Hold polls to local bodies within three months: Telangana HC to government, SEC
The judge also directed the State Election Commission (SEC) to convene the polls to local bodies within two months of receiving all the details pertaining to voters list and reservations.
The six sarpanches, whose terms expired towards the end of 2024, moved the High Court by way of writ petitions seeking a direction to hold elections to the village panchayats (rural local bodies) since their terms ended.
They contended that government appointed special officers in the place of sarpanches to perform duties relating to administrative and financial duties as their terms expired. This appointment of special officers was against the provisions of Panchayat Raj Act, they argued. They wanted the High Court either to extend their term or conduct the elections to local bodies immediately.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
39 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
India needs an ‘innocence movement' to address the miscarriage of justice
On July 21, the Bombay High Court acquitted 12 Muslim men of terror charges in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. Five of them were on death row and one had died in jail. These men had been arrested soon after the explosions in Mumbai local trains killed at least 180 people. The judgement represents a broader phenomenon where people accused in terror cases spend long years in prison before a court finally concludes that there was no real evidence connecting them to the alleged crime. From 2014 to 2022, according to the National Crime Records Bureau, 8,719 cases were registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, but there were only 222 convictions – a rate of around 2.5%. It is also unclear how many of these convictions will ultimately be overturned following stricter scrutiny by the appellate courts, just like in the train blasts case. Some have criticised the Bombay High Court judgement, contending that criminal procedure should not come in the way of national security. But a scrutiny of the judgement shows that it was not merely the outcome of sticking to legal formalities but based on an analysis of substantial problems with the investigation and prosecution in this case. One of the main grounds for the trial court to convict the 12 men was their confessional statements. But when he Bombay High Court examined the circumstances in which these confessions were made, it found that even basic requirements of criminal procedure and evidence law were not followed. The confession should have been in a language the accused could understand and read back to them. In addition, they should have been informed of their right to consult a lawyer. The High Court also took a detailed look at the allegations of torture made by the accused during the investigation that had not been properly scrutinised at the time. It concluded that the confessions had been extracted by subjecting the men to torture and so were not admissible. The court also pointed to glaring flaws in how the investigation and prosecution was conducted, such as deliberately suppressing Call Detail Records that could have exonerated the accused at the investigation stage itself. All of this leads to the very real possibility that the entire case against the 12 men was false or fabricated. "When we were accused, we had to find lawyers to defend us. When we are innocent, we still have to find lawyers to approach courts to compensate us. Does society owe us no responsibility?" Harsh Mander talks to two men Muslim men about their prolonged… — (@scroll_in) August 18, 2025 The disturbing pattern of Muslim men booked under terror charges being acquitted after spending years in prison has been well documented. In 2012, the Jamia Teachers' Solidarity Association documented 16 cases in Delhi in which men booked for terror offences were acquitted due to the absence of evidence. The Innocence Network India, an initiative by one of the men exonerated in the Mumbai train blasts case, has also documented similar cases. Both these reports have been cited by the Law Commission in its 277th Report, which recommended that a law be enacted to redress miscarriages of justice. The Law Commission report said that one of the 'gravest instances' of the miscarriage of justice was a terror prosecution that resulted in an acquittal after 23 years: Mohammad Nissarudin had been arrested in 1994 and charged in the 1993 Rajdhani train blast case under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, among other charges. The report envisages a Special Court being set up to determine claims of compensation for wrongful prosecution. It also strongly recommends recognising 'wrongful prosecution' as a standard for identifying cases of the miscarriage of justice in India (in contrast to wrongful conviction or wrongful incarceration), This would include police or prosecutorial misconduct resulting in malicious or negligent investigation or prosecution. Recent judgements, such as by the Supreme Court in the case of Kattavellai vs The State Of Tamil Nadu, as well as the Allahabad and Kerala High Courts, have sought to have the Law Commission report's recommendations implemented. Article 14(6) of the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights obligates India to enact a legislation to redress miscarriages of justice. In India, compensation has been recognised as both a private and public law remedy. In the case of public remedies, in cases of fundamental rights being violated, the High Courts and the Supreme Court have, through several judgements, read down the principle of sovereign immunity that would have protected the nation from being held legally liable. Courts have awarded compensation in cases of illegal detention and police misconduct. However, Indian courts have been reluctant to order compensation in cases involving alleged threats to national security. In 2016, when six Muslim men acquitted in the Akshardham blast case in Delhi approached the Supreme Court seeking compensation for their wrongful arrest, the court orally observed that entertaining such a petition would set a 'dangerous precedent'. The Supreme Court, in its order acquitting the accused, had pointed to several lapses in the investigation, including clear instances of the police fabricating evidence. Despite these observations, the spectre of national security superseded constitutional propriety. In stark contrast to this, two years later, the Supreme Court awarded Rs 50 lakh in compensation to Indian Space Research Organisation scientist Nambi Narayanan, who had been booked under the