SC clarifies that Bombay HC to decide Gateway of India jetty case on merits
The clarification comes two days after the top court declined to stay the contentious project, observing on Tuesday that the jetty served a larger public interest. Instead of passing interim orders, the court urged the High Court to swiftly conclude hearings on pending petitions challenging the development.
The latest Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA) through advocates Ayush Anand and Prerak Choudhary. The association challenged the High Court's May 7 interim order allowing the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) to continue concrete piling work near the Radio Club area.
CHCRA contended that the construction poses a serious risk to the historic seaside heritage wall adjacent to the Gateway of India. The petition questioned whether the High Court had erred in failing to weigh the balance of convenience and the potential for irreversible damage to the site.
Earlier, on May 2, the High Court had recorded an assurance from the Advocate General of Maharashtra that the heritage wall would not be disturbed until June 20. The court scheduled the next hearing for June 16. However, piling activity reportedly began the very next day, on May 3, prompting CHCRA to seek an urgent stay, which the High Court declined on May 7.
Accusing the authorities of attempting to bypass the court's interim protections, CHCRA approached the Supreme Court, seeking an ex parte interim stay and a direction restraining the state government from initiating any coercive action against petitioners.
The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih rejected the challenge without commenting on the merits of the case. It noted that the observations made in a related petition filed earlier by Dr Laura D'Souza would apply equally in this matter.
Dr D'Souza's petition—filed through advocate Anagha S Desai of Desai Legal LLP—had similarly contested the High Court's refusal to stay the preparatory works, arguing that the project commenced without adequate public consultation and would adversely affect over 2.1 lakh residents in the Colaba area.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Protests in Bengal's Siliguri over SC order to relocate stray dogs in Delhi-NCR
Animal lovers in Siliguri staged a protest on Monday against the recent Supreme Court directive mandating that stray dogs in Delhi-NCR be shifted to shelter homes within eight weeks. The protests followed the Supreme Court's August 11 order directing authorities to ensure that all localities in Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram and Faridabad are free of stray dogs.(Vipin Kumar/ANI File Photo for representation) The demonstrators expressed strong opposition, calling the ruling "inhuman" and urging the court to reconsider its decision. Holding placards and raising slogans, protestors gathered in Siliguri and argued that stray dogs are "voiceless creatures," and deserve compassion rather than displacement. "Dogs are voiceless creatures. They haven't done anything wrong to anyone... You can spare criminals, so why can't you spare dogs? Shame on you... This verdict is inhuman... This verdict should be taken back," said Anisha Paul, one of the protestors. A day ago similar protest had erupted in Chennai as well. The protests in Chennai came days after similar demonstrations in the national capital. On Friday, Delhi Police registered four FIRs in connection with protests held by dog lovers without prior permission on August 11 and 12 in the New Delhi district. Police said the demonstrations in Delhi were organised despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), formerly Section 144 of the CrPC, which is currently in force as part of security measures ahead of Independence Day. According to officials, the protests turned unruly when police attempted to disperse the demonstrators, leading to clashes at some sites. "Those who refused to leave the protest sites despite repeated requests were detained. Legal action will be taken against all those found violating the law," the Delhi Police said. One viral clip from the protests shows the Station House Officer of Tughlaq Road police station being manhandled by protesters, while another video shows a confrontation between a woman sub-inspector and a female demonstrator inside a bus. The protests followed the Supreme Court's August 11 order directing authorities to ensure that all localities in Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram and Faridabad are free of stray dogs. The court had ruled that captured animals should not be released back onto the streets. On August 14, a three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria reserved its order on petitions seeking a stay on the directive. The bench said it would pass an interim order after hearing arguments from all sides. At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi government, said there was a "loud vocal minority" opposing the order, while a "silent suffering majority" supported action. "In a democracy, there is a vocal majority and one who silently suffers. We had seen videos of people eating chicken, eggs, etc., and then claiming to be animal lovers. It was an issue to be resolved. Children were dying... Sterilisation did not stop rabies; even if you immunised them, that did not stop mutilation of children," Mehta submitted. Citing World Health Organisation data, the Solicitor General said 37 lakh dog bites were reported in 2024, with 305 rabies deaths, most among children under 15 years of age. "Dogs do not have to be killed... they have to be separated. Parents cannot send children out to play. Nobody is an animal hater," he added.
