Plea in SC seeks withdrawal of QR code mandate for eatery owners on Kanwar Yatra Route
The application filed by Apoorvanand Jha before the top court stated that the direction of the UP and Uttarakhand governments is contrary to the SC's order from last year, which held that sellers on the Kanwar Yatra route can't be forced to disclose their identities.
"Direct the Respondent States (UP, Uttarakhand govts) to immediately withdraw all QR code-based identification mandates or any other mechanisms that result in disclosure of owner identity or religious profiling of vendors," said the application, a copy accessed by TNIE.
It sought that further actions be taken under (whether oral, written or digital, including via QR codes), facilitating public disclosure of ownership/employee identity of food vendors along Kanwar Yatra routes in the States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, pending final adjudication of the present writ petition.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
Private chat recorded by spouse admissible as evidence, says Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: on Monday held that a private conversation between spouses, secretly recorded by one of them, is admissible as evidence in a matrimonial dispute and would not amount to breach of . Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Enumerating Section 122 of the Evidence Act, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said it dealt with the rule of privilege protecting disclosure of all communications between husband and wife during marriage except in litigation between them. It said, "Under section 122, privileged communication between spouses is protected in the context of fostering intimate relationship. However, the exception under Section 122 has to be construed in light of right to a fair trial which is also an aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution." "When we weigh the respective rights of the parties in a trial within the parameters of Section 122 of the Evidence Act, we do not think that there is any breach of right to privacy in the instant case. In fact, Section 122 does not recognise such a right at all. On the other hand, the section carves out an exception to right to privacy between spouses, and therefore, cannot be applied horizontally at all," the bench said. In this regard, "we reiterate that as per procedure established by law, Section 122 does not touch upon the aspect of right to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution, let alone invade upon such right. The reason is because Section 122 recognises the right to a fair trial, right to produce relevant evidence and a right to prove one's case against a spouse so as to avail the relief sought for by a party," it said. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The section talks about communications during marriage and states that "no person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other. " SC made the observations on man's plea to bring privileged communication as evidence before a family court in matrimonial dispute. SC also said, "Now, in today's day and age, when the technological advancement has made it easier to record and recreate moments of past and present for reference in future, then to say that such better forms of evidence and material would not be admissible on the ground of they being in violation of the right to privacy would amount to defeating the very object of the Evidence Act. That was the reason for Parliament to amend the Evidence Act by incorporating Section 65B which specifically deals with electronic evidence."
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Education Department layoffs: Why Supreme Court's decision is ‘willfully blind' and ‘naive', judges explain
A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed President Donald Trump to execute his plan to dismantle the Education Department back on track and lay off nearly 1,400 employees. Three liberal judges, in their dissent, slammed the decision, saying it was 'naive' and 'willfully blind'. The decision pauses the order by Boston's Judge Myong Joun, who issued a preliminary injunction reversing the layoffs and calling into question the broader plan. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to execute mass layoffs in the Education Department(REUTERS) The layoffs 'will likely cripple the department', Joun wrote. While the majority did not explain its decision to back Trump, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan were quick to publish their dissent. 'When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary's duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,' Sotomayor wrote. 'It hands the Executive the power to repeal statutes by firing all those necessary to carry them out,' the three justices further added. 'The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive, but either way the threat to our Constitution's separation of powers is grave." Meanwhile, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said it's a 'shame' it took the Supreme Court's intervention to let Trump's plan move ahead. 'Today, the Supreme Court again confirmed the obvious: the President of the United States, as the head of the Executive Branch, has the ultimate authority to make decisions about staffing levels, administrative organization, and day-to-day operations of federal agencies,' McMahon said in a statement. Earlier on Monday, over 20 states sued the administration over billions of dollars in frozen education funding for after-school care, summer programs and more. Education Department employees who were targeted by the layoffs have been on paid leave since March, according to a union that represents some of the agency's staff. Joun's order had prevented the department from fully terminating them, though none had been allowed to return to work, according to the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252. Without Joun's order, the workers would have been terminated in early June. The Education Department had said earlier in June that it was 'actively assessing how to reintegrate' the employees. A department email asked them to share whether they had gained other employment, saying the request was meant to 'support a smooth and informed return to duty.' The current case involves two consolidated lawsuits that said Trump's plan amounted to an illegal closure of the Education Department. One suit was filed by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts along with the American Federation of Teachers and other education groups. The other legal action was filed by a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general. The suits argued that layoffs left the department unable to carry out responsibilities required by Congress, including duties to support special education, distribute financial aid and enforce civil rights laws. (With AP inputs)
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
In 2 cases, Supreme Court says right to free speech being abused online
NEW DELHI: In two different cases, regarding "objectionable" posts on social media and sharing of a cartoon of PM Modi and RSS workers, on Monday expressed concern over abuse of fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression by citizens, particularly on social media. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Such posts, it said, were causing hatred and increase in litigation and clogging of the criminal justice system. It asked people to show restraint on the medium. SC: Why can't citizens regulate themselves? Hearing a plea of Wazahat Khan for clubbing of cases registered against him in different states for his objectionable posts against a Hindu deity on X, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan said citizens must know the value of fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. In another case filed by cartoonist Hemant Malviya, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar strongly objected to objectionable cartoons of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and RSS workers on social media and said that right of freedom of speech and expression was being "abused". "If they want to enjoy fundamental right of speech and expression, it should be with the reasonable restrictions also. Apart from that, there must be self-restraint and regulation also, to enjoy the valuable freedom, not like this abuse. Article 19 is against the State, what you call it - verticality. What about horizontality?" the bench observed in Khan's case. The court said Khan should have shown restraint in his remarks. It was Khan's complaint that had led to the arrest of influencer Sharmistha Panoli, whom he accused of posting derogatory content on Islam in relation to a post on Operation Sindoor. "One of the fundamental duties is to uphold unity and integrity of the country. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now So that is being violated. See all these divisive tendencies, at least on social media, must be curbed. But to what extent can the State curb? Instead, why can't the citizens themselves regulate themselves? Citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and expression. If they don't, then the State will step in and who wants the state to step in? Nobody wants the state to step in," the bench said. To Malviya who sought anticipatory bail, the bench posed the question, "Why do you do all this?" Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for him, said that she was not justifying the social media post which may be "unpalatable and in poor taste" but raised the question whether it could be an offence. The bench, while posting the case for Tuesday said, "This is definitely the case that the freedom of speech and expression is being abused." Malviya is challenging a Madhya Pradesh high court order of July 3 refusing to grant him anticipatory bail. Malviya was booked in Indore in May on a complaint filed by lawyer and RSS worker Vinay Joshi.
