A. Nishita Takes Charge as New ED of SC Corporation in Jogulamba Gadwal District
Speaking on the occasion, A. Nishita shared that she was previously working as the District Tribal Development Officer (DTDO) in Wanaparthy district before being transferred to Jogulamba Gadwal. She expressed her commitment to furthering the development initiatives for the Scheduled Castes in the district through the SC Corporation.
As part of her initial duties, the newly appointed ED paid a courtesy visit to the District Collector. During the meeting, they discussed priorities, ongoing welfare programs, and strategies to improve the reach and effectiveness of schemes aimed at the upliftment of SC communities.
A. Nishita's appointment is expected to bring fresh energy and focused leadership to the district's efforts in implementing various welfare schemes under the SC Corporation. Her previous administrative experience is likely to contribute significantly to strengthening support systems for marginalized communities in the region.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
CJI not superior to other SC judges, has same judicial powers: Justice Gavai
The Chief Justice of India is not superior to other judges of the Supreme Court and exercises the same judicial powers as the rest, Chief Justice B R Gavai said on Tuesday. The CJI made the observation as a three-judge bench, presided by him and comprising Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria, took up an application by the Enforcement Directorate for recall of the court's April 26, 2023 judgment in Ritu Chhabaria vs. Union of India & Ors case. A two-judge bench of Justices (retired) Krishna Murari and C T Ravikumar it its 2023 judgment deprecated the 'practice' of investigating agencies filing chargesheet in court even before completion of probe so as to deny default bail to accused, and said that even in such cases the right of the accused to default bail will not be extinguished. As per the law, the chargesheet has to be filed within 60 days from the date of arrest of the accused in cases triable by lower courts and 90 days in cases triable by a sessions court. Failure to file the chargesheet within this period entitles an accused to default bail. Days after the April 26 ruling, the ED approached the SC and told a bench presided by then CJI D Y Chandrachud that the Delhi High Court had granted bail to the accused in a case probed by it based on the SC judgment in the Ritu Chhabaria case. The agency pointed out that the decision will have nationwide repercussions. By order dated May 12, 2023, the SC suspended the operation of the April 26 judgment. On Tuesday, CJI Gavai expressed his displeasure over the one-judge bench, even if that be the CJI-headed bench, hearing appeals against judgements of any other bench of the SC. 'When a bench of two learned judges of this court grants any relief, can another bench, merely because it sits in court number 1, of the same strength, sit in appeal over that judgment,' asked CJI Gavai. He said, 'We believe in adherence to the judicial propriety, judicial discipline. If we go on permitting this, then one bench merely because it does not like an order, will go on interfering with the orders of the other bench.' 'The Chief Justice of India is not superior to the other judges. He is the first among the others. The CJI exercises the same judicial powers as all other judges of this court,' the CJI said. Appearing for ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the three-judge bench that the petitioner in the matter in which the April 26 judgment was delivered had 'misused' the court's jurisdiction. He said initially, a person filed a petition saying her husband was in jail and sought permission to allow her to send him home-cooked food. 'Thereafter the petitioner (in the April 26 matter) filed a similar petition that 'my husband is also in jail, so permit me to serve him home-cooked food'. The petitioner further pointed out that a similar petition (the first petition) is pending before a particular bench… Both matters are listed together. Then first (petition) pales into insignificance. Subsequently, an Interlocutory Application (IA) is filed…in the second petition where the main prayer is home-cooked food. It says the chargesheet is filed with Section 173(8) CrPC, which says that further investigation is going on…' 'The SC (two-judge) bench takes the view that once you file a chargesheet with 173(8), you will get default bail because it is an incomplete chargesheet,' the SG said, adding that this was contrary to multiple larger-bench judgements. 'Thereafter all-across India, people started filing default bail applications once chargesheet was filed (with section 173(8)).' The counsel for the respondents sought to clarify that in the writ petition for allowing home-cooked food, the IA for default bail was filed before the first hearing of the case. On the first hearing, IA was allowed, and notice was issued in the writ petition. The SG said if the court did not want to look at the recall request, it can still consider the ED's SLP filed against the Delhi High Court order and settle the law. The court finally agreed to list it before a three-judge bench.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Convict given fixed life for 20 yrs entitled to be freed after term: Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Tuesday held that a convict sentenced to life imprisonment for a fixed term like 20 years is entitled to be released from jail after completing the term and there was no need for him to seek remission of sentence to be free, which is needed in case of simple life imprisonment. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan rejected a petition that a convict, even if serving a fixed term, could come out of jail only when his plea for remission of sentence was allowed by govt. The court, which had on July 29 directed release of Sukhdev Pehalwan in the Nitish Katara case, as he had already completed 20 years imprisonment in March, passed a reasoned judgment in the case. "We hold that in all cases where an accused/convict has completed his period of jail term, he shall be entitled to be released forthwith and not continued in imprisonment if not wanted in any other case. We say so in light of Article 21 of the Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law," the bench said Taking note that many convicts have completed their sentences and are languishing in jail,it directed the order's copy be circulated by SC registry to all home secretaries to ascertain whether any accused/convict has remained in jail beyond the period of sentence.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Monsoon session: Speaker forms panel to inquire into grounds for Justice Varma's removal
NEW DELHI: Acting on a multi-party notice to begin the process of removal of Allahabad HC judge Justice Yashwant Varma, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Tuesday constituted a three-member committee to "inquire into the grounds for request for removal" of Justice Varma, who is linked to the cash-at-home scandal. The committee comprises SC judge Justice Arvind Kumar; Madras HC CJ Manindra Mohan Srivastava; and senior advocate at Karnataka HC B V Acharya. The Speaker, however, did not specify a timeline for the committee to submit its report, limiting himself to saying that it would submit its report "at the earliest" and the motion (for removal) will remain pending until the report is received. Birla had received the notice of motion for removal of Justice Varma, signed by 146 LS members from both governing and opposition parties, on July 21. The signatories include BJP member Ravi Shankar Prasad and leader of opposition in the House Rahul Gandhi. In their notice, the MPs pointed to the adverse findings of CJ of Delhi HC D K Upadhyay and former CJI Sanjiv Khanna about recovery of cash and the attempts to erase evidence. Referring to the motion that proposes to present the matter to the President for the removal of Justice Varma, Birla read out its content that said an "unblemished character and financial/intellectual integrity are foundation of trust placed by the common man in judiciary". The motion shared the facts of the case that came out after independent probe of the circumstances related to recovery and removal of burnt cash from the official premises under possession of Justice Varma. It said the facts related to the case, which point towards corruption, merit proceedings and processes under Article 124 (read with Articles 217 and 218) of the Constitution of India. "Parliament must speak in one voice on this matter and send a clear message about its resolve for zero tolerance towards corruption in public life," it said. Birla said finding the motion in order, he accepted it and constituted the committee in accordance with sub-section 2 of Section 3 of Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
