Nationwide 90-day ‘Mediation for the Nation' campaign to begin on July 1: SC
New Delhi: A 90-day nationwide mediation campaign to resolve pending disputes across courts—from district courts to high courts—will begin on July 1, the Supreme Court's mediation and conciliation project committee (MCPC) and the national legal services authority (NALSA) announced on Thursday. The Supreme Court's mediation and conciliation project committee (MCPC) and the national legal services authority (NALSA) announced the Mediation for the Nation campaign on Thursday. (ANI)
The campaign, Mediation for the Nation, will be organised under the guidance of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R. Gavai, patron of NALSA, along with NALSA executive chairman and senior Supreme Court judge, Justice Surya Kant.
A release issued by the Supreme Court said that the pan-India campaign is being organised with the objectives 'to settle suitable matters pending in the courts right from the taluka courts to the high courts of India and taking mediation to every nook and corner of the country as people's friendly mode of dispute resolution.'
'The Mediation for the Nation campaign is being launched across India to settle the pending cases and make people believe that mediation as a mechanism for dispute resolution is peoples' friendly, cost-effective and speedy with ability to save relationships, time and money,' the statement read.
The campaign, which will conclude on September 30, will deal with cases involving pending matrimonial disputes, accident claims, domestic violence, cheque bounce offences, commercial disputes, service matters, criminal compoundable cases, consumer disputes, debt recovery, property partition, eviction cases, land acquisition matters, and other suitable civil cases.
'The process of case identification, information to parties and referral to mediators will commence from July 1 and will continue till July 30. These matters will be transmitted to the concerned court and the total settled matters will be compiled by October 6 and sent to the MCPC,' the statement added.
The campaign will have sittings on all seven days of the week, with provision for hearings in offline, online, or hybrid mode. The taluka and district legal services authorities have been asked to facilitate online mediation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Planned parenthood funding faces axe after US Supreme Court bombshell ruling for states
A divided Supreme Court Thursday ruled that US states can block the country's biggest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood , from receiving Medicaid money for health services such as contraception and cancer screenings. The top court cleared the way for states to potentially cut off funding for Planned Parenthood, one of the country's largest abortion providers. The 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch was not directly about abortion, but it comes as a victory to Republicans seeking to defund the nation's largest abortion provider. Planned Parenthood is already barred from receiving federal money for abortion care. But this ruling, where three liberal justices on the top court dissented, would also allow states to cut off reimbursements for other medical services it provides to low-income Americans under the Medicaid program. "Section 1983 permits private plaintiffs to sue for violations of federal spending-power statutes only in 'atypical' situations … where the provision in question 'clear[ly]' and 'unambiguous[ly]' confers an individual 'right,'" Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion, ruling that the law in question in the present case "is not such a statute." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cara Membantu Orang Terkasih Menghadapi Limfoma Limfoma Pelajari Undo ALSO READ: Elon Musk's right-hand man quits: Who Is Tesla power player Omead Afshar? States allowed to remove planned parenthood The case stems from an executive order issued by South Carolina's Republican governor Henry McMaster in 2018 cutting off Medicaid funding to the two Planned Parenthood clinics in the state. The decision centers on a South Carolina case involving non-abortion services such as contraception, cancer screenings, and pregnancy testing. Live Events Republican leaders in South Carolina have objected to Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions. Public health care money generally can't be used to pay for abortions, but Medicaid patients go to Planned Parenthood for other needs in part because it can be tough to find a doctor who takes the publicly funded insurance, the organization has said. ALSO READ: DOGE's shock exit: Who is 'Big Balls', the 19 year-old ex-Neuralink prodigy to resign from Elon Musk's team? South Carolina's Republican governor says no taxpayer money should go the organization. The budget bill backed by President Donald Trump in Congress would also cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. That could force the closure of about 200 centers, most of them in states where abortion is legal, the organization has said. In 2018, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, a Republican, moved to cut off the organization's funding, arguing that no taxpayer dollars should go to Planned Parenthood. That action was initially blocked by a lawsuit from Julie Edwards, a patient who relies on the clinic for birth control due to a high-risk medical condition. The case also tested whether Medicaid patients have the legal right to sue over the choice of providers. While public health groups such as the American Cancer Society argued in court that lawsuits are often the only tool Medicaid recipients have to enforce their rights, South Carolina contended that patients should not be allowed to file such suits. The court's decision siding with the state could restrict patients' ability to challenge funding decisions, particularly in rural areas with limited access to care. ALSO READ: Zohran Mamdani at risk of losing US citizenship? Shocking twist as New York's mayoral race heats up Though Planned Parenthood receives only $90,000 annually in Medicaid funds from South Carolina—a small fraction of the state's total Medicaid budget—the ruling arrives as Congress considers a Trump-backed federal budget that would eliminate Medicaid funding to the group entirely. According to the organization, such cuts could force the closure of roughly 200 clinics, many in states where abortion remains legal. South Carolina currently bans abortion at around six weeks of pregnancy, following the Supreme Court's 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. (With AP inputs)
