‘If you oppose transfer what will happen to others': Supreme Court refuses docs plea against transfer
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran noted no prejudice if the doctors were transferred out of Bengaluru.
"The cosmopolitan life of Bangalore is very alluring. The others areas of Karnataka are also developed. You are a privileged class of society. If you oppose transfer what will happen to others. We are not inclined to entertain the appeal," the Bench said.
The top court was hearing a plea filed by a group of doctors challenging the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and other Staff) Rules, 2025 which regulates the transfer of medical officers and other staff within the state's health and family welfare department.
The Karnataka High Court had prevously refused to stay the rules, saying the 2025 rules were enacted in exercise of state's power under Section 12 of Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and other Staff) 2011 Act, which would not specify any time between the publication of draft and finalisation of draft rules.
The petitioners questioned the rules, citing only a week's time to file objections to the draft rules.
They submitted the draft rules had no concept of Greater Bengaluru and incorporation of Greater Bengaluru in the final notification was impermissible.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Karnataka Assembly passes Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill to decentralise Bengaluru's civic body
The Karnataka Legislative Assembly on August 19 passed the Greater Bengaluru Governance (Amendment) Bill, 2025, tabled by Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar, who also oversees Bengaluru city development. The Karnataka Assembly, on August 19, passed the Greater Bengaluru Governance (Amendment) Bill, 2025, tabled by Deputy CM DK Shivakumar, who oversees city development.(PTI) Shivakumar assured the House that the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) would not interfere in the functioning of the five new municipal corporations to be created for the city. 'We are making a small amendment to provide clarity that the GBA will not interfere with the city corporations,' said Shivakumar. 'Mayors and corporation members will continue to enjoy full powers as per the Constitution," Shivakumar posted on X. He underlined that the 74th Constitutional Amendment, which grants urban local bodies financial independence, taxation powers, and guaranteed elections with reservations, remains fully protected. '#NammaBengaluru deserves governance that is clear, fair, and accountable. This Bill is a step in that direction,' he wrote. Also Read: How will Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill impact the real estate sector in the IT capital? What is the bill about? Greater Bengaluru Governance (Amendment) Bill, 2025 seeks to divide the city's municipal corporation, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), into several smaller municipal corporations, introducing a more decentralised and participatory model of urban governance. It also provides for the creation of a Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA), envisioned as a supervisory body to coordinate development and ensure integrated planning across the metropolitan region. The five corporations - Central, North, East, West, and South - will be carved out of the former municipal body and vary in size and population. This restructuring follows the formation of the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) on May 15, 2025, replacing BBMP as the city's official governing body under the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024. Also Read: Greater Bengaluru Authority replaces BBMP as city's main civic agency: Here's what it means How will the amendment impact Bengaluru's infrastructure? The boundaries of the proposed Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) are yet to be finalised, but it is expected to span nearly 1,000 sq km, up from BBMP's current 700 sq km. The expansion is likely to bring adjoining villages and peripheral areas into the city's metropolitan fold. For the first time, major civic and infrastructure agencies, including the Bengaluru Development Authority, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, and Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation, are set to be brought under a single umbrella. Urban experts say this integrated framework is designed to deliver more cohesive planning and better coordination across departments, addressing Bengaluru's long-standing challenge of fragmented governance. "Such a redefinition will naturally impact real estate. Areas surrounding Bengaluru will likely see a rise in land prices as they begin to be officially identified as part of the city. This will create a ripple effect, especially in peri-urban areas, where land values are already high in anticipation," said Srinivas Alavilli, a citizen activist previously told He said the bill may also pave the way for developing new commercial hubs, including business parks in previously underdeveloped zones. 'Today, Bengaluru's economic activity is concentrated in a few zones: Electronic City, Whitefield, ORR, Hebbal, CBD, and industrial areas like Bommasandra and Peenya. With decentralized governance and economic planning under the proposed GBA, we could see more balanced growth, in other parts of our city given the expansion of metro and suburban train networks in the next 5 years, we are likely to see emergence of new areas based on quality of life and last mile connectivity offered by the new city corporations."
Mint
27 minutes ago
- Mint
Centre to move constitutional amendment about UTs in Lok Sabha tomorrow, says report. Is JK statehood on cards?
Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led Union government is likely to introduce the J&K Reorganisation Constitutional Amendment in Lok Sabha on Wednesday, 20 August. Union Home Minister Amit Shah has written to the secretary-general of Lok Sabha Utpal Kumar Singh notifying him that he intends to move a Union Territory Administration (Amendment) Bill, 2025, in the ongoing monsoon session of the parliament, according to a report in The Tribune. Jammu and Kashmir's statehood was annulled on 5 August 2019 after Article 370 was abrogated. The erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into two Union Territories – J&K and Ladakh. The reports said Shah has also marked the letter for the Union minister of parliamentary affairs, Kiren Rijiju, the legislative department of the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Lok Sabha secretariat, and the legislative office of the Lok Sabha. Shah also wrote to the Lok Sabha's secretary-general to move an associated 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025. The Supreme Court on 14 August sought the central government's response in 8 weeks on Jammu and Kashmir's statehood petition. It said the situation in J&K cannot be overlooked while emphasising the recent Pahalgam terrorist attack, legal news website Bar and Bench reported. The situation in J&K cannot be overlooked. A Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the petition filed by college teacher Zahoor Ahmed Bhat and activist Khurshid Ahmad Malik. The SC observed that the ground situation must be considered when restoring statehood. According to Bar and Bench, CJI BR Gavai said, 'You cannot ignore what happened in Pahalgam. "
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
27 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC questions Kerala, TN on their objection to President seeking views
The Supreme Court has raised questions to the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu regarding their preliminary objection to the President of India seeking views from the apex court. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice BR Gavai directed the counsels of both states to clarify their objection to the maintainability of the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143. The reference concerns a ruling by the Supreme Court that set timelines for Governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by the legislature. In the April 8 judgment, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan invoked special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to fix deadlines for the President and Governors to act on state bills. The court clarified that it was offering only a view on the law, not a decision in the Tamil Nadu case. 'We will be expressing just a view of the law, not on the decision in the Tamil Nadu case (April 8),' the CJI added. Justice Surya Kant stated that the court is in an advisory, not appellate, jurisdiction. 'In Article 143, the court can render an opinion that a certain judgment does not lay down correct law, but it will not overrule the judgment,' Justice Surya Kant noted. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, on Tuesday, informed a Constitution Bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the powers of the Governor and President to give assent to bills, are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. He argued that the Tamil Nadu judgment, which fixes timelines for these authorities, dilutes their power to reject bills that do not comply with the Constitution. 'To say the basic structure is only informed by a democratic principle confined to the legislature is not an advisable interpretation of the basic structure doctrine. Articles 200 and 201 are also part of the basic structure, where the President and the Governor play an important role in ensuring that if a bill does not comply with the Constitution, they have the power to stop it,' Venkataramani said. Following the April 8 judgment, the President invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution, seeking the Supreme Court's opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. On May 13, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court regarding various aspects of law, including the scope of powers under Article 142. In response, Kerala and Tamil Nadu filed applications questioning the maintainability of the reference. They urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the reference, claiming it was an attempt by the Centre to indirectly overrule binding judgments without disclosure. Meanwhile, the Central government supported the reference, asserting that the powers of Governors and the President to act on bills cannot be constrained by judicial timelines. The hearing will continue on Wednesday.
