Writ challenges 100% quota for STs in scheduled areas
The petitioner's counsel argued that due to allocation of 100% seats to STs in the scheduled areas, even though there is no ST candidate available to contest the post of 'sarpanch' in a particular gram panchayat in the scheduled area as a drawback, due to which the government is entrusting the work of sarpanches to special officers, instead of elected representatives.
He sought a direction to the government to permit a non-tribal to contest in such cases to ensure democratic governance at the grassroots level. The counsel urged the court to direct the government not to issue the election notification with regard to sarpanch posts in schedule areas reserving 100% to STs and stay the polls there.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
LGBTQ Rights in India: Madras High Court's Gender-Neutral Toilets Set Powerful Precedent
In June 2024, the Madras high court made history by becoming one of the first in India to install three gender-neutral toilets on its campus. AI generated image Srimathi Venkatachari For many transgender persons in India, life is a long negotiation between identity and invisibility. You may walk past them on a street, share a bus seat, or smile at them briefly in an office corridor. But too often, society either stares with ridicule or looks away in silence. Very few see the human behind the label — someone seeking nothing more than dignity, respect and a chance to live as they truly are. In June 2024, the Madras high court made history by becoming one of the first in India to install three gender-neutral toilets on its campus. A LinkedIn post by transgender advocate Kanmani R (verified in June 2024) confirms the high court has installed three new gender neutral washrooms on its premises, marking a meaningful step toward inclusive facilities. You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai This infrastructural change, while seemingly small, is a profound act of institutional empathy — a recognition of the rights and dignity of transgender and gender-nonconforming persons. In a legal landscape where detachment is often valorized, Justice Anand Venkatesh stood apart and more recently, so did the bench of Justice G R Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan when approached by a same-sex couple seeking protection from their disapproving parents. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Dementia Has Been Linked To a Common Habit. Do You Do It? Memory Health Learn More Undo Justice Anand Venkatesh paused the hearing, stating that he needed time to 'understand same-sex relationships' before delivering a judgment. He wrote to psychologists, read scientific literature, and interacted with LGBTQIA+ individuals. 'I am trying to break my preconceived notions about this issue. I have no hesitation in admitting that I am not fully 'woke' to this subject. I am willing to understand,' he said. That journey translated into a series of bold, progressive directives such as the ban on conversion therapy in Tamil Nadu; directions to revise school and college curricula to include LGBTQIA+ issues; a mandate for sensitisation of police and government officials; a push for gender-neutral restrooms in public and institutional spaces; and monitoring of implementation through status reports. It is from this context that the gender-neutral washrooms in the Madras High Court campus must be seen, not just as construction projects, but as judicially seeded symbols of change. Toilets might seem mundane, but for transgender persons, the lack of safe, affirming restrooms can lead to harassment, violence, or complete avoidance of public life. Recognising this, in the Sushma case, Justice Venkatesh urged the Union and state govts to ensure provision of gender-neutral restrooms, especially in public institutions such as courts, colleges and govt offices. His orders made it clear that dignity begins with access. Following his directions and subsequent PILs in 2023-24, the Madras HC's campus became the first to act on these ideals, completing the installation of three gender-neutral toilets by June 2024. Even as courts such as Madras HC move toward inclusion, India's primary transgender law —the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 — lags behind. Justice Venkatesh had flagged issues with the law, notably the requirement of certification for gender identity, a direct contradiction of the NALSA judgment (2014); the absence of provisions for reservations, marriage, adoption, and inheritance; and tokenistic punishment for violence and abuse against transgender persons. He echoed the demand that LGBTQIA+ rights in India must not come with red tape, nor be made conditional upon medical procedures or administrative approval. The Madras HC's move symbolises judicial responsibility not just to interpret the law, but to humanise it. It aligns with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing equality and dignity. It responds to community-led demands, acknowledging that legal victories must be followed by institutional change. Building on this vision, the road ahead must include