs having engine capacity of 2000cc and above had come while the apex court was dealing with a matter pertaining to worsening air pollution level in Delhi-NCR.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Asaram case: SC asks Gujarat court to expedite recording evidence of prosecution witnesses

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked a Gujarat trial court to expedite recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses in a sexual assault case lodged by two Surat-based sisters against self-styled godman Asaram.A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justices D Y Chandrachud and S K Kaul asked the Surat trial court to record the testimonies of 46 remaining prosecution witnesses including the alleged rape victims.”The trial court is directed to expedite the examination of witnesses as expeditiously as may be practically possible,” the bench said.Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Gujarat, said this is the same case in which two prosecution witnesses have been killed.He further said that 29 prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the recording of evidence of 46 others is still remaining.”Don’t linger it. This is what we want to say (to) you (Gujarat). Expedite the recording of evidence,” the bench said while fixing the plea filed by Asaram for further hearing in the third week of July.Earlier, the top court had refused to grant bail to Asaram on various grounds including his poor health in two separate sexual assault cases lodged in Rajasthan and Gujarat.

BJP meets LG, wants probe into AAP govt move to pay Jethmalani

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A Delhi BJP delegation today met Lt Governor Anil Baijal to demand a high-level probe into AAP government’s move to pay lawyer Ram Jethmalani from the public exchequer for representing Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a defamation case. Leader of Opposition in Delhi Assembly Vijender Gupta accompanied by two other BJP MLAs met Baijal at the Raj Niwas and handed over a memorandum to him. The LG is learnt to have sought Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar’s advice for clearing legal bills for Jethmalani who is representing Kejriwal in a defamation case filed by Union minister Arun Jaitley. “Paying the bill of Rs 3.8 crore to Jethmalani in a personal legal matter from government exchequer is a criminal breach of trust reposed by the public in Kejriwal,” Gupta said.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Kejriwal spent taxpayers’ money on his private case: Delhi BJP

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Delhi BJP today attacked Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for allegedly “spending Delhi taxpayers'” money on his “private” case. Lt Governor Anil Baijal is learnt to have sought Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar’s advice in clearing bills of top lawyer Ram Jethmalani who has been fighting for Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a defamation case in a city court filed by Union minister Arun Jaitley. “The BJP demands Kejriwal to answer, under which politics of purity he tried to pay the fee out of the public fund to the lawyer in his private case,” Delhi BJP president Manoj Tiwari said at a press conference. He also accused Kejriwal of spending the money belonging to Delhi’s poor people and taxpayers on “political expansion” of the AAP. “The Kejriwal government spent Rs 97 crore for the expansion of AAP. We will not allow anyone to loot the money of poor people and taxpayers in Delhi,” he said. The BJP has stepped up attack on the AAP and its government in Delhi in the run up to MCD polls scheduled on April 23. After assuming charge as Delhi BJP president in December last year, Tiwari had started his reality check tours of slums and unauthorised colonies in various parts of the city to verify claims of development by the Kejriwal government and had presented his reports slamming the government for “neglecting” residents of these areas.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Delhi govt’s move to clear defamation case bills illegal: BJP

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The BJP today termed the Delhi government’s move to clear bills related to a defamation case against Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal as a “dacoity and loot” of the people’s money and said it will not let this happen. Union Minister Prakash Javadekar alleged that Kejriwal was taken to court by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley for his “personal crime” and the Delhi government’s decision to foot the bill of the AAP leader’s lawyer is against the law and rules of the government. “It’s illegal and immoral. Why should the people of Delhi pay for your (Kejriwal) sins? This is a dacoity and loot of their money and is completely unacceptable,” he told a press conference. Javadekar said Jaitley had paid Rs 10 lakh stamp duty from his pocket and has been paying the bills of his lawyers as well. He alleged that Kejriwal’s politics is based on defaming others and people should not pay for his “sins”. The Delhi government has reportedly made a proposal to pay a bill of close to Rs 4 crore sought by Kejriwal’s lawyer but Lt Governor Anil Baijal has sought Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar’s advice in the matter. Javadekar said Kejriwal is facing at least seven cases of defamation and wondered if the city government would pay over Rs 100 crore when he is asked to pay this sum of money. He accused the AAP of first denying such a proposal and said it is now claiming that the government wants to pay it as the case is against the chief minister. “The fact is the case is not against a chief minister but an individual. His actions have nothing to do with the government. He has tried to defame Jaitley and his family members and will have to pay for it,” he said. Taking a dig at the party, he said its leaders had promised to not avail official vehicles and residences, and lead a simple life if elected to power but it has become an example for reasons completely opposite to its claims.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Jethmalani’s bill row: Why should people of Delhi pay for your sins? BJP hits out at Kejriwal

