Rajasthan HC fines two officials for ignoring lake survey orders
Hearing a suo moto writ petition pending since 2016, the division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma on Friday took serious note of continued non-compliance and observed that no sincere effort had been made by the state authorities apart from filing 'half-baked affidavits'.
Also Read: Panchkula: Shoddy probe leads to acquittal in railway theft case
In its earlier order dated November 18, 2024, the high court had granted three months to complete the survey of lakes across all districts. The order had underlined that while nine lakes had been notified so far, the real task was to conduct a district-wise survey to identify other lakes that must be notified under the 2015 Act. The bench had then specifically directed, 'Let the exercise towards completion of survey be undertaken and all endeavor be made to complete the process of survey within a period of three months.'
The order also recorded that the State Level Committee had held a series of meetings with district authorities and required financial assistance from the government to carry out the survey. A phased release of funds was also ordered by the court.
However, despite the time given, no compliance affidavit was filed and no application seeking extension was submitted prompting the court to impose costs while observing, 'This must be made known to the State authorities that the Court's order must be complied within the stipulated time and non-compliance of the Court's orders shall be viewed very seriously in the matter like the present one which pertains to public interest.'
The court said it saw no justification for the non-compliance.
'It is clear on a glance at the order dated November 18, 2024, that the survey was already ongoing and some meetings were held by the State Level Committee for obtaining survey reports and therefore this Court directed the respondents to complete the survey within three months' time.'
The additional advocate general informed the court that the survey was still ongoing, which the bench found unsatisfactory.
The court directed both officials to deposit the ₹50,000 each within two weeks with the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court. The amount will be drawn in favour of Government Blind School, Mata ka Than, Jodhpur, and Government Blind School, Jaipur.
The matter is now listed for further hearing on May 23, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
Rahul Gandhi claims threat to life during Savarkar defamation case hearing, urges state for 'preventive protection'
Synopsis Rahul Gandhi has expressed concerns about his safety in a Pune court, citing recent political conflicts and the complainant's lineage in a defamation case filed by Satyaki Savarkar. Gandhi requested the court to acknowledge these safety concerns and sought state protection. PTI Rahul Gandhi Congress leader and Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday informed a Pune Court that he faces threat to life in view of his recent political battles and the lineage of complainant Satyaki Savarkar in the defamation case against him. He urged the special MP/MLA court, which is hearing a defamation case, to take judicial notice of what he has described as 'grave apprehensions' to his safety and to the fairness of proceedings in the case, reported Bar and Bench. He also sought "preventive protection" by State. The defamation case against the LoP was filed by Satyaki Savarkar after the former made a speech in London in March 2023, referring to an incident in Savarkar's writings where Savarkar and others purportedly assaulted a Muslim man and found it 'pleasurable.' Satyaki Savarkar disputed the existence of such an account in Savarkar's published works and moved the Court contending the remarks were false, misleading and defamatory. He has sought Gandhi's conviction under Section 500 IPC and compensation under Section 357 CrPC. The Court will next hear the matter on September 10.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Rahul Gandhi claims threat to life during Savarkar defamation case hearing, urges state for 'preventive protection'
Congress leader and Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday informed a Pune Court that he faces threat to life in view of his recent political battles and the lineage of complainant Satyaki Savarkar in the defamation case against him. He urged the special MP/MLA court, which is hearing a defamation case, to take judicial notice of what he has described as 'grave apprehensions' to his safety and to the fairness of proceedings in the case, reported Bar and Bench. Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 4 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 3 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals By Vaibhav Sisinity View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 2 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass Batch-1 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program He also sought " preventive protection " by State. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The defamation case against the LoP was filed by Satyaki Savarkar after the former made a speech in London in March 2023, referring to an incident in Savarkar's writings where Savarkar and others purportedly assaulted a Muslim man and found it 'pleasurable.' Satyaki Savarkar disputed the existence of such an account in Savarkar's published works and moved the Court contending the remarks were false, misleading and defamatory. He has sought Gandhi's conviction under Section 500 IPC and compensation under Section 357 CrPC. The Court will next hear the matter on September 10.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
