The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed proposed changes to the Delhi Master Plan 2021 PTI reported. The Master Plan 2021 is a blueprint for the planning expansion and development of Delhi. The Delhi Development Authority has proposed changes to the plan that would protect traders from a Supreme Court-monitored sealing drive.The top court pulled up the Delhi government the Delhi Development Authority and the Municipal Corporations of Delhi for not filing the affidavits it had asked for on whether they did an environment impact assessment before proposing the changes to the Master Plan PTI reported. This is contempt and nothing short of contempt the bench of Justice MB Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta said. This dadagiri has to stop. The proposed changes would not only increase the floor area ratio for commercial establishments but also allow use of basements to run businesses and rationalisation of conversion charges the Hindustan Times reported. Floor area ratio is the relationship between the usable floor area allowed for a building and the total area of the plot on which the building stands. The court had earlier criticised the civic bodies of Delhi for keeping their eyes closed and waiting for disaster to happen after they proposed the changes to the Master Plan. The top court said it appeared that the Delhi Development Authority was succumbing to some pressure . What about the people who are staying in Delhi? it asked.The sealing drive Acting on instructions from a Supreme Court-appointed committee civic officials shut down shops and restaurants in south Delhi s Defence Colony Market on December 22 for alleged unauthorised constructions.The civic body has since taken action against shops in 20 markets including Khan Market Mehar Chand Market Sundar Nagar Hauz Khas Rajendra Nagar Chhatarpur and Vasant Kunj. The shops were sealed as they allegedly have not paid conversion charges and for encroachment and illegal construction among other things.
New Delhi: Asking the Delhi Development Authority or DDA to stop dadagiri the Supreme Court has stayed the proposed amendment to Delhi Master Plan 2021 which sought to legalise extra construction of both residential and commercial complexes.Coming down heavily on the DDA for not filing an affidavit analysing the environmental impacts and safety issues of the proposed changes the top court said this dadagiri has to stop...you can t tell Supreme Court that you will do what you want to do. The Supreme Court was hearing petitions against the unauthorised use of residential premises for commercial purposes.A month ago the top court pulled up the urban body saying it had its eyes closed and were waiting for disaster to happen while hearing a petition filed against the sealing of commercial premises in Delhi on the orders of a court appointed panel.A bench of Justices Madan Lokur and Deepak Gupta said You have learnt nothing from Uphaar fire tragedy and incidents in Bawana and Kamala Mills. CommentsClose X The court today reprimanded Bhartiya Janata Party lawmaker OP Sharma for raising slogans against Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal during the sealing drive by the monitoring committee in east Delhi. You can t use derogatory language or slogans against the Chief Minister or Prime Minister just because he belongs to another party the bench said. The court though dropped contempt charges against Mr Sharma and Councilor Gunjan Gupta who had obstructed the sealing drive.The DDA headed by Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal had recently approved the proposed changes to some rules in the city s Master Plan 2021 which could benefit traders facing the threat of sealing. The top court had earlier said it appeared that the DDA was succumbing to some pressure...what about the people who are staying in Delhi?
NEW DELHI: The deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar to avail various services and welfare schemes run by the government may be further extended beyond March 31 the Centre indicated in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The Centre said that since some more time would be needed to conclude the prolonged hearing in the Aadhaar case the government may extend the deadline from March 31. A five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri A M Khanwilkar D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan agreed with the contention of Attorney General K K Venugopal. We have extended the deadline in the past and we will extend the deadline again but we may do it by the end of month to enable the petitioners in the case conclude the arguments Venugopal said. The bench said It is a very valid point raised by the Attorney General and the court would not allow repetitive arguments made by the petitioners counsel in the matter. On December 15 last year the apex court had extended till March 31 the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar with various services and welfare schemes. Earlier senior advocate Shyam Divan who had led the arguments challenging Aadhaar and its enabling Act said that the deadline of March 31 be extended as it was highly unlikely that the hearing in the case challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act will be concluded. The deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar with various services and welfare schemes is March 31. This will have all India ramification as various institutions would have to adjust themselves accordingly Divan said. Justice Chandrachud said even if the court reserved its verdict on March 20 the banks and other institution would have only 10 days left which might be difficult. The bench then called the Attorney General for assistance in the issue. At the fag end of today s hearing Venugopal appeared before the bench and made the statement about the possibility of extension of the deadline. Senior advocate Arvind Datar who argued against the Aadhaar