HC Full Bench disposes of plea against removal of flagpoles
2
Madurai: Taking into account that Supreme Court upheld the order of the single judge of
Madras high court
directing the removal of all flagpoles erected by political parties and organisations in public places across the state, a Full Bench of the court on Wednesday disposed of an appeal preferred by CPM state secretary P.
Shanmugam.
Earlier, the Full Bench directed the state to maintain status quo prevailing as of the date until further orders regarding removal of the flagpoles. It also directed the chief secretary to issue a public notification enabling parties and organisations willing to get impleaded in the appeal.
On Wednesday, the Full Bench of Justices S M Subramaniam, R. Vijayakumar, and S. Sounthar took note of the fact that a person preferred a special leave petition before Supreme Court challenging the order passed by a single bench of HC, which ordered removal of all flagpoles from public places.
Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition. In view of the fact that the court confirmed the orders of a single bench, which was confirmed by a division bench of Madras HC, no further adjudication needs to be undertaken in respect of the grounds raised in the appeal filed before the Full Bench.
The judges said it is for the parties to work out their remedy in the manner known to law, and disposed of the appeal.
It was in January that Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan directed parties and organisations such as community, religion, and association to remove their flagpoles erected permanently at public places and land belonging to govt departments and civic bodies across the state.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
NRIs Living In Portugal Are Eligible For INR 2 Lakh Monthly Pension. Invest 18K/Month
investmentlife.policybazaar
Get Offer
Undo
The outfits could erect permanent flagpoles on their own lands with necessary permission. The govt shall frame rules for erection of flagpoles on private lands, he said.
In March, a division bench of Justices J Nisha Banu and S Srimathy upheld the order. Subsequently, CPM state secretary Shanmugam filed a petition seeking to forbear the authorities from removing the party's flagpoles across the state. In June, Justice C Saravanan dismissed the petition citing the earlier order passed by a single bench in Jan, which was also upheld by a division bench.
Challenging the same, Shanmugam preferred an appeal.
Hearing the appeal, a division bench observed that since the single bench order passed in January was already confirmed by a coordinate division bench, it would not be proper on its part to pass any contra order. The judges directed the registry to place the papers before the chief justice of Madras HC to consider constituting a larger bench to decide this appeal. Subsequently, a Full Bench was constituted to hear the appeal.
Stay updated with the latest local news from your
city
on
Times of India
(TOI). Check upcoming
bank holidays
,
public holidays
, and current
gold rates
and
silver prices
in your area.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
Panels set up in April, but survey held up as Haryana yet to define ‘forest'
Gurgaon: Months after the Supreme Court ordered all states and Union territories to define "forest" and map all such areas, not a single survey has been carried out as part of the exercise in Haryana despite the state govt establishing expert committees in April. The catch — both district- and state-level committees cannot begin work until the state finalises its definition of "forest by dictionary meaning" — a step that remains incomplete, effectively stalling the entire exercise. In April, Haryana govt notified a state-level expert committee chaired by the additional chief secretary (environment, forests & wildlife). The panel includes senior officials from forest, revenue, agriculture, industries, town planning and urban local bodies departments. You Can Also Check: Gurgaon AQI | Weather in Gurgaon | Bank Holidays in Gurgaon | Public Holidays in Gurgaon | Gold Rates Today in Gurgaon | Silver Rates Today in Gurgaon District-level committees headed by deputy commissioners were also constituted, comprising municipal commissioners, divisional forest officers and other key officials. But the terms for the committees allow them a month to two to carry out surveys and submit their reports, with one key condition: they can start work only after the state provides the forest definition. On March 4, the Supreme Court ordered all states and UTs to first define "forest" and identify all such areas, including the Aravalis. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Treatment That Might Help You Against Knee Pain Knee pain | search ads Find Now Undo This exercise will allow protections to forest land under the Forest Conservation Act and prevent further loss of green cover in ecologically fragile zones. Asked why the process was delayed, Haryana's principal chief conservator of forests Vineet Kumar Garg said on Wednesday, "We have sent the forest definition for finalisation to the state govt. We will start the process once it is final." Experts and activists alleged that Haryana govts, over the decades, have avoided protecting Aravalis under FCA by stalling the process. "This is planned disobedience of the Supreme Court's Godavarman judgment. Constituting committees without giving them the definition is a tactic to ensure no actual work is done. Haryana is trying to give away what little forest it has to private builders by not recognising it as forest," said RP Balwan, retired conservator of forests, Haryana (South). The top court's March order came while hearing writ petitions challenging amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act. Citing the 2011 Lafarge judgment, the court ordered states/UTs to form expert committees within a month and warned that state chief secretaries would be held personally responsible for any lapses. The Lafarge order, linked to environmental approvals for mining in Meghalaya, had directed all states to identify and map forest land. This built on the landmark 1996 TN Godavarman case, which established that forests must be recognised based on the dictionary definition of "forest" — meaning any area with forest characteristics must be protected under FCA, regardless of its official status in govt records. This "deemed forest" concept significantly widened FCA's scope. However, successive Haryana govts have maintained there is no clear definition or criteria to identify forests. Forest analyst Chetan Agarwal highlighted the administrative impasse and said. "Govt has created a Catch-22 situation. They formed committees in April to comply with the March court order but tied their hands by saying the forest definition will be issued by the state govt, which has still not materialised." The case will next be taken up by the SC on Sept 9, where Haryana govt may be required to explain why it is yet to come up with a definition for 'forest'. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
