Another petition in Karnataka HC challenges legality of Greater Bengaluru Governance Act
A bench consisting of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi issued a notice for the state to respond to the petition, which prays for several provisions of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act to be declared ultra vires to the 74th amendment of the Constitution. The 74th amendment primarily deals with the powers and finances of municipal bodies.
In the interim, the petition also calls for the operation of the legislation to be stayed and for the BBMP elections to be held within three months.
The petitioners argued that this was an attempt by the state to take over local bodies despite the absence of elections.
The Citizens Action Forum has also moved the high court in the matter, arguing that sections of the Act encourage the centralisation of powers in the hands of the State Government at the expense of local self-governance 'in the garb of the Greater Bengaluru Authority and Assembly Constituency-level Consultative and Coordination Committee'.
Among many other issues, the Citizens Action Forum's petition raises the concern of elected members becoming a minority.
'The only members elected at the municipal level would be the Mayors of the City Corporations who would in any case not be more than 7 in number. The elected members of the municipal government who form a part of the GBA would therefore be a numerical minority….. It is also pertinent to note that even the members of State Government and non-elected parastatal heads and bureaucrats have been given voting rights in the GBA. Therefore, the elected municipal leaders would form a minority proportion in votes held by the GBA,' the petition reads.
Each of the five new corporations will have Assembly constituencies and wards within them, as per a draft notification.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
6 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court directs states to survey orphaned children denied education
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed all states to survey orphaned children who were denied education under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan further asked the Centre to consider including data of such children in the upcoming census, scheduled to be carried out in 2027. The Supreme Court was hearing a plea raising concerns for orphans in need of care and protection. The bench further directed the states to survey orphaned children who had been granted admission in schools under the provisions of the 2009 Act. The petitioner said schemes of the Centre and the state governments for protection and care of orphans were inadequate, requiring consideration. 'States to make a survey of the orphan children who have already been granted admission under the provisions of the Act as well as a survey of the children who have been denied such right to free and compulsory education under the Act and if so, for what reasons,' the top court said. The states would have to return with their respective affidavits. With the survey and data collection going on, the bench asked for simultaneous efforts to ensure deserving children got admissions in neighbourhood schools. The bench granted four weeks to the authorities to comply with the directions. It came on record that several states, including Gujarat, Delhi, Meghalaya and Sikkim, had already issued notifications to include orphaned children within the 25 per cent quota for those belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups as prescribed in Section 12 (1) (c) of the law. Section 12 deals with extent of school's responsibility for free and compulsory education. The bench said other states might also consider issuing similar notification and file a related affidavit on record. It posted the matter for September 9. During the hearing, the petitioner sought directions to the Centre to consider having a data of orphans in the upcoming census. 'There must be a box with regard to orphans also,' the bench told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was appearing in some other matter. The bench said then the government would automatically get the data of orphan children. 'It should be. I would take it up because orphans are our responsibility,' Mehta said. When the petitioner said the Centre should be asked to file a detailed affidavit on the aspects raised in the plea, the bench said it would consider all the issues. The bench observed there were Juvenile Justice Committee in all high courts and national consultations were also being held on these issues. 'So it is not as bad as it was,' the bench said, 'positive things are also happening'. The petitioner contended that India gives a lot of support and lot of opportunities to children of weaker sections such as scholarships, reservations, jobs, loans, etc., but there was nothing for orphans. She said UNICEF estimates 25 million orphans in India. 'We as a country don't even have an official number of orphans. We are right now doing a historic caste census and in that we are not counting orphans,' the petitioner said. India's 16th Census with caste enumeration will be carried out in 2027 with the reference date of October 1, 2026 in snow-bound areas like Ladakh and of March 1, 2027 in the rest of the country. The apex court had on July 2018 agreed to examine the plea seeking reservation in educational institutions and government jobs for orphans, who have no linkage in society, on par with those belonging to the SC/ST and OBC category.s
NDTV
6 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Plea Not Worth Entertaining": Supreme Court Setback For Judge In Cash Row
The Supreme Court has knocked back Justice Yashwant Varma 's challenge of an in-house committee that recommended his impeachment over burnt piles of money found at his Delhi home in March. The recommendation - delivered by then-Chief Justice Sanjiv Kumar - has legal sanction and is constitutionally valid, as was the three-judge committee, the court said Thursday morning, ruling Justice Varma's petition "not worth entertaining" and reproaching him for his not "confidence-inspiring" conduct. This clears the way for the impeachment process initiated last month. Justice Varma - who could become the first High Court judge in independent India to be removed from office - will now be investigated by Parliament under Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Constitution. In his writ petition Justice Varma, listed as 'XXX' in the records, had offered the two-judge bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and AG Masih five reasons why he could not be sacked. These included questions over the jurisdiction and authority of the in-house committee to investigate a sitting judge. Justice Varma argued the committee ignored questions he had raised, and that could speak to his innocence, and denied him a fair hearing. He also argued that neither the Chief Justice of India nor the Supreme Court had 'power of superintendence', i.e., they cannot take disciplinary action against High Court judges, because their tenure is protected by the Constitution. He also argued his colleagues' recommendation "usurps parliamentary authority... it empowers the judiciary to recommend removal of Judges from constitutionally-held office". Justice Yashwant Varma Impeachment The impeachment process began July 21, i.e,. on the first day of the current Parliament session. Over 145 MPs - from the opposition and the government's ranks - submitted a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla calling for an investigation into Justice Varma and the cash-at-home row. What Is Impeachment? It is a constitutional mechanism to remove a sitting judge - specifically those from the Supreme Court or a state High Court - from his/her office. Once appointed, judges cannot be removed from office without an order from the President, who, in turn, requires consent from Parliament. NDTV Explains | How Do You Remove A Sitting Judge? Impeachment Explained The Constitution does not actually refer to the word 'impeachment', but the procedure to remove judges is outlined in the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 and mentioned in two constitutional provisions - Article 124 (for Supreme Court judges) and Article 218 (for those from High Courts). How Is Impeachment Done? An impeachment motion can be introduced in either House of Parliament. At least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs must sign the motion - which is a record of the intention to impeach - for it to proceed further. In the Lok Sabha that number is 100. Once that threshold is reached, the Chair of the former or the Speaker of the latter, depending on which House admits the motion, will review the available materials.