amending the 2019 Act to fully honour self-identification, introduce reservations, and grant family rights; enacting a national anti-discrimination law covering gender, caste, class, disability, and sexuality; public funding for gender-affirming healthcare, and psychological support tailored to transgender needs; mandatory training for police, teachers, and judges on gender identity and inclusion; and a curriculum changes at school and university levels to foster respect and awareness from a young age. Justice Indu Malhotra said it best: 'History owes an apology to the LGBTQ community.' But an apology is not enough. The transgender community does not need charity. They deserve citizenship, not conditional sympathy. It's time India matched its legal promises with social and institutional will. When the judiciary listened India has known and embraced gender diversity for centuries. Communities such as the hijras have been part of festivals, births and blessings. But colonial rule brought with it a rigid gender binary and criminalisation, casting the transgender identity into the shadows. The Criminal Tribes Act, 1871, reduced Hijras to a stereotype, criminal by default. This stigma, though the law is long gone, survives in whispered judgments and silent exclusions. Change didn't begin in Parliament — it started in courtrooms. 1. NALSA v. Union of India (2014) A historic verdict that recognised the right to self-identify one's gender. For the first time, India's highest court said: You exist. You matter. You are equal. Transgender persons were granted constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(a), and 21. 2. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) A landmark ruling on privacy, affirming that one's gender identity is deeply personal and fundamentally protected. 3. Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (2018) With the striking down of Section 377, the court did more than decriminalise love — it restored the humanity of millions. 4. Arun Kumar vs IG of Registration (2019) The Madras High Court reminded us that the law must evolve with empathy — recognising that a transwoman can be a bride under Hindu marriage laws. 5. S Sushma vs Commissioner of Police (2021) A rare moment of judicial humility where a judge chose to unlearn and relearn by listening to LGBTQ+ voices. The court ordered safeguards, called out police excesses and banned conversion therapy. Law with good intentions, but glaring gaps The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, tried to put NALSA into law. It made discrimination illegal. It defined transgender broadly. However, it fell short because it required certificates for self-identity, which undermines the very core of NALSA. It ignored reservations, despite clear directions. It kept family rights such as marriage, adoption and inheritance out of reach. And its punishments for abuse were tokenistic. Today, this law is under challenge in the Supreme Court. Beyond law: A daily struggle for survival Even with progressive judgments and half-baked legislation, most transgender persons live on the margins: 92% remain unemployed in the formal sector More than 60% are pushed into begging or sex work More than 50% drop out of school due to bullying and abuse (The writer is an advocate in Madras high court) ALSO READ: LGBTIQA+ couples have right to find a family: Madras high court
The Hindu
9 hours ago
- The Hindu
Plea in Supreme Court critcises Centre, Delhi Police for non-registration of FIR in Justice Varma incident
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court criticising the Centre for not initiating 'an effective and meaningful investigation' into allegations of discovery and removal of 'burnt' cash from the residential premises of High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, in Delhi following a fire. 'The Central government, which is in charge of the Delhi Police, on it being reported that there has been an incident of huge volumes of currency notes, burned and partially burned, being found and clandestinely removed from the official residence of Justice Varma, was duty-bound to direct the Delhi Police to register an First Information Report (FIR). It amounts to a great failure in the discharge of its sovereign function, nay, duty to investigate crimes and secure punishment to those who violate the law,' advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, petitioner-in-person, submitted in a petition. In fact, the petition echoed the very report of the in-house inquiry committee constituted by the Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, which had also criticised the Delhi Police for its lack of quick action. The inquiry committee had concluded that the police and fire authorities were 'slipshod' for not lodging an FIR or preparing a seizure memo recording exactly what they came across at the scene of the fire on March 14-15. The committee said the 'higher police officers' had sought to explain their inaction by pointing to reasons like the 'sensitivity of the issue' and the absence of Justice Varma at his residence at the time of incident. The judge was in Bhopal