No Greater Bengaluru Authority this year, govt tells High Court
Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty made the statement while appearing before the bench of Justice M.I. Arun, which was hearing a petition filed by Munivenkatappa of C.V. Raman Nagar. The petitioner had challenged a notice issued by a BBMP Assis-tant Executive Engineer (AEE) regarding building bylaw violations.The petitioner's counsel argued that since the government has already issued a notifi-cation for the creation of the Greater Bengaluru Authority, the BBMP's AEE no longer has the authority to issue such notices, rendering the current notice illegal.
However, counsel representing the BBMP countered that until the GBA is formally constituted, the BBMP Act, 2020 remains in force. They cited a government order is-sued on May 15, 2025, confirming that the BBMP retains its full powers, including the authority of AEEs to issue notices.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
24 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Presidential reference: SC questions Centre, AG over pendency of bills with governors since 2020
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Centre and the attorney general over the long pendency of bills passed by assemblies with governors, underscoring the limitations of constitutional courts in situations where legislation has been pending since 2020. Presidential reference: SC questions Centre, AG over pendency of bills with governors since 2020 The query from a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai came while hearing a presidential reference seeking clarity on whether fixed timelines could be imposed on governors and President while dealing with bills passed by the state legislatures. The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, said it would be expressing its views only on the law and not on the April 8 decision in the Tamil Nadu case, fixing a timeline for governors and President for acting on bills passed by state legislatures. The bench, while responding to the preliminary objections raised by Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments on maintainability of the presidential reference, said it would exercise its advisory jurisdiction as it was not sitting in the appellate jurisdiction. Attorney General R Venkataramani, whose assistance was sought by the top court, said courts cannot exercise its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to rule the bills pending with Governor, are deemed to have been passed. Justice Kant asked Venkataramani whether bills were pending before Tamil Nadu Governor since 2020. The AG said those facts were not before the court and the court had to examine the "lis" before it. "The court has to look at the law, whether such an order can be passed. Even if it is factually correct…there were explanations given for that. There was an explanation why the governor kept the bills pending. We are talking about state of powers on whether Article 142 can be invoked to declare the bills deemed to have been passed," he said. The bench, however, asked him, "What can you enlighten us about what a constitutional court would do if it has to deal with such facts ? If the court went wrong according to you, what is the constitutionally permissible way to deal with this situation?" The CJI and Justice Narasimha also questioned Venkataramani while referring to certain paragraphs in the April 15 verdict, dealing with the reasons for invoking Article 142 of the Constitution. "Just see the egregious situation where it had come to.. it was to remedy that situation that the court had to step in. The bills were pending for so long. What option did the court have?" Justice Narasimha asked. Venkataramani said once the court enters into this arena, it would be asked to consider any "mind-boggling fact" but the question was "can the court enter this arena at all". Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said these questions have come before the republic for the first time and urged the court to not go into the facts of individual cases. "There may be some deviations, either in legislature or in executive or sometimes in judiciary but there are checks and balances. We have to deal with these issues holistically," Mehta submitted. He said there could be errant cases of governors, ministers, right or wrong advice or timeline lagging but the core issue being significant for the democracy, the court could advise on related to the role of President and governors in a federal structure. Earlier in the hearing, while replying to the preliminary objections raised by Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments, Mehta said the top court possesses an inherent power to overrule its judgments which was not a part of any appellate power. "This is for the first time, the President felt functional disharmony arose and will arise because of no authoritative pronouncement. Its because a two-judge bench fixed the timeline for another authority. There is a constitutional problem how Governor and President would highest head of executive is seeking guidance, the judgment has created a constitutional problem," he said. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143 to know from the top court whether judicial orders could impose timelines for the exercise of discretion by the president while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. The Centre said in its written submission that imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by a state assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution, and lead to "constitutional disorder". The hearing remained inconclusive and would continue on Wednesday. On April 8, the apex court while dealing with the powers of the governor with respect of bills passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly for the first time, prescribed that the president should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such a reference is received. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of the governor and president under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