Hindustan Times
6 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC junks Justice Varma's plea against in-house inquiry, CJI's recommendation
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the legality and findings of an in-house judicial inquiry that affirmed 'strong inferential evidence' of his involvement in the discovery of sacks of charred currency at his official residence in Delhi this year. Justice Yashwant Varma. (PTI) Delivering the judgment, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih affirmed the legality and constitutional validity of the inquiry mechanism, holding that it did not violate fundamental rights or constitutional provisions. 'With these observations, we have dismissed the petition,' Justice Datta said in court. The ruling came days after the court had reserved its verdict, having heard extensive arguments from senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi for Justice Varma. In its ruling, the apex court framed six legal and constitutional questions and answered all against Justice Varma. While noting that his conduct 'did not inspire confidence,' the bench said, even as it proceeded to examine the matter due to the important legal issues raised. The court held that the in-house inquiry mechanism has legal backing and has been consistently upheld in earlier Supreme Court judgments. It also rejected Justice Varma's contention that such inquiries create a parallel mechanism outside Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, which lay down the procedure for the removal of judges. The bench ruled that the process followed did not infringe on Justice Varma's constitutional or fundamental rights. Except for the release of a video showing the charred cash, which the court noted did not impact the outcome, the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna, and the committee 'scrupulously' followed the laid-down procedure. The court rejected the argument that the CJI's May 8 recommendation to the President and the Prime Minister for Justice Varma's removal was unconstitutional or made without affording him a hearing. 'The in-house procedure does not contemplate a hearing before the CJI or the collegium,' the bench said. The court also dismissed a related plea filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR into the matter, saying he had placed incorrect facts before the court. Earlier, while reserving its verdict on July 30, the court defended the role of the CJI in safeguarding institutional integrity, saying the top judge of the country is 'not a mere post office' but a constitutional functionary empowered to take proactive measures. It rejected Justice Varma's contention that the in-house committee's recommendation for removal overstepped its constitutional mandate. 'The recommendation for removal has to go. It is more than persuasive. When the CJI recommends removal, it virtually amounts to a death knell for a judge,' Sibal argued. But the court had then said the ultimate decision rests with Parliament, which is not bound by the CJI's recommendation. The bench, during the July 30 hearing, also pointed out that the Judges' Protection Act allows for non-punitive steps to be taken by judicial authorities in the interest of the institution, adding that the term 'otherwise' in the law gave the court and the CJI a broad mandate to preserve judicial integrity. Justice Varma, a former judge of the Delhi high court, came under scrutiny in March this year after sacks of charred currency were recovered from his official residence following a fire. He was stripped of judicial work and repatriated to his parent high court at Allahabad soon after. The CJI initiated an in-house inquiry, which concluded with a finding of 'strong inferential evidence' linking Varma to the incident. The May 3 report was forwarded by then CJI Khanna to the President and Prime Minister, triggering Varma's legal challenge. While Justice Varma's legal team argued that principles of natural justice were violated, including denial of cross-examination and personal hearing before the CJI, the court maintained that the in-house mechanism is limited in scope and not a full-fledged trial, with the final decision on removal resting with Parliament. The judgment now clears the way for potential parliamentary proceedings, which began with 145 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs submitting notices in Parliament for his removal on July 21, the opening day of the monsoon session. Earlier, the three-member in-house panel, comprising then high court chief justices Sheel Nagu, GS Sandhawalia, and Justice Anu Sivaraman, concluded its findings on May 3. Though it found no direct evidence linking Justice Varma to the charred currency, the report stated that his conduct 'belied the trust' reposed in a constitutional judge and warranted impeachment proceedings. Varma has denied all wrongdoing, terming the case a conspiracy, and in a letter to CJI Khanna on May 6, rejected the latter's suggestion to resign or opt for voluntary retirement.
