Odisha to identify laws derogatory to leprosy affected
The committee will examine all state laws that are discriminatory and offending towards leprosy patients for suitable amendment. The Law department has requested all other departments to furnish a list of laws which are still part of the statute book.
The directive came in the wake of the Supreme Court's May 7 order asking states to go for suitable amendments in all the statutes governing different departments.
The state government was sitting over the matter despite a direction from the Supreme Court in 2017 to look into its legislations and carry out necessary exercises, leaving no scope of discrimination to leprosy affected individuals or persons cured of the disease.
Section 16(1)(iv) of the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950, specifically disqualifies individuals who have been adjudged by a competent court to be of unsound mind or who are leprosy or tuberculosis patients from being qualified for election as a councillor of a municipality.
Similar is the provision for disqualification of a candidate in the Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 which said, 'A person shall be disqualified for election as a Corporator, if such person at the date of nomination has been adjudged by a competent Court to be of unsound mind or is a leprosy or tuberculosis patient.'
Earlier in 2008, Dhirendra Kandua, a leprosy patient from Balasore, had challenged the provision debarring him from holding the post of councillor of Balasore municipality.
While upholding the validity of sections 16(1)(iv) and 17(1)(b) of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950, the Supreme Court in its September 2008 order said it is true that now with aggressive medication, a patient may be fully cured of the disease, yet the legislature in its wisdom has thought it fit to retain such provisions in the statute in order to eliminate the danger of its being transmitted to other people from the person affected by the disease.
'Having regard to these circumstances, we are convinced that the said classification does bear a reasonable and just relation with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question and cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. Accordingly, we hold that Sections 16(l)(iv) and 17 (l)(b) of the Act are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,' the SC order said.
Hearing a public interest litigation, the apex court's May 7 order said, 'We are informed that there might be more than 145 State legislations, besides regulations, bylaws ... where the offending provisions still continue across States.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court not superior to high courts, says Chief Justice BR Gavai
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai has stated that the Supreme Court is not superior to any high court in the country. Speaking at an event to celebrate the 79th Independence Day on Friday, the chief justice said that both courts are equal. The Chief Justice further added that the top court "cannot dictate" a high court collegium to recommend a particular name for judgeship.(PTI) The Chief Justice further added that the top court "cannot dictate" a high court collegium to recommend a particular name for judgeship. Also Read | Independence Day 2025: PM Modi's 5 big announcements in record 103-minute speech "Ultimately, even the Supreme Court Collegium can't dictate the high court collegium to recommend the names... the Supreme Court is not a superior court to the high court," said Gavai. "Both the Supreme Court and the high court are constitutional court, and so far as the constitutional scheme is concerned, they are neither inferior nor superior to each other," the CJI added further. The Chief Justice further shared that the first call regarding the appointment has to be taken by the high court collegium. Also Read | CJI to look into stray dogs matter as lawyer claims conflicting orders by court "We only recommend the names to the high court collegium and request them to consider the names, and only after their satisfaction that the candidates deserve the designation, the names come to the Supreme Court," he added. In his speech, he also welcomed the initiative started by former chief justice Sanjiv Khanna where the Supreme Court collegium interacts with the candidates during the selection process. CJI Gavai said that after interacting with the candidates for "10 minutes, 15 minutes or half an hour", the SC collegium can find out as to how suitable they would be to contribute to society. (With inputs from PTI)
United News of India
15 minutes ago
- United News of India
Omar Abdullah's statehood signature drive sparks Opposition heat in J&K
Srinagar, Aug 15 (UNI) J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah's announcement of a door-to-door signature campaign across the Union Territory for the restoration of J&K's statehood has drawn sharp criticism from opposition parties. Peoples Democratic Party MLA and legislature party leader in J&K Assembly Waheed Parra accused Omar of 'betraying' the people of Jammu and Kashmir by reducing the fight for statehood to 'token gestures' through a signature campaign. 'Omar Abdullah owes an apology not a signature campaign for normalising 5th August. With 50 MLAs behind him, he has reduced the fight for J&K's statehood to token gestures, after seeking votes door-to-door on the promise of restoring pre–5th August status. This is not just retreat, it is betrayal,' Parra said in a post on X. The PDP MLA claimed that the people gave Omar Abdullah a historic mandate to 'fight for Article 370 and statehood, not to stage political theatre.' 