Rajasthan's stalled projects
When the Supreme Court, in March this year, ordered the demolition of kitschy replicas of the 'Seven Wonders' built along the banks of Ajmer's 12th-century Ana Sagar Lake—a protected wetland—it wasn't judicial activism so much as a belated course correction for a folly committed two years ago. Around the same time, Rajasthan chief minister Bhajan Lal Sharma ordered the dismantling of Jaipur's 16-km-long Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS), a corridor completed 15 years ago but never brought into use. Blamed for traffic chaos and fatal accidents, the BRTS had become emblematic of the state's flawed urban planning.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
Preventive detention extraordinary power of state that must be used sparingly: SC
'Therefore, the order of detention dated June 20, 2024, and the impugned judgment dated September 4, 2024, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam are hereby set aside. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is allowed,' the bench said in its order passed on Friday. A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan said the circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail in cases against him, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. New Delhi, Jun 7 (PTI) Preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly, said the Supreme Court as it set aside an order to detain a man indulging in money lending in Kerala. Noting that the power of preventive detention finds recognition in the Constitution under Article 22(3)(b), the bench said, 'The provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature.' The bench said the contention of the detaining authority that the detainee, Rajesh, who used to run a private financing company called 'Rithika Finance', was violating the conditions of bail imposed upon him in the cases that have been considered for passing the order of detention. It said that pertinently, no application has been filed by the respondent in any of the four cases, alleging violation of such conditions, if any, and moreover, have not even been spelt out during the hearing of the case filed by his wife against the Kerala High Court order, which affirmed the preventive detention order of the Palakkad district magistrate. 'Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we have no doubt that the order of detention cannot be sustained. The circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. 'We clarify that if such an application for cancellation of the detainee's bail is made by the respondent – state, the same must be decided uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove,' the bench noted. It referred to the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, and said that the object of the statute was to provide for effective prevention of certain anti-social activities in the state. The bench said Section 2(j) of the state law defines 'goonda' as a person who indulges in activities that are harmful to the maintenance of public order, either directly or indirectly, and includes persons who are bootleggers, counterfeiters, drug offenders, and loan sharks, among others. The bench also said that under Section 3 of the Act, the district magistrate so authorised or the government may pass an order directing detention of a 'known goonda' to prevent commission of antisocial activities within the state of Kerala. 'Coming to the attending facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act was not justified in law,' the top court said, as it noted four cases lodged under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, cited by the police for recommending preventive detention to the district magistrate. The police stated that the detainee was a 'notorious goonda' in the district and a threat to the society at large. Aggrieved by the order of his detention dated June 20, 2024, Rajesh's wife filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court assailing the order and praying for a writ of habeas corpus to the state against the 'illegal' detention of her husband. The high court on September 4 last year affirmed the order of preventive detention. Aggrieved by the order, the detainee's wife moved the top court challenging the decision. On December 10, 2024, the top court ordered the detainee to be released as his maximum period of detention under the Act was over. PTI MNL ARI This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Himanta says drive to identify foreigners to be 'accelerated'; AAMSU protests 'harassment'
Guwahati, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Saturday asserted that the process of identifying illegal foreigners, which was "paused" due to NRC-related matters, will be accelerated, even as protests were witnessed in different parts of the state during Eid prayers on Saturday over "pushback" and "harassment" of minorities in the name of detecting illegal immigrants. Sarma maintained that the state government was looking into the details of an old law, which allows it to "push back" the declared infiltrators without having to mandatorily approach the judiciary. Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a programme in Nalbari, Sarma said that a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing a case on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, had said that there is no legal requirement for the Assam government to always approach the judiciary in order to identify foreigners. "There exists an immigrants expel order, which is an old law. The Supreme Court has said that this law is in force and a deputy commissioner can give permission for immediate pushback under it," he maintained. "For whatever reason, our lawyers had not informed us and we too didn't know about it. The entire matter has come to light in the last few days. We will now discuss it further," he added. The chief minister said pushing back illegal migrants will continue, adding that the process of identifying foreigners, which had been paused due to NRC-related matters, will now be accelerated. "And when the identification of a foreigner happens, there will be no need to send the case to any tribunal. We will directly push them back. We have been preparing for it," he added. Sarma said the process of pushback will continue, though no person with a case pending before the court will be sent back. Meanwhile, members and supporters of the All Assam Minority Students' Union wore black badges and displayed placards against the purported recent pushback of Bangladeshis in the state. They carried out the protest in different parts, including Chirang and Jogighopa, after Eid namaz. AAMSU president Rejaul Karim Sarkar maintained that more intensified protests will be carried out if the government does not stop "harassment" of genuine citizens. "We have seen cases where the entire family is Indian but one member is taken away as an illegal foreigner. Such acts are against humanity. The government should stop harassment of genuine citizens, else we will carry out more agitations in a democratic manner," he said.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
