NALSA launches scheme to strengthen legal aid to defence personnel, families
Presiding over the event, Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant, who is also the Executive Chairman of NALSA, said the scheme 'seeks to build upon the existing framework of legal services clinics by establishing a dedicated network across Sainik Boards at the Zilla, Rajya, and Kendra levels'. 'These Boards already serve as vital nodal centres, where serving and retired personnel access welfare and support services… Henceforth, the very centres long synonymous with support for every veer parivar (family of soldiers) will also stand equipped to guide them through their legal challenges.'
Justice Kant said the initiative 'stands as a declaration of our intent to extend every possible support and opportunity in safeguarding the rights of our military and paramilitary personnel and their families. It is our pledge that while our soldiers stand vigilant at the nation's borders, we in the legal fraternity will stand equally vigilant in protecting their rights and their welfare at home.'
He said 'a robust back-end mechanism' has been created to support the needs of the armed forces.
The move 'goes far beyond merely strengthening access to legal assistance through the Legal Services Authorities. Under this initiative, we are actively involving defence families and ex-servicemen by inviting them to serve as paralegal volunteers.'
Justice Kant said that like any other citizen, defence personnel too face many legal challenges which become harder when they are posted in remote areas.
'They too must contend with routine civilian challenges — land disputes, matrimonial issues, questions over service entitlements, or even something as ordinary as an inflated electricity bill… A sipahi stationed in a remote post cannot simply leave his duty to attend to legal concerns, nor can he effectively pursue a matter pending far away. We cannot, for instance, expect a soldier serving in the valleys of Jammu and Kashmir to personally manage a dispute concerning his home in distant Rajasthan,' he said.
The scheme, he said, 'marking the 30 years of NALSA's service to the cause of legal aid, will honour the legacy of those who have served and fought for our safety and security'. 'It is our turn to keep those first who have always kept this country first.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
19 minutes ago
- Time of India
Find out how many temples have governments taken over: SC to petitioner
NEW DELHI: A 'shebait' of the Banke Bihari Ji temple at Vrindavan on Monday told Supreme Court that the Uttar Pradesh govt through an unconstitutional ordinance is attempting to take over a privately managed temple in the guise of a development plan. Appearing for 'shebait' Devendra Nath Goswami, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Amit Anand Tiwari told a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi that the temple has a corpus of Rs 300 crore and the sole intention of govt is to utilise this money for the Rs 500 crore development plan. While adjourning hearing on the petition, the bench said, "Please find out how many temples pan-India has been taken over by the state govts. Many temples in Tamil Nadu have been taken over by the state govt." Sibal said the temples taken over in Tamil Nadu are public temples, unlike the Banke Bihari Ji temple which has been managed privately by two groups of 'shebaits' as per a Mathura Munsif court's 1939 judicial order. There are no allegations of mismanagement or misappropriation of funds which could have been grounds for takeover, he said. Justice Kant told Sibal, "You go there and find out how it is managed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Stylish Dresses in Tegaldlimo — Don't Miss Out! Dresses | Search Ads Learn More Undo Two groups of 'shebaits' have been fighting for control of the temple since 1938 and have filed many suits. They come to court when govt wants to develop the area to provide devotees with amenities and smooth darshan." The petitioner said the state did not have the legislative competence to promulgate the Uttar Pradesh Shri Banke Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, as it seeks to effectuate a forcible state takeover of a private temple. "The temple is admittedly private in character as it is administered by a religious denomination and governed by a judicially sanctioned scheme of management dated June 11, 1939, under which hereditary 'shebait goswamis' alone are vested with the rights and duties of managing the religious and administrative affairs of the deity/temple," he said. "There is no record or finding of mismanagement, fund misuse, or maladministration on the part of the existing 'shebait'-led management. Throughout the years, no allegations of financial irregularity or misgovernance have been levelled," the petitioner said. The impugned ordinance is a "veiled attempt by the state to commercialise and monetise the private temple under the pretext of providing 'world-class amenities' to devotees", he allleged. "The state's approach to the temple is purely utilitarian and economic, treating it as a revenue generating tourist centre rather than as a sacred spiritual institution governed by ancient religious traditions," the petitioner said.