News18
44 minutes ago
- News18
Historic EVM Recount Ordered By Supreme Court Overturns Haryana Sarpanch Election
The recounting process, a truly remarkable event, was conducted inside the Supreme Court building on August 6 In a rare and unprecedented move, the Supreme Court of India recently ordered a complete recount of votes for a sarpanch election, physically summoning Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and other poll records to its premises. The case involved a contentious election for the village head of Buana Lakhu in Haryana's Panipat district. The legal battle stemmed from the election held on November 2, 2022, where Kuldeep Singh was initially declared the winner, defeating his rival, Mohit Kumar. Kumar, however, challenged the result, alleging discrepancies in the vote counting. His petition was first heard by an election tribunal in Panipat, which ordered a recount of votes from a single booth. This order was subsequently set aside by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, prompting Kumar to appeal to the Supreme Court. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and N Kotiswar Singh took up the matter. On July 31, the apex court issued a significant directive: it ordered the production of all six EVMs and associated records from the Buana Lakhu election before its registrar. The bench decided to go a step further than the initial tribunal's order, demanding a recount of votes from all booths (65 to 70), not just the one in dispute. The recounting process, a truly remarkable event, was conducted inside the Supreme Court building on August 6. It was overseen by a Supreme Court OSD (Registrar) and was fully videographed to ensure transparency. Representatives from both Kuldeep Singh and Mohit Kumar were present throughout the process. The recount results submitted to the court revealed a decisive shift. Out of 3,767 total votes cast, Mohit Kumar was found to have secured 1,051 votes, while Kuldeep Singh received 1,000 votes. Accepting this report, the Supreme Court, on August 11, set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's verdict and directed the Deputy Commissioner of Panipat to issue a notification within two days, declaring Mohit Kumar as the duly elected sarpanch. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC to set up panel to name Kerala varsity heads
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would set up a search committee for the appointment of vice chancellors to two universities in Kerala to end a stalemate between state government and the governor and told the two sides to submit four names each within a day for consideration as members of the search panel. SC to set up panel to name Kerala varsity heads A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said, 'In the larger interest, since you have not been able to arrive at a consensus, we will appoint a Search Committee.' The five-member search committee will have four members along with a nominee of the University Grants Commission (UGC). The court asked the lawyers representing the two constitutional authorities to suggest four names each out of which the court will constitute the committee. On July 30, the court had expressed anguish over the prevailing stalemate over the appointment of vice chancellors to the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and the Digital University of Kerala. It had directed the process of appointing regular V-Cs to commence soon and urged both sides to avoid confrontation and work harmoniously without bringing in politics keeping the best interests of students and the institutions in mind. On Wednesday, two weeks after its last order, the court observed, 'We are requesting you with folded hands. The Chancellor (Governor) and government should sit over a cup of coffee and resolve this. Why create this stalemate at the stage of appointment of the Search Committee.' Attorney General R Venkataramani appearing for the governor Rajendra Arlekar said that pursuant to the last order, the Governor held extensive consultations with the state government. He told the court that, as directed by the court,, the Chancellor issued an order extending the tenure of temporary V-C at APJ Abdul Kalam University till the appointment of a regular V-C. The state opposed this notification claiming that the Chancellor did not consult the state before issuing the notification. Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta appearing for the state along with advocate CK Sasi said, 'Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, allows appointment of VC to be recommended by the state. There is no power struggle but the Chancellor wants to ensure there is no role of the Kerala government in appointment of V-C. So the very nature of appointment affects federal structure envisaged under the Constitution.' The court told AG Venkataramani that its July 30 order had reproduced section 13(7) of the Act emphasising that the procedure as per law should be followed. However, since it was undertaking the process of appointing regular V-C on its own, it said, 'It is our request to the state. Don't precipitate the issue with regard to temporary V-C appointments. Let us put an end to this impasse.' AG Venkataramani pointed out that the similar issue prevailed with regard to temporary appointment of V-C for Digital University, governed by Section 11(10) of Digital University Act, which is akin to section 13(7). He informed the court that the Chancellor has been receiving requests from the V-C complaining about no financial audit being done at the University for the past five years. Gupta said that the unilateral approach adopted by the Governor was struck down by the Kerala high court last year,which held the constitution of the Search Committee to be contrary to the statute. He said that the state on July 12 initiated the process for having a Search Committee to appoint regular V-Cs, but the Chancellor formed a separate committee. The AG clarified that the committee proposed by the Chancellor is as per the UGC regulations. However, Kerala government maintained that the power to constitute a Search Committee belongs to the state. The proceedings before the top court were initiated by the Chancellor challenging a July 14 Kerala high court decision setting aside his order appointing V-Cs to the two universities. The high court order came after the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government objected to the November 27, 2024 notification on V-C appointments issued by the governor. The legal tussle between governor and state government over appointment of V-Cs is not limited only to Kerala. The top court is also considering a petition filed by the West Bengal government challenging the inaction of the Raj Bhavan to clear names of V-Cs for 36 universities in the eastern state. After the court intervened and appointed former CJI UU Lalit to head a panel for selecting V-Cs for each university, 34 appointments have come through.