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Why the argument that dog lovers are ‘elite' is flawed
A vocal minority of liberal elites are protecting dogs at the cost of the silent dog-oppressed majority. That's what the central government, through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, told the Supreme Court on August 14. Mehta was tweaking the Narendra Modi government's favourite line: that the majority supports sweeping and harsh moves, like bulldozer 'justice', and only the elite 'Khan Market Gang' is whining about human rights, civil liberties and due process. What is troubling is that many who oppose the arbitrary and illegal bulldozer demolitions as summary justice are singing the same tune as Mehta when it comes to the Supreme Court's order on removing stray dogs from Delhi's streets and housing them permanently in shelters. They say that elite 'dog lovers' are silent when it comes to atrocities against the poor and oppressed human beings. They share images of children savaged by dogs and declare that to oppose the Supreme Court order is to defend such savagery. The notion that it is 'elites' who care for street dogs is itself elitist, making working class people invisible. Why can't these dog-lovers take stray dogs into their own homes, asked Justice JB Pardiwala, one of the Supreme Court judges who issued the order. This begs the question: what is a 'stray dog' and what is a 'home'? A child in a slum tenement cannot keep her beloved dog in her 'home'. It seems she must suffer a traumatic separation as municipal authorities string her dog up and carry it off, for the common good. Just as she is expected to watch her home being bulldozed to the ground for the common good. Pardiwala's question echoes the one trolls ask me on social media when I oppose the drive to cleanse the National Capital Region of 'Bangladeshis': 'If you love infiltrators why don't you keep them in your home?' When one sees flood-affected residents on television screens and in online images each year, it is common to see someone holding a puppy or kitten above their head as they swim the flood waters to safety. These people can't carry much, they try to take the bare essentials only, but why do they bother to take an animal that is not of 'use', like a chicken or a goat? When the Covid-19 lockdown hit, pourakarmikas – municipal sanitation workers in Karnataka, all Dalit women – asked union leaders, 'Who will feed our dogs?' Many of them have a dog who accompanied them on their cleaning beat. Lawyers in Bengaluru who petitioned courts for powrakarmikas' needs during the lockdown, included the appeal for permission to feed the street dogs. In my DDA colony in South Delhi, there is a dog who came in as an injured puppy. He is huge now with a ferocious bark, but absurdly scared of all humans except Shyam Singh, one of the security guards at whose heels he can always be found. Singh worries: what if the civic body's van comes for Ludo when he's not on duty? A textile worker couple from Mumbai used their belated severance compensation to buy a small piece of land near the seashore in Ratnagiri, where they rent cheap rooms to tourists. A group of us, looking into protests against the Jaitapur nuclear plant nearby, were visiting the area. The woman who sat at the tea shop in front, turned to a big black dog next to her and said something that sounded like a request. He roused and shook his rather elderly self, and she gestured that we should follow him. He led us through the undergrowth all the way to the beach – something he clearly did for all guests. In a Delhi slum, which was recently facing the bulldozers, trade union marches through the industrial area would almost inevitably be joined by the community dogs. Likewise, there was a dog at Ramlila Maidan who would join every rally all the way to Jantar Mantar. The writers of the Mahabharata surely knew dogs – and their eagerness to join 'packs' of human beings on the move – very well: thus the lovely story of the dog who stayed with Yudhishthira on the dangerous road to heaven. The istriwala and the chaiwala are just as anguished by the Supreme Court diktat and terrified for their canine companions, as are those the honourable justices called 'dog lovers'. For them, a dog is a friend and companion, not an object that they bought from a breeder on a whim and might abandon when the novelty wears off. Across the class divide, people volunteer their time, money and care to get dogs vaccinated and sterilised – they do the government's job. The 'dog lovers are elite' discourse is also ominously familiar. When I argued against capital punishment for rape, television anchors demand to know why I support rapists who brutalised the young woman in Delhi in December 2012. When I protest against the custodial public execution of rape suspects by the Telangana police, they declare that liberal elite feminists defend rapists rather than their victims. When I protest