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
Timely intervention, says Goel; Karti highlights ‘underreporting'
New Delhi: The Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings on Monday after reviewing a TOI report about rabies cases resulting from dog bites. "The news item contains some alarming and disturbing figures and facts," the bench observed. Former Union minister Vijay Goel, who has long been championing dog shelters, defined the move as a "timely and much-needed intervention" by the judiciary and said he would present data on the matter. In a press statement on Monday, Goel reiterated his key demands, including amendments to the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, particularly on allowing relocation of biting dogs to a different place or shelter after sterilisation rather than being released in the original location under Rule 11. A national census of stray canines is also a demand. Goel's campaign has taken on renewed urgency following two dog attacks in Narela and Pooth Kalan, the latter resulting in the death of a six-year-old girl, who succumbed to rabies. Expressing strong objection to ABC Rule 20, which gives RWAs the responsibility of feeding stray dogs within private societies, appealed for a complete ban on street feeding — with legal consequences for violators. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi "I'm trying to save both people and dogs from mutual hatred. If things continue this way, society will turn hostile towards animals," Goel said, responding to dog lovers who have allegedly threatened him online and branded him the 'enemy of animals'. Appreciating the move of the apex court, Congress MP Karti P Chidambaram, who is actively pursuing the matter with the central govt, posted on X, "Hope a holistic process is set into motion. Key asks: Enforce a no-dog-on-street policy, build shelters & house all strays. Vaccinate & neuter them, promote adoption with safety norms, ensure clear, humane & enforceable policy, hear & protect those who feel unsafe and fund authorities to act urgently & responsibly. " Chidambaram had even met PM Narendra Modi to discuss the problem on March 27. He claimed to have written to SP Singh Baghel, Union minister of state for animal husbandry and dairying, on July 24 regarding the review of ABC Rules and formulation of a national strategy to manage stray dogs. In his letter, he highlighted the underreporting of dog bite and rabies cases. "Your ministry has reported 3.7 million dog bites and only 54 suspected rabies deaths in 2024 as per National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) data. However, multiple independent bodies present contradictory evidence. For example, ICMR's national survey estimates 9 million animal bite incidents annually with up to 5,700 rabies deaths," he wrote. "While WHO maintains that India accounts for nearly 36% of global rabies mortality with 18,000-20,000 deaths annually. Furthermore, the health ministry's Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme (2023) reported 286 rabies deaths — a sharp contrast to NCDC's 2024 figure of 54." The MP said that while ABC Rules might seem progressive in theory, it had "failed structurally and operationally". Chidambaram stated that sterilisation targets were routinely missed, and in most urban areas, they reached only 20-40%, far below the 70%+ required for an impact. "Municipalities suffer from severe manpower shortages, lack of coordination with NGOs and administrative paralysis. While the estimates suggest 6-10 dog bite incidents per minute, with serious injuries, the right of safety of citizens, especially children and the elderly, is being compromised," he maintained. Nanita Sharma, Supreme Court lawyer, contended that modifications to ABC Rules would be ineffective without committed sterilisation and immunisation efforts. "The problem is that govt and agencies are hand in glove and none of the agencies are doing their job diligently," Sharma said. "Had the municipal authorities sterilised and immunised 70% of the strays regularly, then the street dog population would have been contained. Relocation will, in fact, make it difficult to cover all strays. There is a need also to act logically and humanely towards these animals to reduce man-animal conflict. "
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
Cash recovery alone not ground for impeachment, Kapil Sibal argues in SC, in defence of Justice Yashwant Varma
New Delhi, July 28 (UNI) The Supreme Court today heard arguments in a sensitive case involving a sitting High Court judge, with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal asserting that the recovery of unaccounted cash from the outhouse of a judge cannot, by itself, constitute 'misconduct' or 'proved incapacity', the only grounds for removal under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih was hearing a writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, who has challenged the findings of an in-house inquiry committee that indicted him, as well as a recommendation made by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to the President and Prime Minister, seeking initiation of impeachment proceedings. Sibal, appearing on behalf of Justice Varma, questioned the legal basis of the recommendation. 'The Judges (Inquiry) Act governs the procedure for removal of judges. "A mere finding of cash in the outhouse, without a clear link to misconduct or incapacity, cannot justify impeachment,' he submitted. He added, 'If cash is found in the outhouse, what specific behaviour of the judge is being impugned? There is no allegation of misconduct, much less 'proved misbehaviour' as required by the Constitution.' Justice Datta, however, pointed out that such conduct could amount to 'misbehaviour' under the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. Sibal acknowledged the possibility but countered that even then, it may not rise to the level necessary to warrant removal from office. The Bench also noted that Justice Varma had not disputed the incident of fire at the premises or the subsequent cash recovery. In response, Sibal stressed that no investigative body or the in-house panel could conclusively determine the ownership of the cash, and no inference should be drawn against the judge without substantive proof. At the core of Sibal's argument was the contention that the Chief Justice of India has no constitutional authority to initiate or recommend impeachment proceedings. 'It is for the Members of Parliament to move such a motion if they are convinced that a judge's conduct warrants removal,' he said. 'The President and Prime Minister are completely alien to this process,' he emphasized. When Justice Datta pointed out that the committee's findings are not considered as formal 'evidence' under law, Sibal replied, 'Yet those findings became the basis for the CJI's communication recommending removal. Once that happens, what is Parliament expected to do other than follow it?' Justice Datta clarified that any removal must follow the due process laid out under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, which requires an inquiry by a three-judge committee before any motion in Parliament. The Court has scheduled the next hearing in the matter for Wednesday, indicating that it will continue to examine both procedural and constitutional aspects of the case. UNI SNG RN