at the time of the blaze. Justice Varma, who has himself approached the apex court anonymously in a petition, too has focussed his defence on the lack of any material evidence to base the allegations raised against him. He has attempted to discredit the conclusions reached in the in-house inquiry report by contending they were entirely based on presumptions. There was not even a formal complaint about the 'discovery' of cash. Neither was the alleged cash seized or panchnama prepared. The whole series of events banked on photos and videos privately taken by some officials, his petition in the apex court said. The inquiry committee had submitted a confidential report in early May, affirming the presence of cash and recommending the removal of Justice Varma from office. The then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, had forwarded the report to the President and the Prime Minister to commence the processes of a removal motion in the Parliament. Mr. Nedumpara's petition is the third in a series filed by the advocate in the apex court for registration of an FIR. It has coincided with both Justice Varma approaching the apex court and the opening of the Monsoon Session of the Parliament, in which the Opposition is poised to raise a debate on the removal motion. On the first instance, Mr. Nedumpara had been asked by the top court to await the outcome of the in-house inquiry by a fact-finding committee of three judges appointed by the Chief Justice of India. 'After the committee had submitted its report, no FIR was registered. The petitioner filed yet another writ petition and was asked by the court to approach the President and the Prime Minister… To the petitioner's knowledge no FIR has been registered till date,' the petitoner-advocate submitted. The petition urged the apex court to direct the Centre/Delhi Police to register an FIR and cause or in the alternative to direct the Police/Union government to seek permission of the Chief Justice for the registration of an FIR… what is at stake is the concept of the rule of law, equality before law and equal protection of law,' the petition argued. The advocate intends to make an oral mentioning in court for an early hearing of his petition.
Indian Express
10 hours ago
- Indian Express
ED not a drone to attack at will on any criminal activity: Madras HC
The Madras High Court has observed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was not a 'drone' to attack at will, and nor was it a 'super cop' to investigate anything and everything which comes to its notice. A division bench of Justice M S Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan made the observations while hearing the plea by city-based RKM Powergen Private Ltd challenging the ED seizing Rs 901 crore of its fixed deposits in connection with a PMLA case. The ED action came on the basis of an FIR registered by the CBI in 2014 over the allocation of coal blocks for a power plant in Chhattisgarh earlier. The agency filed a closure report in 2017 saying it found no irregularities in the allocation of coal blocks. The CBI court did not agree with the closure report and wanted further probe in some aspects. In 2023, CBI filed a supplementary final report, which found that there were sufficient incriminating materials warranting prosecution under sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. Later, the ED conducted searches in the premises of directors and holding companies associated with RKMP. On January 31,2025 a freezing order was passed wherein the fixed deposit to the tune of Rs 901 crore was frozen by the ED. The company challenged the said order and the court set it aside. The bench said that a careful perusal of Section 66(2) of PMLA points out that if during the course of investigation, the ED comes across violations of other provisions of law, then it cannot assume the role of investigating those offences also. It is to inform the appropriate agency, which is empowered by law to investigate that offence. If that agency, on the intimation from the ED, commences investigation and registers a complaint, then certainly the ED can investigate into those aspects also, provided there are 'proceeds of crime'. 'In case, the investigating agency does not find any case with respect to the aspects pointed out by the ED, then the ED cannot suo motu proceed with the investigation and assume powers. The essential ingredient for the ED to seize jurisdiction is the presence of a predicate offence. It is like a limpet mine attached to a ship. If there is no ship, the limpet cannot work. The ship is the predicate offence and 'proceeds of crime'. The ED is not a loitering munition or drone to attack at will on any criminal activity,' the bench said. It further said that a perusal of the papers show that no complaint had been lodged with respect to any of the aforesaid alleged criminal activities. 'The ED is not a super cop to investigate anything and everything which comes to its notice.' There should be a 'criminal activity' which attracts the schedule to PMLA, and on account of such criminal activity, there should have been proceeds of crime, it said