the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act then and the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act now to persecute dissenters, I am branded an elite 'urban Naxal' who defends terrorists. And, of course, I am accused of liberal elitism when I protest a judicial order on dogs that ignores the Animal Birth Control rules and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals law, and threatens the civil liberties of ordinary citizens who display their civic conscience by implementing those rules. One points out that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi doesn't even have enough shelters for dogs to recuperate for five days after they are sterilised. How can they make room to house hundreds of dogs? One presents the wealth of evidence drawn from all over the world to prove that capital punishment, fake encounters and draconian anti-terror laws worsen the problems they claim to solve. And one demands that governments implement the measures that have a proven record of lowering rape-murders and violent crimes in general. Just as one points out that mass capture, relocation, culling of dogs has been tried many times in India and elsewhere in the world and is a proven failure. And that the World Health Organization's Expert Consultation on Rabies has consistently maintained that Animal Birth Control and vaccination programmes are the only proven, effective ways to curb rabies and manage stray dog populations. But such solutions do not give the satisfying dopamine rush that draconian quick-fixes provide. Note that in each of these cases, it is the advocates of draconian and violent 'solutions' that appeal to emotions of fear and vengeance, while activists and experts appeal to reason and rely on evidence. Restraint and reason usually lose popularity contests and are no match for moral panics fuelled by mass fear. It is ironic, then, to hear people say that it is liberal elites who want their emotional attachment to dogs to prevail over public health and safety. Justices Pardiwala and R Mahadevan used an intemperate language saturated with emotional vindictiveness. They have shown the way and shaped the script for public outrage and contempt against the law and rules. I worry: why has the new bench set up by the Chief Justice of India reserved its judgement on the petition for a stay on the previous order? A stay order preserves the status quo and is effective only when it is urgently implemented to prevent a potential injustice. By keeping its opinion on the stay to itself, the new bench is allowing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to keep picking up hundreds of dogs all over Delhi. Will the stable doors be closed only after the dogs are locked away and the injustice is done? Kavita Krishnan is a feminist and left activist, and author of Fearless Freedom (Penguin India, 2020).
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Bihar CEO publishes list of deleted electors from first SIR draft list after SC order
Bihar's CEO, Vinod Singh Gunjiyal, has released details of electors removed from draft electoral rolls following a Supreme Court directive. The list, available on the Bihar CEO website and at District Election Officer offices, includes those excluded from the August 1st draft roll due to reasons like death, permanent relocation, absence, or repeated entry. Electors can search by EPIC number. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Bihar's Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), Vinod Singh Gunjiyal , on Sunday released the details of all electors removed from the draft electoral rolls in the first phase of the controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in the state. The publication follows the Supreme Court's directive to provide the list of deletions along with reasons for to an official statement from the CEO, the list includes electors who were part of the 2025 electoral roll before the draft publication but were excluded in the draft roll published on August 1. The reasons for deletion include 'Deceased', 'Permanently Shifted', 'Absent', or 'Repeated Entry.'The complete list has been made available on the Bihar CEO website and at all District Election Officer offices. The statement further informed that voters can search their names using EPIC numbers, while booth-wise lists can be downloaded. Each entry provides the elector's name, EPIC number, father's name, and reason for deletion."In light of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.08.2025…, it is hereby notified that the list of such electors whose names were included in the Electoral Roll of the year 2025 (before the draft publication) but are not included in the draft roll published on 01.08.2025, along with reasons (Deceased/Permanently Shifted/Absent/Repeated Entry), has been published on the websites of the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, and all District Election Officers of the State of Bihar," read the statement.