scheme said it violated the fundamental rights of citizens. The hearing would continue on Wednesday. Earlier on February 22 former Karnataka high court judge Justice K S Puttaswamy had told the apex court that several deaths had reportedly taken place due to starvation on account of glitches in the Aadhaar-based public distribution system and the court must consider granting them compensation. He had urged the bench to consider granting compensation to those who had suffered on the ground of exclusion due to Aadhaar particularly the kin of the starvation death victims. Earlier the top court had observed that the alleged defect of citizens biometric details under the Aadhaar scheme being collected without any law could be cured by subsequently bringing a statute. It had said that the Centre came out with the law in 2016 to negate the objection that it was collecting data since 2009 without any authorization but the issue which needed consideration was what would happen if the data collected earlier had been compromised.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court (SC) today refused to grant Karti Chidambaram interim protection from a possible arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) . The top court though did agree to hear his writ petition challenging ED proceedings against him without registering any FIR. Karti s counsel Kapil Sibal today strenuously pleaded with the SC for interim protection saying his client could be taken into custody by the ED after his CBI custody expires today. Meanwhile the national investigative agency has asked a Delhi court to extend their custody of Karti by another eight days. That hearing is scheduled for 2 pm today reported Times Now. We are willing to co-operate in every way and we also did so. I am worried about my arrest said Karti via his lawyer Kapil Sibal to the Supreme Court. Karti a son of senior Congress leader P Chidambaram was arrested last week on corruption charges and a day later remanded in CBI custody for five days that is until today. Yesterday he filed a writ petition in the SC challenging the ED and CBI probe into matters not mentioned in their FIR which is to do with allegedly dodgy approvals granted to a company called INX Media. He said in his writ petition in the SC that he has cooperated fully with the investigating agencies but that they are looking into matters unrelated to investment in INX Media. He further said the ED and the CBI were trying to drag him into matters not even mentioned in the FIR lodged by the CBI in May last year. The top court agreed to hear this petition today and then issued a notice to the ED and the CBI on the money laundering case registered against Karti. The apex court clarified though that the issuance of notice will have no bearing on any proceeding pending against Karti before a trial court or elsewhere. The SC scheduled the next hearing for March 8. Karti was arrested by the CBI last week on the basis of statements from INX Media promoters Peter and Indrani Mukerjea who alleged that they paid him over Rs 3 crore in bribe. The Mukerjeas claim that they were prompted by Karti s father P Chidambaram who as the then-finance minister was in charge of the Foreign Investment Promotion Board. The board is the nodal agency for granting approvals to companies to access foreign funds. Karti s counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi claimed his client he had no connection with the firm which allegedly received kickbacks. The arrest is motivated. He hasn t been given a single summon in the last 6 months Singhvi added. Singhvi contended that in connection with the May 2017 FIR the CBI has spent roughly 22 hours with Karti in August last year and no fresh summons were issued to him after August 2017 till today which shows the agency has nothing more to ask him. Read this story in Bengali
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that parliamentarians determining their salary and perks themselves was an moral and ethical issue and sought for data on how much amount was spent on pension and other facilities provided to former lawmakers. The apex court observed this while hearing a petition which has raised several questions including how MPs could themselves determine their salaries and perks and also sought scrapping of pension to them. Attorney General K K Venugopal told a bench comprising justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul that the Finance Bill 2018 contained provisions regarding salary and pension of MPs and also about revision of their allowances after every five years starting from 1 April 2023 on the basis of cost inflation index. Venugopal also referred to a judgement by a five-judge constitution bench of the apex court and said that the issues raised in the petitions were already being dealt with by the larger bench. Regarding the court s query on setting up of an independent mechanism for determination of salaries and allowances of the MPs the Attorney General said that elaborate procedure was already being followed for fixing the salary. During the hearing when an advocate representing one of the petitioners raised the issue of burden on the exchequer due to payment of pension and entitlement of several other facilities to former MPs the bench asked Do you have any data of how much amount has been spent on it? The lawyer said that they would place the data in this regard before the apex court. The counsel also contended that even after death of an MP his or her family members were entitled to pension for life. When the issue of MPs determining their salaries themselves was raked up the bench said it is a moral ethical issue. The second is propriety issue that they fix it (salary) themselves . The bench also dealt with the arguments advanced by the petitioners that pension was given to a MP even if he or she was elected to the House only for a day. It observed that several MPs have got successive tenures in the Parliament