'If he has already surrendered, he must admit it and apologise to every citizen of J&K for selling promises he never intended to keep,' Parra said. The Peoples Conference president and MLA Handwara Sajad Lone asked Omar to stop "theatrics and pass an Assembly resolution on statehood." He warned against 'making a mockery' of the 'cause' and urged a dignified, constitutional route. He challenged Omar to 'once and for all' explain his reluctance to have a resolution for statehood passed in the Legislative Assembly — a constitutional body elected through the Election Commission of India. 'Our resolutions are not binding on the Supreme Court, but inherent in them will be constitutional dignity. It will be a constitutional message to the highest court in the country. Political or signature campaigns have no legal or constitutional sanctity. Name one event empirically in India or anywhere in the world where signature campaigns have altered legal interpretations. They are not even admissible,' he asserted. Recalling that 'a signature campaign for independence was carried out by Yasin Malik also — how far did that campaign go,' Lone accused Omar of showing 'disregard, disdain and contempt' for the very Assembly that gave him the CM's position. 'You derive your power, perks and Chief Ministerial position from the Assembly. Why this contempt for the very institution that has made you the CM?' he asked. 'I beg you — please stop this childish and immature attitude. We will support any campaign unconditionally. But please ensure that a resolution from the UT Assembly is also passed and sent to the Supreme Court. We are facing a battle of a lifetime. A door-to-door signature campaign is nothing but theatrics. Tell me, is the Supreme Court answerable to majoritarian assertions or to law? Majoritarianism is something politicians practise. Supreme Court practises law,' Lone cautioned. National Conference president and former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah said the signature campaign for the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir's statehood will be run vigorously. 'The campaign will be run vigorously,' Farooq told reporters in Srinagar after attending the Independence Day function. UNI MJR PRS
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Federal judge overturns Trump administration's anti-DEI directives, blocking threats to strip funding from schools and universities
The battle over diversity, equity, and inclusion in American classrooms reached a decisive moment on Thursday when a federal judge struck down two Trump administration directives aimed at eradicating such programmes from schools and universities. The ruling dismantles a policy framework that threatened institutions with financial ruin for maintaining equity-based initiatives, and it restores, at least temporarily, the space for educators to address longstanding disparities without fear of federal reprisal. Emerging from a political climate where DEI has become both a rallying cry and a lightning rod, the decision underscores how deeply divided the nation remains on questions of race, representation, and academic freedom. Opponents of the initiatives cast them as reverse discrimination; defenders see them as vital correctives to structural inequities. This judgment does not settle that moral argument, but it imposes a procedural halt on a campaign that had sought to recast civil rights law in ways critics warned would silence lawful and necessary educational practices. A ruling that reverberates across campuses US District Judge Stephanie Gallagher of Maryland ruled that the Education Department acted unlawfully when it threatened to strip federal funding from institutions that maintained DEI efforts. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The contested guidance, delivered through two internal memos, ordered the elimination of all 'race-based decision-making' in admissions, hiring, financial aid, and student life, or risk severe financial penalties. The memos had been on hold since April, after multiple courts blocked portions of the department's anti-DEI campaign. Thursday's decision, prompted by a lawsuit from the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, sweeps away the guidance entirely. Educators push back against 'censorship' Plaintiffs argued that the directives forced educators into an impossible choice: Censor lawful speech and dismantle inclusive programmes or face the loss of federal funding and possible prosecution. A drastic expansion of Supreme Court ruling The February 14 memo sought to extend the Supreme Court's 2023 ban on affirmative action well beyond its original scope. It declared that any consideration of race in academic policy was a violation of civil rights law. A follow-up in April intensified the pressure, requiring states to certify they were not using 'illegal DEI practices' or face the False Claims Act. Gallagher rejected the government's argument that the memos merely restated existing law, noting instead that they 'initiated a sea change' in oversight and left 'millions of educators' fearing punishment for lawful and even beneficial actions. The procedural faultline Crucially, Gallagher did not weigh in on whether DEI is inherently good or bad. Her ruling focused on the Education Department's failure to meet procedural requirements, ordering the immediate withdrawal of the guidance. The department has not commented on the decision, which for now halts an initiative critics described as government overreach dressed in the language of equality. A deeply polarised battlefield Supporters of the memos claimed DEI discriminates against white and Asian American students, while opponents view it as an essential tool to address entrenched inequities. Thursday's decision keeps the debate alive, and, for now, leaves space for educators to continue equity-driven practices without the shadow of federal retaliation. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