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The BJP on Tuesday termed the Delhi government’s move to clear bills related to a defamation case against Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal as a “dacoity and loot” of the people’s money and said it will not let this happen.Union Minister Prakash Javadekar alleged that Kejriwal was taken to court by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley for his “personal crime” and the Delhi government’s decision to foot the bill of the AAP leader’s lawyer is against the law and rules of the government.”It’s illegal and immoral. Why should the people of Delhi pay for your (Kejriwal) sins? This is a dacoity and loot of their money and is completely unacceptable,” he told a press conference.
ALSO READ Jaitley Defamation Case: Won’t charge Kejriwal, will treat him as ‘poor client’, says Ram JethmalaniJavadekar said Jaitley had paid Rs 10 lakh stamp duty from his pocket and has been paying the bills of his lawyers as well.He alleged that Kejriwal’s politics is based on defaming others and people should not pay for his “sins”.
ALSO READ Jaitley Defamation Case: Kejriwal faces criticism over Jethmalani’s fee of around Rs 4 croreThe Delhi government has reportedly made a proposal to pay a bill of close to Rs 4 crore sought by Kejriwal’s lawyer but Lt Governor Anil Baijal has sought Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar’s advice in the matter.Javadekar said Kejriwal is facing at least seven cases of defamation and wondered if the city government would pay over Rs 100 crore when he is asked to pay this sum of money.He accused the AAP of first denying such a proposal and said it is now claiming that the government wants to pay it as the case is against the chief minister.”The fact is the case is not against a chief minister but an individual. His actions have nothing to do with the government. He has tried to defame Jaitley and his family members and will have to pay for it,” he said.Taking a dig at the party, he said its leaders had promised to not avail official vehicles and residences, and lead a simple life if elected to power but it has become an example for reasons completely opposite to its claims.

Jaitley Defamation Case: Won’t charge Kejriwal, will treat him as ‘poor client’, says Ram Jethmalani

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Noted lawyer Ram Jethmalani who has been fighting for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a defamation case against Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said that he will appear for the CM even if he cannot pay him his fees.Jethmalani’s reaction came after the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government came under fire from all he quarters after it came to light that the state government was paying massive legal bills incurred by Kejriwal and his party leaders in their battle with Jaitely.Jethmalani is representing Kejriwal in the civil and criminal defamation suits filed against him by the FM.Speaking to ANI, Jethmalani said, “Even if the government (New Delhi) doesn’t pay or he (Kejriwal) can’t pay, I will appear for free. I will treat him as one of my poor clients.”Stating that he only charges the rich, he added, “For poor, I work for free.”He also alleged that the controversy was instigated by Jailtley who was afraid of his cross-examination.According to PTI report, Lt Governor Anil Baijal has sought Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar’s advice in clearing bills of a top lawyer who has been fighting for Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a defamation case in a city court.The move by Baijal comes after the Law Department of Delhi Government, responding to a note by Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, said that LG’s permission for clearing the bills was necessary.In December, Sisodia had asked for releasing appearance fee to noted lawyer Ram Jethmalani who has been fighting defamation case slapped against Kejriwal by Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, sources said.They said that the amount of pending dues to the noted lawyer is around Rs 3 crore and the Law Department had opinioned that why Delhi Government should foot the bills when the case is not related to the city administration.

LG seeks Solicitor General’s advice in clearing bills of

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Lt Governor Anil Baijal is learnt to have sought Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar’s advice in clearing bills of a top lawyer who has been fighting for Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a defamation case in a city court. The move by Baijal comes after the Law Department of Delhi Government, responding to a note by Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, said that LG’s permission for clearing the bills was necessary. In December, Sisodia had asked for releasing appearance fee to noted lawyer Ram Jethmalani who has been fighting defamation case slapped against Kejriwal by Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, sources said. They said that the amount of pending dues to the noted lawyer is around Rs 3 crore and the Law Department had opinioned that why Delhi Government should foot the bills when the case is not related to the city adminstration. Sources said that the Lt Governor is learnt to have written to Kumar seeking his advice on whether the payment should be cleared or not.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC grants three weeks to Govt to fill up vacancies in ITAT

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today granted three weeks to the Centre to fill up the vacancies of presidents and vice presidents in different benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) across the country. A bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud also asked Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar to file a compliance affidavit before court before the next date of hearing. The court passed the directions after the Centre informed the bench that the process of filling up the vacancies in ITAT was at an advanced stage and sought three weeks to do the needful. “The Solicitor General states that the process of finalising the selection of presiding officer in ITAT is in advanced stage and seeks three weeks time for making the final appointments,” the bench said. The court had earlier this month pulled up the Centre over the delay in the appointments, saying that the ITAT was one of the key sources of revenue earning for the government, which was still moving at a snail’s pace in filling up the vacancies. The top court was hearing a PIL filed by one Akshay Pundir, contending that “ad hocism has become order of the day as many of the posts of senior vice presidents and vice presidents have not been filled up”. The petition, filed through advocate Sanjeeb Panigrahi, had said “the timely appointment of Presidents, Vice- Presidents and members will go a long way in tackling the burgeoning tax litigations in the country.” The plea said “the government is not taking steps to appoint the presidents, nor is it clearing the names of vice presidents. Therefore a chaos will arise in business circles if no person would be appointed as President before the vacancy arises.”(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Measures to stop cattle smuggling to be placed: Govt to SC

