DMK moves SC against Madras HC order on naming of welfare schemes
Supreme Court
challenging the interim order.
Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal on Wednesday, the party told high court on Monday.
Recording the submissions, the first bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan observed, "once our order is challenged, we will not pass any further orders. Judicial discipline requires that we do not pass any orders in the matter."
The court then decided to defer the hearing of the modification petition for two days and adjourned it to Thursday.
You Can Also Check:
Chennai AQI
|
Weather in Chennai
|
Bank Holidays in Chennai
|
Public Holidays in Chennai
The issue pertains to a plea moved by former AIADMK law minister C Ve Shanmugam, who alleged that the scheme 'Nalam Kaakkum Stalin' named after chief minister
M K Stalin
was in violation of the guidelines set by Supreme Court and ECI. On July 31, the bench passed an interim order making it clear that all welfare schemes launched by state should be in conformity with the guidelines fixed by Supreme Court and pictures of living political leaders should not be used in such schemes.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Is this legal? Access all TV channels without a subscription!
Techno Mag
Learn More
Undo
Aggrieved, state govt submitted that the scheme was introduced in the name of the chief minister of the state, who is a constitutional authority, and it cannot be construed to have been introduced in the name of a political personality. The usage of photos of former chief ministers is also not expressly prohibited under the orders passed by Supreme Court, it added.
While the bench was slated to hear the modification petition on Aug 4, state launched the scheme 'Nalam Kaakkum Stalin' on Aug 2.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Sanitary workers' stir outside Ripon Building enters Day eight
CHENNAI: The protest by hundreds of sanitary workers urging authorities to drop the plan to outsource solid waste management in Royapuram and Thiru-Vi-Ka Nagar zones and regularisation of their employment entered eighth day on Friday, with former IAS officer P Sivakami visiting the protest site outside the Ripon Buildings to express solidarity with them. Sivakami noted that the government had assured job regularisation when the workers, during Covid-19 and subsequent natural disasters, toiled hard to keep the city clean, and urged the state government to hold talks with them. Though the DMK had assured to regularise their jobs, it failed to keep its promise, Sivakami said. 'While the government is pushing for privatisation, it should, at least, ensure that the workers receive salary on a par with their present earnings, which is around Rs 23,000 per month,' she said. Meanwhile, the police have issued a notice to the protesters not to assemble at the site. 'Such notice, when we are holding a peaceful sit-in protest, is an act of intimidation,' the workers said. Meanwhile, garbage collection and transportation in Royapuram and Thiru-Vi-Ka Nagar zones, which took a hit for the past few days, are being managed now by deploying workers from other zones and making them work overtime, said a senior official. The official added that the new contractor is in the process of hiring new workers. 'We have assured the workers that their current salaries will be retained by the contractor, but they are not willing to join, demanding permanent employment.' GCC said on Friday that between July 21 and August 7, 9,696 metric tonnes (MT) and 7,451 MT of waste were collected from Royapuram and Thiru-Vi-Ka Nagar zones respectively, to indicate that garbage collection has not been affected. While the average collection per day was around 620 MT from July 21 to 31, this dropped to about 400 MT from August when the protest began.
NDTV
13 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Why Target Air India Only": Supreme Court Junks Plea For Safety Audit
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to hear a plea to appoint a retired top court judge for examining Air India's safety practices among other aspects and asked the petitioner why target the airline that witnessed an "unfortunate tragedy". A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told the petitioner in-person Narendera Kumar Goswami to withdraw his PIL and asked him to move the appropriate forum in case of grievances. "Don't give the impression that you are playing with other airlines. Why target Air India only which recently witnessed an unfortunate tragedy? If you want some regulatory mechanism in place, then why did you not make other airlines as party in your petition? Why only Air India?" the bench asked Goswami, a lawyer. The petitioner claimed to be a victim of "some unfortunate incident" with the airline. Justice Kant then told him, "We also travel every week and know what is the status. There was a tragedy, a very unfortunate one. This is not a time to run down an airline." Goswami in his PIL, which he filed in July, sought directions for constituting an independent committee, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to examine Air India's safety practices, maintenance procedures, and operational protocols, with a report to be submitted within three months. He also sought a direction for a comprehensive safety audit of Air India's entire fleet by an international aviation safety agency accredited by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), addressing deficiencies identified in the 2024 ICAO audit report, to be completed within six months. Additionally, Directorate General of Civil Aviation was sought to be directed to implement and enforce a transparent, publicly accessible reporting system for all aviation safety incidents, including a centralized database, ensuring compliance with the Aircraft Rules, 1937, and international best practices. The PIL further sought a direction to Air India to provide compensation to the families of AI-171 crash victims in accordance with the Montreal Convention, 1999, and to offer ex-gratia payments or compensation to passengers of AI-143 for distress and inconvenience caused by the safety incident, as per applicable laws and industry standards. The London-bound Air India flight, Boeing Dreamliner 787-8, with 242 passengers and crew on board, crashed moments after taking off from the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad on the afternoon of June 12.
India Today
25 minutes ago
- India Today
Supreme Court notice to Centre on plea claiming BNS revived sedition law
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the Centre on a plea challenging Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which reintroduces the colonial sedition law previously codified as Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).The plea says that Section 152 of the BNS has "revived and repackaged" the sedition provisions in the IPC, after the Supreme Court had barred the filing of FIRs under Section 124A of the bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai issued notice to the Centre and tagged the matter with the already pending batch of cases challenging the erstwhile sedition law under Section 124A of the IPC. The sedition matters have been pending before the top court since 2021. In 2022, the Supreme Court also considered whether the issue was needed to be sent to a seven-judge Constitution bench, since there was a five-judge bench verdict that had upheld the offence of sedition to India Today TV, a lawyer connected to the matter said, The filing of the fresh plea was expected to speed up the hearing of the batch of petitions challenging the sedition law, which has remained pending and not been heard since September 2023. The central government assured the court that it would reconsider the law on sedition," the lawyer May 11, 2022, the Supreme Court ordered that 'no coercive action' be taken in sedition cases that remain pending while the government re-examines the the meantime, the IPC was repealed and the BNS came into effect on July 1, 2024. The pending petitions have not been heard in the fresh petition filed by retired Major General SG Vombatkere says that BNS Section 152 "repackaged" the sedition law despite the pause order from the Supreme Court and pending proceedings."The very petitioner had previously challenged Section 124A of the IPC in SG Vombatkere vs Union of India, leading to this court directing that all prosecutions under the said provision be kept in abeyance pending legislative reconsideration. However, Section 152 of the BNS is nothing but a repackaged sedition law, reinstated despite the pending challenge and suspension of Section 124A," the plea said."Section 152 criminalises a wide spectrum of expressive conduct, including those who 'purposely or knowingly' use words - spoken, written, electronic, symbolic or financial - to 'excite or attempt to excite' secession, rebellion or subversive activities. Its sweeping language, including phrases like 'encouraging feelings of separatist activities', fails the test of constitutional validity due to vagueness, overbreadth, chilling effect, disproportionate punishment and absence of proximate nexus to public disorder," the plea petition has gone into the various subclauses and provisions under Section 152 of the BNS, arguing that the "provision was unconstitutional for multiple and interrelated reasons, and must be struck down. "Each component of the section suffers from vagueness, overbreadth and arbitrariness, thereby violating Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution," it said."It further submitted that Section 152 "impermissibly criminalised a wide range of expressive acts, including spoken, written, symbolic, electronic and financial communication, without satisfying the constitutionally mandated tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality under Article 19(2)".Additionally, the plea argued that the provision "employed ambiguous and undefined terms", which would have a "chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech".- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