‘Despite its flaws, the Collegium system preserves judicial independence,' says SC judge Justice Surya Kant
Strongly defending the collegium system of judicial appointments, Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant said on Saturday that, 'despite its imperfections, it serves as a crucial institutional safeguard … preserving the Judiciary's autonomy.' Speaking at Seattle University on the topic 'The Quiet Sentinel: Courts, Democracy, and the Dialogue Across Borders,' Justice Kant noted that the collegium 'significantly limits interference by the Executive and Legislature, thereby preserving the Judiciary's autonomy and insulating judges from extraneous pressures that could otherwise compromise their impartiality.' He acknowledged that the system 'has been subject to sustained criticism—particularly regarding the opacity of its deliberative processes and the lack of publicly articulated criteria—but recent efforts by the Supreme Court signal a growing commitment to enhancing transparency and public confidence in it.' Referring to proactive judicial interventions that advance constitutional compassion, he asked in his June 4 address, 'How far can courts go in shaping policy?' and 'Is judicial creativity a virtue or a vice?' 'The answer, I believe, lies in intent and integrity. When courts act to empower the powerless, grounded in constitutional text and moral clarity, they do not usurp democracy—they deepen it,' he said. Justice Kant conceded that the judiciary 'has not remained impervious to criticism that at times it breaches the fine line between judicial activism and judicial overreach' and added that 'in recent years, there has been a discernible shift toward greater institutional self-restraint in select domains. The Court has increasingly sought to nudge rather than command, and to engage with other branches of government in efforts to increase dialogic remedies. This evolving balance reflects an awareness that judicial authority is most enduring when it is exercised with a sense of humility—when the Court is seen not as an omnipotent arbiter but as a co-traveller in the democratic journey, grounded in constitutional values.' He described the judiciary as 'the sentinel of constitutional morality' and said it 'has been instrumental in shaping this very democracy's moral spine.' Recalling past challenges, Justice Kant observed that 'the Indian judiciary, too, traversed periods of profound trial and transformation. Particularly during the Emergency, the Court grappled with serious challenges to its independence and, at times, exhibited troubling deference to executive power. Yet, this phase of institutional strain gave way to a renewed judicial consciousness.' He added that 'the judiciary's evolving relationship with its own independence lies at the very heart of how India's vast, pluralistic democracy continues to function with remarkable cohesion. It is not merely the existence of judicial independence that is noteworthy, but rather the degree and contours of that independence—how it is asserted, negotiated, and exercised—that renders the Indian experience particularly distinctive within the global constitutional landscape.' On the role of courts in a democracy, he said, 'constitutional democracy is … a system where majorities are checked, where minorities are protected, and where principles cannot be sacrificed at the altar of popularity,' and 'in such a system, courts cannot function as mere referees.' He stressed, 'in a democracy as vast and diverse as India's, it is only when the judiciary wears its power lightly, and its conscience visibly, that it can remain not only the last word, but also a trusted voice among many in our collective democratic journey.' 'Judiciary may not be the most visible arm of the state, it may not command battalions or shape budgets, but it performs a task more difficult: it keeps alive the promise of justice. In India, this task has often been thankless, occasionally triumphant, and always essential. The judiciary is not a saviour; it is a sentinel. It does not march. It watches. And when necessary, it speaks—not to please, but to preserve.' Earlier, during a visit to the Washington State Supreme Court's Temple of Justice in Olympia on June 3, Justice Kant highlighted the SC's defence of free speech rights, noting that 'pre-censorship and vague notions of public order cannot trump the right to free expression,' and adding, 'these are not merely legal precedents; they are constitutional declarations—that democracy without dissent is a contradiction, and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity.' Drawing parallels between the Indian and American judiciaries, he said, 'in both countries, the Judiciary has consistently pushed back against the temptation to suppress dissent under misguided and deceptive notions that the Executive may hold … Both our systems were designed not to trust power blindly, but to restrain it.' At a fireside chat at Microsoft Corporation headquarters on June 6, Justice Kant touched on the rise of technology such as artificial intelligence in the judicial process. He said he was 'firmly convinced that any contemplation of AI must be guided by a deep moral compass. Shaping the future demands more than innovation—it calls for an unwavering adherence to foundational values. Transparency, equity, responsibility, and respect for human dignity must not be afterthoughts, but the pillars upon which all technological advancement rests.' He warned that 'technology, if left unchecked, can reflect and reinforce societal inequities. AI is not a perfect technology and it can perhaps never replace the human element that the entire Rawlsian theory of justice hinges on,' and added, 'technology must remain subordinate to our higher commitments to fairness, equity, and human dignity' and 'must adapt to the lived realities of the people it seeks to serve.' Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