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Centre today told the Supreme Court that it would place before it the recommendations of a committee, constituted for chalking out a mechanism to stop cattle smuggling across the India-Bangladesh border. The government told a bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud that they would file an affidavit within two weeks giving details of recommendations and its decision on the issue. “An order has to be issued. All that we (government) need to do is to put it formally. Give me some time, I will file an affidavit. The committee has given its recommendation,” Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar told the bench. The apex court allowed the request and gave two weeks to the Centre to file an affidavit in this regard. The court was hearing a plea filed by Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh alleging that there was rampant smuggling of live cattle across the border to Bangladesh, which has led to depletion of cattle wealth of this country. “The smuggling of cattle across the border of Bangladesh has led to overall disruption of ecosystem and if the cattle wealth of country is depleted, then it shall also have adverse impact on nutrition of populis including children in India,” the PIL has said. The organisation in its PIL has claimed that due to various syndicates operating, the smuggling of cattle is unchecked and rampant on the porous borders of Bangladesh. It has also said the factum of smuggling of cattle across Indo-Bangla border was also shared by the Centre with various state governments and the measures to tackle the problem do not commensurate with its magnitude. The apex court had earlier agreed to tag the matter with another PIL in which it had passed an interim order on October 17, 2014 directing that there shall be no export of live cattle and buffaloes to Nepal on the eve of the festival Gadhi Mai Mela.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

When AG, SG can practice law, why can’t Sidhu continue his TV career Swamy @ 3/24/2017 12:44:40 PM

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy on Friday voiced his support for Punjab Minister Navjot Singh Sidhu, presently embroiled in a controversy over his television career, and said when the Attorney General and the Solicitor General continue their law practice appearing for clients against the government then why should the cricketer-turned politician be targetted. Swamy took to micro-blogging site Twitter and questioned the double standards being observed in Sidhu?s case. ?Why should Navjot Sadhu be targeted when the AG and SG continue their law practice appearing for clients against the Government? Double Std?,? Swamy tweeted. Sidhu, who is the Culture, Tourism, Archives and Museums Minister in Captain Amarinder Singh?s Cabinet, can continue to work in a popular comedy show on TV since there is ?no legal bar? and ?conflict of interest?, said state?s Advocate General (AG) Atul Nanda in his legal advice tendered to the Punjab Government yesterday. The Attorney General in his statement submitted to the Punjab Government said there is no violation of the Constitution of India, the Representation of the People?s Act, 1951, or the Code of Conduct in Sidhu?s case. ?There is no conflict of interest between his work on the show and his office and discharge of duties as a minister,? Nanda said. The Punjab Chief Minister had sought the Attorney General?s legal advice on whether there was any restriction on the continuation of Sidhu?s work as a celebrity guest on TV or if it amounted to conflict of interest. Sidhu had earlier this week asserted that he would continue to participate in ?The Kapil Sharma Show?.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

When AG, SG can practice law, why can’t Sidhu continue his TV career Swamy

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy on Friday voiced his support for Punjab Minister Navjot Singh Sidhu, presently embroiled in a controversy over his television career, and said when the Attorney General and the Solicitor General continue their law practice appearing for clients against the government then why should the cricketer-turned politician be targetted. Swamy took to micro-blogging site Twitter and questioned the double standards being observed in Sidhu?s case. ?Why should Navjot Sadhu be targeted when the AG and SG continue their law practice appearing for clients against the Government? Double Std?,? Swamy tweeted. Sidhu, who is the Culture, Tourism, Archives and Museums Minister in Captain Amarinder Singh?s Cabinet, can continue to work in a popular comedy show on TV since there is ?no legal bar? and ?conflict of interest?, said state?s Advocate General (AG) Atul Nanda in his legal advice tendered to the Punjab Government yesterday. The Attorney General in his statement submitted to the Punjab Government said there is no violation of the Constitution of India, the Representation of the People?s Act, 1951, or the Code of Conduct in Sidhu?s case. ?There is no conflict of interest between his work on the show and his office and discharge of duties as a minister,? Nanda said. The Punjab Chief Minister had sought the Attorney General?s legal advice on whether there was any restriction on the continuation of Sidhu?s work as a celebrity guest on TV or if it amounted to conflict of interest. Sidhu had earlier this week asserted that he would continue to participate in ?The Kapil Sharma Show?.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

EC commences hearing on AIADMK election symbol feud

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The high-stakes hearing on the claims of rival AIADMK factions over the party’s election symbol commenced here this morning. Top legal eagles have been hired by both the sides to put forth their views before the Election Commission. Two former law ministers and a former Additional Solicitor General — M Veerappa Moily, Salman Khurshid and Mohan Parasaran are representing the Sasikala camp. The O Panneerselvam side is being represented by senior Supreme Court advocates C S Vaidyanathan, S Krishnakumar and B Srinivasan. During the first half of the hearing, the OPS camp questioned V K Sasikala’s elevation to the party top post, besides seeking to freeze the party symbol, before the poll panel, it is learnt. On the other hand the Sasikala camp claimed it had majority support of party delegates, MLAs and MPs, therefore the claims of Panneerselvam camp hold no value.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

© 2019 Yuva Sai Sagar. Theme by Anders Norén.