and they have dedicated their whole life . S N Shukla general secretary of petitioner NGO Lok Prahari argued in the court that earlier the MPs were entitled for pension after having a tenure of four years in the House but this has now changed and even if a person was elected as an MP for a day he or she was entitled for pension and other facilities. When the petitioners raised the issue of increase in the assets of lawmakers the bench this was already been dealt with by the top court. Regarding the arguments that lawmakers were not prohibited from carrying out their professional works including practice as advocates the bench said it would not be appropriate for us to comment on this is pending . The apex court observed that lawmakers were entitled for salary and allowances so that they could maintain themselves in a dignified manner and even after a sitting MP or MLA loses election he or she has to be in constant touch with the people and move around. The arguments in the matter remained inconclusive and the court has fixed the case for tomorrow. The court had last month directed the Centre to clarify its stand on setting up of an independent mechanism for determination of salaries and allowances of the MPs after the government had said the issue was under consideration . The apex court had in March last year agreed to examine the constitutional validity of laws granting pension and other perks to retired MPs and had sought responses from the Centre and ECI on the issue. The NGO has approached the apex court challenging the Allahabad High Court order dismissing its plea which had claimed that pension and other perks being given to MPs even after demitting office were contrary to Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution. The plea has also said that Parliament has no power to provide for pensionary benefits to lawmakers without making any law. It has also claimed in the plea that pension and other amenities granted to ex-MPs were unreasonable and sought withdrawal of such facilities while questioning various provisions of the law framed by Parliament.
The Bharatiya Janata Party has not even taken charge in Tripura and yet it has already run into its first controversy. Visuals emerged on Monday evening of people using a bulldozer to bring down a statue of Russian Communist leader Lenin in Belonia a town about 90 kilometres away from Agartala. Members of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) alleged that the act with vandals yelling Bharat Mata ki Jai was carried out by BJP workers though the saffron party has denied it. Meanwhile violence was reported in a number of other places in the state forcing the imposition of section 144 which bars groups of more than three gathering in public places. Home Minister Rajnath Singh also spoke to Tripura Governor Tathagata Roy and the police and asked them keep a check on violence till a new government was formed in the state. Tripura Police said they arrested the man who was driving the bulldozer who has since been let out on bail. But the BJP while denying that the people involved were its workers have made various noises in an attempt to explain away the vandalism. BJP South District Secretary Raju Nath said that for years there has been resentment against this statue. Whatever happened in Belonia is the outcome of public fury said BJP spokesperson Subrata Chakraborty. BJP Member of Parliament Subramanian Swamy called Lenin a foreigner a terrorist of sorts and said the CPI(M) could well keep the statue in its office. BJP leader Ram Madhav tweeted a picture of the statue being brought down with his party s Tripura campaign slogan Chalo Paltai meaning let s change only to delete his post later.Tathagata RoyMost egregious was the response of Tripura Governor Tathagata Roy whose Twitter posts have frequently revealed blatant communal bigotry. As Governor Roy is responsible for overseeing the maintenance of law and order in the state particularly at sensitive times such as the transition between two governments. Instead of condemning the violence Roy seemed to justify it that too with problematic logic: What one democratically elected government can do another democratically elected government can undo. And vice versa https://t.co/Og8S1wjrJs Tathagata Roy (@tathagata2) March 5 2018 Remember the new BJP-run government in Tripura does not take charge until March 9. Moreover the BJP has clearly disavowed the move saying it was the public that was involved not BJP workers. So what democratically elected government could Roy be talking about? Indeed by choosing to condone the vandalism Roy is simply encouraging more violence and seeking to somehow explain it away by referring to public anger. That the person responsible for law and order in the state could espouse what amounts to a fascist stand forcing the Union Home Ministry to step in is grounds at the very least to ask if he remains qualified for the post at all though his past Twitter commentary should make it amply clear that the Centre is not bothered about his suitability. Conversation from the BJP and its supporters online has gone on to ask questions about Lenin and why his statue should be standing in India at all but this is an obvious diversion: Nobody is contesting the right of the new government to make decisions in a democratic legal manner even if the Left will feel miffed. The question here is whether Roy and the BJP are doing enough to prevent mob violence and vandalism or simply paying lip service to the idea of law and order while condoning the actions of the violent crowds anywhere. So far at least it seems like the latter holds true. Will of the mobThis majoritarian and frankly fascist viewpoint is dangerous especially if it spreads further as it seems to have in many other parts of the country. In the past Left governments that the BJP claims to oppose have espoused similar views. Over the last few years attacks on Muslims transporting cattle have