Official Secrets Act, among other offences. He was discharged when the Central Bureau of Investigation filed a closure report in the case. Narayanan was awarded compensation by the High Court of Kerala, the Supreme Court and the National Human Rights Commission. Adherence to procedure or the lack thereof during investigation and prosecution are crucial determinants of the fairness of a trial. Human rights advocate KG Kannabiran pointed out that the 'defence of a citizen as a person has always been procedure'. Procedural safeguards, such as magisterial oversight in the recording of self-incriminating statements or medical checkups while in police custody, potentially counter factors such as prejudice from impairing the integrity of a criminal trial. As a consequence, the Bombay High Court's findings on the procedural lapses in the train blasts investigation and the reasoning are critical to understanding the prosecution case itself. When these findings are read with the findings of courts in other terror cases, it reveals the faultlines of a criminal justice system that has long been overshadowed by similar stories of people incarcerated solely due to their identity or political ideology. Play As is evident from the high rate of acquittals under terror laws, these cases collapse once the prosecution's narrative is tested on the anvil of evidence and legal procedure. Despite a repeated pattern of cases in which innocent people are falsely charged with serious offences and spend long years in prison, innocence remains a matter of subjective interpretation. The consistent pattern in terror cases of trial court findings being reversed and the low conviction rates may be revealing but it is equally important to evaluate procedural fairness in these cases. Establishing factual innocence in western countries has relied primarily on forensic evidence but there are limitations to doing so within the Indian legal system. While DNA-based technology has not gained much ground in investigations, the government's previous attempts to do so have raised privacy concerns. However, awarding compensation should not depend only on proving malice in prosecution, something which the Law Commission report also cautions against. It also recognises negligence in investigations as amounting to wrongful prosecution. Compensation is also just one aspect of redressing the miscarriage of justice. Establishing the accountability of officials involved is just as important, as the Law Commission Report has recognised, as also the Supreme Court in the Nambi Narayanan judgement. There is an urgent need to rethink the innocence movement in India. Meaningful legislative reforms must be preceded by a wider public articulation and understanding of the various forms of miscarriage of justice. The Bombay High Court's judgement in the train blasts case is one of the rare examples of the basic principles of criminal justice being upheld over the presumptions of prosecutorial claims. The fact that a trial court had convicted the accused on the basis of the same evidence – and even awarded the death sentence to five of the accused – is a chilling reminder of what happens when the spectre of national security and suspicion is allowed to overpower the basic principles of judicial reasoning. It should be seen as a clarion call to initiate substantive reforms in the practices of investigation and prosecution, as well as the manner in which serious offences such as terrorism are formulated and imagined. Madhur Bharatiya is an Assistant Professor at Manipal Law School, Bangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education. Fawaz Shaheen is a lawyer and researcher based in Delhi.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Justice Sudarshan Reddy symbolises humanitarian values in judiciary
INDIA Bloc's decision to nominate former Supreme Court judge as its candidate for the post of Vice-President of India is indeed a commendable decision. From every perspective, Justice B Sudarshan Reddy is eminently qualified for this constitutional position. A judge deeply committed to the rule of law; he has dedicated his life to upholding constitutional values in the Indian democratic framework. Among the pillars of the Indian Constitution, the judiciary holds a critical role. Some judges have etched their names in history through their unwavering integrity, distinctive vision, and faith in democratic principles—Justice Sudarshan Reddy is one among them. Journey in legal education: Born in 1948, Justice Sudarshan Reddy pursued his legal education in Hyderabad and obtained his law degree from the Law College. Even during his student days, he displayed a strong commitment to the legal system, a deep understanding of constitutional values, and a dedication to social justice. He began his legal career in 1971, advocating on constitutional matters in both the High Courts and the Supreme Court. He gained recognition for his fearless arguments in public interest litigations and constitutional issues. In 1995, he was appointed a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, and later in 2007, he took charge as a judge of the Supreme Court. His judgments consistently reflected a reverence for the Constitution, a protection of people's rights, and a firm commitment to transparent governance. He also served as the Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), launching several initiatives to ensure access to justice for ordinary citizens. Judicial integrity and distance from politics: One of the most notable aspects of Justice Reddy's career is his strong belief in keeping the judiciary free from political influence. His landmark judgments continue to serve as guiding lights for legal professionals. His rulings in cases of national importance have had a profound impact on society. Vice-presidential nomination: In today's politically turbulent environment, nominating a figure like Justice Reddy symbolizes a stand for ethics and democratic values. The INDIA alliance's decision reflects their respect for judicial integrity and the dignity of constitutional offices. Justice Reddy is also to be commended for his commitment to democracy. His presence in the office of the Vice-President would enhance the stature of the Constitution and uphold moral values. This role would be a fitting tribute to a life devoted to justice. Landmark Salwa Judum judgment: Particularly worth discussing is his historic verdict in the Salwa Judum case, which stands as a milestone in Indian judicial history. This decision played a vital role in defending citizens' fundamental rights and upholding constitutional values. The Salwa Judum case: In the case Nandini Sundar & others vs State of Chhattisgarh, on July 5, 2011, Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy, along with Justice S.S. Nijjar, delivered a historic and significant judgment. This verdict deserves an entire book of its own (which the author had the privilege of translating and was published by Malupu Publications). The case dealt with the Chhattisgarh government arming tribal youth under the banner of Salwa Judum to combat Maoists. Key points of the verdict: 1. Salwa Judum declared unconstitutional: The Court held that the government's act of arming tribal civilians to fight Maoists was against the Constitution. 