7 hours ago
- Business Standard
Aadhaar, PAN, Voter ID not proof of citizenship: Bombay HC ruling decoded
The Bombay High Court on 12 August ruled that owning an Aadhaar card, PAN card, voter ID, or even a passport is not enough to prove you are an Indian citizen. This decision came while rejecting the bail plea of an alleged Bangladeshi man accused of illegally entering India and obtaining forged documents. The bench emphasised that under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual. The accused had claimed to be Indian but failed to produce valid citizenship documents such as a passport or a certificate issued under Indian law. The ruling reinforces that possession of commonly used identity documents does not override the legal requirement to prove nationality. What the Case Was About The man in question, Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar, was arrested on charges of: Illegal entry into India Possessing forged Indian identity documents Potential national security violations During the investigation, authorities allegedly found Bangladeshi birth certificates on his phone. While he claimed Indian citizenship and produced Aadhaar, PAN, and voter ID, the court found these insufficient as proof of nationality. Justice Amit Borkar, after reviewing the evidence, observed that citizenship claims must be tested strictly under the Citizenship Act and that the burden of proof lies with the accused when credible evidence raises doubts about nationality. 'The allegations in this case are not small. It is not just about staying in India without permission or overstaying a visa. It is about making and using fake and forged identity documents like Aadhaar card, PAN card, and Voter ID, with the aim of pretending to be an Indian citizen.' "The Bombay High Court rejected regular bail for the applicant, booked under BNS u/s 335, 336(3), 340/3(5), Passport Act u/s 3(a), 6(a) and Foreigners Order u/s 3(1), 3(2), 14, after forensic extraction from his phone disclosed Bangladeshi birth certificates (his and his mother's) and CDR/IPDR logs revealed persistent cross-border calls to Bangladesh-linked numbers. Invoking section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Court held that this credible prosecution evidence shifts the burden to the applicant to prove Indian citizenship; until such proof is furnished, mere possession of unverified Aadhaar, PAN or Voter ID cards whose authenticity is still under UIDAI scrutiny cannot establish nationality or justify release," said Rahul Sundaram, Partner, IndiaLaw LLP. What the Court Said Justice Amit Borkar, delivering the order, made three key points: Identification ≠ Citizenship Aadhaar, PAN, voter ID, and passports are meant to verify identity for services and voting, not to establish nationality. Citizenship Must Be Proven Under the Citizenship Act, 1955 To prove you are an Indian citizen, you must show eligibility through: Birth in India before a certain cut-off date Indian parentage Registration or naturalisation as per law "Under Indian law, documents like Aadhaar, PAN, or Voter ID establish identity or residence—not citizenship—and the Bombay High Court has rightly held that citizenship must be proved strictly in accordance with the Citizenship Act, 1955 and recognised legal evidence," said Athira Sajan, Associate Partner, King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates and Attorneys. Burden of Proof Is on the Individual Under the Foreigners Act, if the state presents credible evidence that raises doubt about a person's citizenship, it is the individual's responsibility to prove they are Indian. The Laws Involved Citizenship Act, 1955 — Defines how citizenship is acquired and the documents needed to prove it. Foreigners Act, 1946 (Section 9) — Places the burden of proof on the person suspected of being a foreign national. Representation of the People Act — Governs voter ID issuance, which is not linked to a citizenship verification process as rigorous as the Citizenship Act. Why Your Aadhaar or Voter ID May Not Be Enough Aadhaar is issued based on proof of identity and residence — not nationality. PAN card is for tax purposes — foreign nationals can also obtain one. Voter ID is linked to electoral rolls — errors or fraudulent enrolment can occur. Passport requires some citizenship verification but can be obtained fraudulently. In short: These documents are valid for day-to-day identification but are not decisive proof of nationality in a court of law. Implications of the Ruling Legal Scrutiny in Citizenship Disputes If your citizenship is challenged, you'll need documentary evidence like birth certificates, parentage records, or official nationality certificates. Stricter Checks for Border Cases