India Today
38 minutes ago
- India Today
Sudershan Reddy the jurist: From Salwa Judum verdict to Telangana caste census
By fielding retired Justice B Sudershan Reddy as their Vice-Presidential candidate, the Opposition INDIA bloc has seemingly turned the tables on the NDA, which declared CP Radhakrishnan as its nominee on Sunday. The INDIA bloc has unanimously agreed on Reddy's candidature, while the decision poses a challenge for NDA ally TDP and its chief, Chandrababu Naidu. With Telugu pride being a significant factor in the twin-Telugu states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, it remains to be seen how the ruling alliance partner will navigate the situation, especially as the Andhra Pradesh Opposition YSRCP has already voiced its support for NDA's candidate, Opposition parties have nominated Shri B Sudershan Reddy Garu as their joint candidate for the position of Vice President of India," Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge said, adding that Justice Reddy had been a consistent and courageous champion of social, economic, and political by leaders such as Congress MP Jairam Ramesh, NCP-SP chief Sharad Pawar, and TMC MP Derek O'Brien, the Congress chief hailed Justice Reddy, saying that he embodied the values that profoundly shaped the country's freedom movement. A native of Telangana who grew up in undivided Andhra Pradesh and began his legal career at the Bar in Hyderabad, Justice Reddy was appointed a permanent Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on May 2, 1995. He later served as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court and as a Supreme Court judge between 2007 and his four-and-a-half-year tenure at the Supreme Court, Justice Reddy delivered several landmark judgments across diverse branches of law. From striking down Chhattisgarh's Salwa Judum militia, aimed at countering Naxalite activities with local tribal recruits, as unconstitutional, to criticising the Union government in 2011 for its laxity in investigating black money cases, the Opposition's VP pick, Sudershan Reddy, has been a jurist known for his firm retiring from the Supreme Court, Reddy also chaired a high-level independent committee of 11 members constituted by the Telangana's Revanth Reddy government to conduct its caste are some of the notable cases and commentaries in which Reddy left his mark.1. REDDY STRUCK DOWN ARMY COLLEGE RESERVATION POLICYJustice Reddy in 2011 disapproved of the Army College of Medical Sciences' policy of reserving all seats exclusively for wards of serving and retired army personnel and widows, even if they qualified through a common entrance argued that such practices restricted access to higher education for disadvantaged groups, emphasising that talent and ability are equally distributed across society. This judgment underscored the importance of equitable access to judgment said, "If a vast majority of our youngsters, especially those belonging to disadvantaged groups, are denied access to the higher educational institutions in the private sector, it would mean that a vast majority of youngsters, notwithstanding a naturally equal distribution of talent and ability, belonging to disadvantaged groups would be left without access to higher education at all. That would constitute a state of social emergency with a potential for conflagration that would be on an unimaginable scale."2. JUSTICE REDDY ORDERED SIT FORMATION IN BLACK MONEY PROBEadvertisementJust before his retirement, Justice Reddy delivered a significant judgment criticising the Union government for its laxity in investigating black money cases (Ram Jethmalani & Others v. Union of India). He ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), chaired by retired Supreme Court judge Justice BP Jeevan Reddy, to probe unaccounted money stashed in foreign bank ruling emphasised accountability and transparency in tackling financial order expressed grave concerns about unaccounted monies held by individuals and entities in foreign banks, their methods of transfer, and the activities generating such funds. It highlighted the risks of these funds being used for unlawful activities, including threats to national security, and their potential to concentrate economic power, undermining accountability and his order, Justice B Sudershan Reddy observed, "The major problem, in the matters before us, has been the inaction of the State... The failure is not of the Constitutional values or of the powers available to the State; the failure has been of human agency."advertisement3. REDDY DELIVERED THE SALWA JUDUM CASE JUDGMENTJustice Reddy declared the Chhattisgarh government's appointment of tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs), also known as Salwa Judum or Koya Commandos, to counter the Maoist insurgency, as illegal