Collectors shall form panels to ensure resources meant for public use reach all: HC
Justice R.N. Manjula observed that the government had got a bounden duty to ensure the effective implementation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Section 21 of the Act spoke about the duty of the government to ensure the effective implementation of the Act.
Earlier, the court took a serious view of caste discrimination reported in Thalaivankottai in Tenkasi district, where Scheduled Caste people had to wait to collect their share of water from a public tap till the water needs of the other communities were fulfilled. The court had directed the Tenkasi Collector to take appropriate steps and ensure that such discrimination did not take place.
Pursuant to the court order, the Tenkasi Collector, in a report, submitted that 17 public water tap connections had been provided and water was being supplied for three hours every day.
It was also submitted that a committee comprising the panchayat president, panchayat secretary and Zonal Assistant Block Development Officer had been formed to ensure that there was no discrimination between people belonging to different communities.
The court observed that Section 3(1)(za) (A) of the Act included obstruction and prevention of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from using a common public area or resources as an offence.
The court directed the Directorates of Municipal Administration and Town Panchayats and the District Collectors, under the supervision of the Chief Secretary and with the coordination of the Director General of Police, to implement the objectives of Section 21 of the Act, especially in the matter of sharing water and file a report.
A healthy atmosphere in rural and urban communities should be ensured in order to achieve the objective of the Act, the court observed and posted the matter for hearing to August 21.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Madras HC Division Bench stays single judge's order favouring allotment of Kalaignarin Kanavu Illam houses to Tamil writers
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court on Friday (August 8, 2025) stayed the operation of an order passed by a single judge who had quashed a Government Order (G.O.) issued on March 4, 2024, for cancelling the allotment of houses in Shenoy Nagar and Anna Nagar in Chennai to noted Tamil writers Maraimalai Ilakkuvanar and G. Thilagavathy, also a retired IPS officer, under the Kalaignarin Kanavu Illam scheme. The Bench comprising Justices J. Nisha Banu and M. Jothiraman granted the interim stay following a writ appeal filed by the State government against the single judge's order. In the meantime, two new writ petitions filed by lyricist R. Vairamuthu and Tamil scholar M. Rajendran, challenging the cancellation of similar allotments, were listed for admission before Justice N. Anand Venkatesh on Friday. The judge ordered notices to the government in the two new writ petitions and adjourned them to be decided after the writ appeals get disposed of finally.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
The Income Tax Bill, 2025 withdrawn, an updated version of the bill to be introduced on Monday August 11
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills Clause 21: House property The Committee, after a careful review of Clause 21, identified drafting issues in 21(2) that could lead to ambiguity in determining the annual value of properties experiencing vacancy. The committee, therefore, recommend two key changes: first, that the phrase "in normal course" be deleted, and second, that the clause be amended to explicitly provide for a comparison of the actual rent received with the "deeming rent," as was available in the existing Act. The committee believes these adjustments are vital for enhancing fairness, reducing ambiguity in the valuation of vacant properties, and leading to a more equitable tax treatment for property owners. The Committee, further, recommended that the rest of the Clauses may be accepted in their current form. Deductions from income from house property (Clause 22, 22(1), and 22(2)): Firstly, in Clause 22(1)(a), to explicitly state that the standard 30% deduction be computed on the annual value after deducting municipal taxes. Secondly, in Clause 22(2), to ensure that the deduction for pre-construction interest is available for let-out properties in addition to self-occupied ones, aligning it with the existing Act. Clause No 19: Deductions from salaries (Schedule VII) Clause 20: Commercial Property The New Income Tax Bill, 2025 has been withdrawn by the Central government as of August 8, Income-Tax Bill, 2025, which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 13th February 2025 to replace the existing Income-Tax Act, 1961, has been formally withdrawn.A new version of the Income Tax Bill, incorporating most of the recommendations made by the Select Committee chaired by Shri Baijayant Panda, can be introduced on Monday, August avoid confusion by multiple versions of