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Simultaneous election Bills do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution: former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud
Conducting free and fair elections is a basic feature of the Constitution, but the Constitution does not say that polls can be free and fair only if they are held non-simultaneously, former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has opined, according to sources, in his written submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee reviewing the proposed legislations aiming to introduce simultaneous elections. Justice Chandrachud, who served as the CJI from November 2022 to November 2024, will present his views to the panel on July 11. Justice J.S. Kehar, who served as CJI between January and August 2017, has also been invited by the panel, which is reviewing the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and The Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024. Editorial | Pie in the sky: On the idea of simultaneous elections Other CJIs highlighted problems Their predecessors who had met the panel earlier had pointed out several infirmities in the legislations, according to sources. In February, former CJI U.U. Lalit had told the panel that the Bill in its present form will not sustain a legal challenge in the Supreme Court. He opined that curtailing the tenure of some State assemblies to synchronise the polls will run counter to the basic structure of the Constitution, protected by the Kesavananda Bharati judgement. In March, another former CJI, Ranjan Gogoi, had warned that it would not be advisable to give the Election Commission unrestricted powers to decide the schedule of simultaneous polls, sources said. Voters are not 'naive' Justice Chandrachud, as per sources, has dismissed the contention that holding simultaneous elections would blur the distriction between different tiers of government, since voters may prioritise national issues over regional concerns if the election cycles are synchronised. This argument, he said, is based on the assumption that the Indian electorate is 'naive' and can be easily 'manipulated.' This contention, he has argued, flies in the face of the universal adult franchise which has been part of the Indian Constitution since its inception. He further contended in his written submission, as per sources, that 'staggered elections cannot be considered as a feature of the original Constitution, let alone an immutable feature.' He said, as per sources, that the legislation 'does not infringe' upon voters' rights to choose their elected representatives, since the legislation allows for midterm polls in case any State Assembly is dissolved, for various reasons. Smaller parties may be marginalised According to sources, Justice Chandrachud has also said that the concern that simultaneous elections could marginalise smaller parties or regional parties, due to the dominance of national parties with better resources, warrants legislative attention. But this problem, he said, exists independent and irrespective of the simultaneous elections legislations. The panel will also meet senior advocate E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan and former Union Minister M. Veerappa Moily on the same day as it hears from Justice Chandrachud.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
Rahul Gandhi's demand for digital voter list legally untenable: Experts
New Delhi: Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi's persistent demand that ECI provide machine-readable digital copies of the voter lists for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and subsequent Vidhan Sabha elections appears to be legally untenable, said constitutional experts and sources on Thursday. Election Commission of India insiders said an earlier Supreme Court verdict has already settled the matter in favour of the poll panel. They suggest that LoP Rahul Gandhi's repeated attempts to rake up the demand for 'machine-readable digital copies' are nothing more than a publicity stunt, as the apex court has already ruled against such a demand. Poll panel insiders shared excerpts of the Supreme Court's verdict on a writ petition filed in 2018 by Kamal Nath, the then president of the Madhya Pradesh Congress Committee, that said, 'The format in which the draft electoral roll is supplied to the petitioner fulfils the requirement contained in the Election Manual.' 'If the petitioner so wants, he can always convert it into searchable mode, which, of course, would require him to put his own efforts,' said the Supreme Court judgment. Insiders in the ECI have shed light on the apex court judgment in the backdrop of LoP Rahul Gandhi's allegation of 'fixed election' in Maharashtra last November and the Election Commission's invitation to him to sit for a doubt-clearing session, an offer which he has not accepted yet. 'While it is factually correct that Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition, has been demanding a machine-readable, digital copy of the electoral roll for the last seven months, such a demand by the Congress is not new,' said an official source. The demand, it seems, is part of a strategy by the Congress for well over eight years, a fact that appears to have been selectively obscured in the present representation, he said. 'The position historically maintained by the Indian National Congress is not tenable within the contours of the prevailing legal framework. It may be recalled that this very issue has already been agitated by the Congress before none other than the highest constitutional court of the country,' he said. An ECI insider cited the Supreme Court decision on the matter, which said: 'We find force in the submission of ECI. Clause 11.2.2.2 of the Election Manual uses the expression 'text mode'. The draft electoral roll in that mode, i.e. text mode, has been supplied to the petitioner. The clause nowhere says that the draft electoral roll has to be put up on the Chief Electoral Officer's website in a 'searchable PDF'.' 'Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim, as a right, that the draft electoral roll should be placed on the website in a 'searchable mode'. It has only to be in 'text mode' and it is so provided,' said the SC verdict, quoted by the expert.