and unconstitutional. He ruled that arming inadequately trained civilians violated constitutional principles and endangered human rights, highlighting the state's responsibility to uphold the rule of judgment, delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices Reddy and SS Nijjar on July 5, 2011, is noted for its strong critique of the state's bench directed the Centre to stop giving financial support to the recruitment of "semi-literate tribals" and pit them against the Maoists."What the mandarins of high policies forget is that a society is not a forest where one could combat an accidental forest fire by starting a counter forest fire that is allegedly controlled," the bench said while questioning the anti-Maoist policy of the court found that the Salwa Judum's operations led to widespread abuses, including attacks on civilians suspected of being Maoist sympathisers. Justice Reddy emphasised that the state's complicity in these actions breached its duty to protect citizens' fundamental rights, particularly those of vulnerable tribal communities caught in the JUSTICE REDDY HEADED TELANGANA CASTE SURVEY PANELMost recently, Justice Reddy chaired a high-level 11-member Independent Expert Working Group set up by the Revanth Reddy government to examine Telangana's caste with verifying, analysing, and interpreting data from the state's recent Socio-Economic, Education, Employment, Political and Caste (SEEEPC) survey, the group was established under the Telangana Development Planning Society's advisory mandate was to help frame evidence-based policies across social survey's findings were significant, revealing that more than half of Telangana's population — including Muslim minorities — falls under the Backward Classes category.- EndsMust Watch
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Presidential Reference Bench says Supreme Court stepped in to resolve an ‘egregious situation' in Tamil Nadu Governor case
A Presidential Reference Bench of five judges headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai observed on Tuesday (August 19, 2025) that the Supreme Court's move to grant deemed assent to 10 crucial Tamil Nadu State Bills may have been a way to resolve an 'egregious situation' created by the Tamil Nadu Governor who had been sitting over them since 2020. The five-judge Bench found the facts of the Tamil Nadu case 'glaring' to say the least. 'Were the Bills pending since 2020?' Justice Surya Kant asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani. The Attorney General replied that the facts in the Tamil Nadu case may be correct, but there were reasons the Governor had kept the Bills pending. He said he did not want to get into the facts. 'Is it because the facts are so glaring that you do not want to get into them?' Chief Justice Gavai asked. Justice P.S. Narasimha said the facts of the Tamil Nadu case did not consist of any 'pudding' and were stark in themselves. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, seconded Mr. Venkataramani's submission that a Reference Bench need not get into the facts of the Tamil Nadu case, but merely answer the questions raised by the President. The role of the Reference Bench was to maintain the balance envisioned by the Constitution, Mr. Mehta submitted. But Justice Kant persisted to ask what a Constitutional court was expected to do if the facts were as obvious as those found in the Tamil Nadu case. 'It seems such an egregious situation came into existence in the Tamil Nadu case, that the Supreme Court was compelled to handle the situation and resolve the issue. The conclusion was not meant to act as a precedent,' Justice Narasimha referred to the circumstances which had led to the April 8 judgment. The oral remarks from the Bench came on the first day of hearing the Presidential Reference which has questioned the power of the apex court to impose three-month deadlines on the President and Governors to deal with State Bills which come to them for assent. The reference was issued by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution merely a month after a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in a judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case on April 8, plugged a Constitutional silence by fixing specific time limits for Governors and the President to assent, withhold approval or reserve State Bills for further consideration under Articles 200 and 201. The Division Bench headed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala had invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to grant 'deemed assent' to Tamil Nadu's State Bills. It had held that laws which remain pending with the President and Governor beyond the specified three-month deadline would be deemed as approved. On Tuesday (August 19, 2025), Mr. Venkataramani argued the court could not have used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to supplant substantive law and 'build a new edifice where none existed' in the Tamil Nadu case. The top law officer submitted the Constitution did not impose any time limits on the President and Governors while dealing with State Bills. He contended that the power of the apex court under Article 142 cannot exceed the power of its creator (the Constitution). Mr. Venkataramani urged that the judiciary must not violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution and take over Executive and Legislative functions by granting 'deemed assent' to State Bills.