2. Arming civilians is unethical and dangerous: Appointing untrained villagers as Special Police Officers (SPOs) and giving them weapons was described as highly unethical and risky. 3. Violation of fundamental rights: The policy was deemed in violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution. 4. Immediate disbanding ordered: The Court ordered an immediate halt to Salwa Judum activities and withdrawal of arms given to civilians. 5. Citizens' safety must be ensured: The ruling stressed that the government must address the Maoist problem through legal and secure means, not by turning civilians into combatants. Through this landmark judgment, Justice Reddy sent a clear and powerful message to the government about the protection of citizens' rights. It was a significant step in defending human rights and constitutional values. This verdict stands as a shining example of 'Judicial humanism' in Indian legal history. Speech on the Constitution's preamble: Recently, in a public address related to a book titled 'Preamble of the Constitution' (authored by the writer), Justice Reddy criticized certain senior figures who argue that the Indian Constitution does not truly belong to India. He cited how, even on the day the Constituent Assembly drafted the Constitution, an editorial in the Organizer newspaper openly refused to recognize the tricolour flag and the Constitution. They declared that they would neither accept it nor follow it. Justice Reddy, referring to such intellectuals, highlighted Dr. Ambedkar's response, who proudly stated that if India's Constitution has been borrowed from multiple global sources, there was no shame in it. 'It is only wise to adopt good ideas, no matter where they come from.' Nehru's resolution and the idea of Union: Before the Constitution's enactment, Jawaharlal Nehru had drafted the Objectives Resolution, a precursor to the Preamble. He envisioned a Union of States, emphasizing greater powers to the States, with only essential powers retained by the Union government. This resolution was introduced on April 31, 1946, even before the Partition Plan. Justice Reddy questioned critics who belittle Nehru's contribution, asking whether they even understand his depth of knowledge—evident in his seminal work The Discovery of India, which explores the Upanishads, the Himalayas, the Ganges, the Aryans, and Mohenjo-Daro. He challenged those who pretend to be learned while unfairly blaming Nehru. Gandhi's wisdom: Quoting Gandhi, 'I keep all my windows open to let in fresh ideas from wherever they come,' Justice Reddy remarked how some people try to create artificial conflict between Ambedkar and Gandhi and then take satisfaction in such misrepresentations. Justice Reddy stands as a symbol of judicial ethics, human rights, and constitutional morality. His nomination to the Vice President's office reflects a broader commitment to preserving democratic and humanitarian values in India. His judicial career, particularly the Salwa Judum verdict, is a legacy that exemplifies how law can be a tool for justice and compassion in a democratic society. (The writer is a former CIC and Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
Karnataka HC Pushes State Govt To Act On Bike Taxi Ban, Citing Livelihood And Precedent
Last Updated: The High Court acknowledged the gravity of the situation, recognising that the ban has a direct impact on the earnings and sustenance of the operators In a major development that can bring back bike taxis on Bengaluru roads, the Karnataka High Court has issued a firm directive to the state government, urging it to decide its stance on formulating rules for these conveyances within four weeks. The court's action comes in response to a petition filed by bike taxi operators who are challenging the government's complete prohibition on their services. This legal battle highlights the growing tension between traditional transport regulations and the evolving gig economy, with the livelihoods of thousands of drivers hanging in the balance. During the hearing, the legal representatives for the bike taxi operators presented a compelling case against the ban. They underscored that a majority of Indian states—specifically, 13 of them—have already successfully formulated and implemented a policy framework for bike taxis. This fact, they argued, makes Karnataka's decision to enforce a blanket ban an outlier and an unjustified measure. The operators also pointed to the unique operational benefits of their services, noting that two-wheelers can easily navigate congested urban areas and reach locations inaccessible to cars and auto-rickshaws, thereby offering a crucial last-mile connectivity solution that doesn't significantly worsen traffic. The High Court acknowledged the gravity of the situation, recognising that the ban has a direct impact on the earnings and sustenance of the operators. Granting the government a period of four weeks to craft a clear policy, the court emphasised that a decision must be made, as 'there are lives at stake". In response, the state's advocate general, Shashikiran Shetty, assured the court that the government would comply with the directive and provide its official position within the given timeframe. The High Court has set a firm deadline of September 22 for the government to present its official stance. This directive marks a significant moment in the struggle for the formal recognition of bike taxis in Karnataka. It places the onus squarely on the government to either justify its complete ban or follow the lead of other states and create a regulatory framework. The outcome of this decision will not only impact the future of ride-sharing in the state but will also serve as a precedent for how governments approach the regulation of innovative, app-based services that are reshaping urban mobility and employment. view comments First Published: August 21, 2025, 04:46 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Loading comments...