for some time been defended as justifiable acts of violence against those offending Hindu sentiments . In Tamil Nadu the BJP has already said that statues of Erode Venkata Ramaswamy a massively popular Tamil thinker known as Periyar who is considered the founder of the Dravidian movement and a man hated by Hindutva supporters will be next. The danger of letting such statements go without condemnation and worse giving them oxygen and support is that it encourages an atmosphere of majoritarianism elsewhere. Consider the comments of Art of Living founder Ravi Shankar known to his supporters as Sri Sri in an interview to India Today this week. Shankar has for some time now been trying to be a peace broker in the Babri Masjid case involving the mob demolition of a mosque by Hindutva supporters who believe it stood over the birthplace of Ram. Whether this is connected to his desire for a Nobel prize Shankar has portrayed his approach to the dispute as the most reasonable. But in order to make the argument in his interview he told the news channel that whatever decision is taken by the Supreme Court which is hearing the land dispute at the moment could lead to a Syria-like civil war. If court rules against a temple there will be bloodshed. Do you think the Hindu majority will allow it? he said. The BJP has generally tended to dismiss Shankar s comments though the spiritual leader claims to have the support of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath known as Yogi to his supporters. Democratic not majoritarianNevertheless it is not just Shankar s effort that is misguided his argument also needs to be dismissed: The question is not whether the Hindu majority will allow it but whether the government those responsible for maintaining law and order will follow the decision of the top court of the land. Shankar is almost presuming that no one will listen to the Supreme Court and so the stakeholders in what is at the end of the day a legal dispute should commit themselves to an out-of-court settlement before things get out of hand. He may not mean it as a threat but that is what Shankar s comments sound like. Of course there have been many occasions in the past when mobs have been able to commit unspeakable crimes from the 1984 anti-Sikh riots to Babri Masjid to the Gujarat riots in 2002. But these have almost always been accompanied by explicit or tacit support from governments or major political parties. Where governments have been firm about shutting down violence something that Prime Minister Narendra Modi claims he accomplished in Gujarat after 2002 its impact has been minimised. This is the danger the BJP is flirting with by allowing majoritarian sentiments to be aired as if they are the norm. It may work in the party s favour at the moment but the mainstreaming of such ideas that mobs can decided what to do with public monuments or even be used to influence the way a legal dispute is decided is a threat to the very democratic fabric of the nation.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday asked Unitech to file a list of its unencumbered properties including that of its subsidiaries -- both in India and abroad -- as it again did not say anything on the bail plea by the real estate major s Managing Director Sanjay Chandra. ... the competent authority of the Unitech Limited shall file an affidavit mentioning the details of its properties and its subsidiaries situate in India as well as outside which are free from encumbrances the court said. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud added: If the affidavit is not true proceedings shall be initiated under Section 340 of the CrPC. Under the section the court can record a complaint on the veracity of the documents produced before it. Meanwhile the court asked the Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. to deposit Rs 40 crore -- Rs 30 crore by March 30 and remaining by April 5. The firm which is a partner of Unitech moved the court against the execution proceedings going on against the https://community.sony.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/503029 applicants before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The court said the execution proceedings shall be stayed subject to the applicants (Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd) depositing Rs 40 crore before the Registry of this Court . The money shall be distributed amongst the home buyers who have claimed refund in respect of the concerned project before the National Commission it said. The court said counsel Nikhil Nayyar appearing for those who have approached the National Commission seeking relief would provide their list to amicus curiae Pawanshree Agarwal so that he could tally them with the names in his portal. The Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd had pooled its land with that of Unitech and they were jointly executing project on the polled land the court was told. The court clarified: We may clarify that the proceedings shall remain stayed where there is collaboration of the applicants (Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure) with Unitech Limited. The other proceedings against the applicants (Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure) barring which is not covered by the collaboration agreement shall continue. The court also asked the Managing Director of JM Financial Asset Restructuring Company Ltd along with a competent officer to be personally present in the court March 12 -- the next date of hearing -- to answer the questions put by the court . It ordered this after senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi told the bench that the assets restructurings company was willing to finance Unitech s housing projects. The counsel for the JM Financial Asset Restructuring Company pleaded ignorance about his client willing to invest in the embattled company s housing project as being said by Rohatgi.
No comments:
Post a Comment