the Bill and to provide a clear and updated version with all changes incorporated, the new version of the Income Tax Bill will be introduced for the consideration of the House on the old version of the new tax bill 2025, several drafting errors were found by lawyers and chartered accountants pointed out. The Lok Sabha Select Committee also pointed out some of these errors which are as follows:"The Committee, after deliberations on Clause 22, identified the need to clarify the computation of deductions to enhance fairness and transparency for property owners. The Committee, therefore, recommended two key amendments:'The Committee, after a careful review of Clause 19, identified a gap in the equitable tax treatment of commuted pension for different types of recipients. The Committee, therefore, recommended that a deduction for commuted pension, similar to that available to employees under Clause 19, be explicitly allowed under the head "Income from other sources" for non-employees who receive such pension from a fund. Accordingly, the Committee finds no further modifications are necessary for Clause 19 and recommend the acceptance of its remaining provisions as drafted.''The Committee, upon reviewing Clause 20 identified a change in wording in 20(2) from the previous Act that could lead to an incorrect tax treatment for certain business properties . The Committee, therefore, recommended that in Clause 20(2), the word 'occupied' be replaced with the phrase 'as he may occupy' to ensure that temporarily unutilized or ready-to-use business properties are clearly excluded from taxation under the house property head. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that the Ministry amend the clause as proposed to accurately delineate the scope of "Income from house property". The Committee further accepted the remaining provision of Clause 20 as proposed.'
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Poll body refuses to reveal reasons behind its 45-day CCTV rule in RTI reply
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has declined to provide crucial information regarding its decision to reduce CCTV footage retention from polling stations to just 45 days, citing that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. This was disclosed exclusively in response to a Right to Information (RTI) query filed by India revelation becomes significant against the backdrop of Congress MP Rahul Gandhi launching a scathing attack on the ECI's CCTV rule. The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha said the ECI's decision was deeply the poll body, he said, "They said we are going to destroy the CCTV footage. This was surprising to us because there was a question in Maharashtra about a massive voting after 5.30 pm for the numbers to add up." "Our people knew that in the polling booths, no such thing happened. There was no massive voting after 5.30 pm. These two things made us believe with reasonable certainty that the Election Commission of India was colluding with the BJP to steal elections," Gandhi QUERY DETAILSThrough the RTI application, India Today sought three critical pieces of information from the ECI.A copy of the study or report that formed the basis for the ECI's May 30, 2025 decision to reduce election video footage retention to just 45 complete file, including all internal file notings, and correspondence related to the revision of video footage retention formal assessment regarding alleged misuse of election footage on social media platforms, and access to such documents if they BODY REACTIONThe Election Commission categorically refused to provide any of the requested information, uniformly citing the pendency of the Supreme Court case."The matter in the RTI application is sub-judice due to the pendency of WP (C) no. 18/2025 titled Jairam Ramesh vs Union of India before the Supreme Court of India and the same is tentatively listed for hearing on 22/07/2025. Therefore, the information sought in the instant RTI application cannot be provided at this stage," the poll watchdog said. The case is now scheduled for a hearing on August 11, RTI RULES SAYThe ECI's refusal appears questionable under existing RTI frameworks. The Central Information Commission (CIC) has said that sub-judice status was not, by itself, a valid ground for withholding a landmark 2017 ruling, the CIC stated, "At the outset it is clarified that the RTI Act provides no exemption from disclosure requirements of sub-judice matters. The only exemption for sub-judice matters is regarding what has been expressly forbidden disclosure by a court or a tribunal and what may constitute contempt of court."This precedent suggests that the ECI cannot take refuge in the sub-judice excuse unless it cites a specific court order prohibiting disclosure to justify a complete information Today has filed an appeal against the ECI's refusal with the appellate authority under the RTI Act. The story will be updated as and when a response is received from the appellate authority.- EndsTune InMust Watch
