Rush Hour: SC halts action against owners of old vehicles, panel formed in Justice Varma case & more
The Supreme Court has said that no coercive action should be taken against the owners of diesel vehicles older than 10 years and of petrol vehicles older than 15 years in Delhi-National Capital Region. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai passed the interim order in response to a review petition filed by the Delhi government.
The Delhi government has sought a review of a Supreme Court verdict from 2018 that had ordered the ban. The curbs, however, took effect on July 1.
Under the directive, the end-of-life vehicles would not be allowed to refuel. To enforce the ban, automatic number plate recognition cameras were installed at petrol pumps.
The Delhi government on Tuesday argued that the ban on old vehicles was arbitrary and was no longer needed due to stricter monitoring of emissions and increased pollution testing. Read more.
Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has set up a committee to investigate allegations against High Court judge Yashwant Varma in the unaccounted cash row. The three-member inquiry panel will comprise Supreme Court judge Arvind Kumar, Chief Justice of the Madras High Court Maninder Mohan Srivastava and BV Acharya, a senior advocate in the Karnataka High Court.
The panel will submit its report 'as early as possible', Birla told the Lower House of Parliament.
The proposal to impeach Varma will remain pending till the committee submits its report.
Unaccounted cash was allegedly recovered at Varma's official residence in Delhi when emergency services responded to a fire there on March 14. The judge said that he was in Bhopal when the cash was discovered and claimed that it did not belong to him or his family. Read more.
Congress MP Rahul Gandhi said that the Supreme Court's order to relocate all stray dogs from Delhi, Noida and Gurugram was a 'step back from decades of humane, science-backed policy'. He said that such blanket removals 'are cruel, shortsighted and strip us of compassion'.
On Monday, the court directed the Delhi government and the municipal corporations of Noida and Gurugram to capture and shift street dogs to shelters, saying immediate action was needed to address the situation.
Even as Gandhi criticised the Supreme Court order, his party colleague P Chidambaram said that the directions should be implemented across the country.
In Delhi, the Bharatiya Janata Party government has supported the directive, with Chief Minister Rekha Gupta stating that it would be carried out in a systematic manner. However, BJP leader and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi has argued that the order is impractical. Read more.
Several persons at a pastor's home were injured in Bihar's Katihar district after alleged members of the Hindutva group Bajrang Dal attacked them during a prayer. The Bajrang Dal claimed they had information about religious conversions being conducted at the gathering, with their district coordinator saying they had arrived to find "efforts...to entice and persuade 200 to 250 innocent Hindus."
However, a witness has said that 30-40 men, some carrying weapons, attacked the prayer meeting of around 45 individuals.
A complaint was filed at the Sahayak police station against the violence.
Shikhar Choudhary, the Katihar superintendent of police: 'We are identifying those involved in the assault, and an FIR has been lodged against them for further action.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
24 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
How Opposition's V-P pick once pulled up UPA govt over graft claims
In 2011, when the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government was dealing with a raft of allegations related to corruption, it was pulled up by the Supreme Court for 'sleeping' on the issue of black money, and ordered to set up a special investigation team. Vice-Presidential Candidate & former Supreme Court Judge B Sudershan Reddy being Welcomed by MPs of Opposition Parties at Delhi airport in New Delhi on Tuesday. (HT PHOTO) One of the judges who passed that order, B Sudershan Reddy, 79, was on Tuesday named by the INDIA bloc of Opposition parties, in which the Congress is the largest constituent (by MPs), as its vice presidential candidate. That was one of the last orders of Reddy in the Supreme Court, where he was a judge between 2007 and 2011. An expert on the Constitution –– he has written a book on the Preamble –– and an admirer of both BR Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru, Reddy was born in an agricultural family on July 8, 1946 at Akula Mylaram village of Kandukur block in Ranga Reddy district of Telangana (then part of the princely state of Hyderabad). Reddy graduated in law from Osmania University in Hyderabad in 1971. He enrolled as an advocate and worked under senior advocate K Pratap Reddy. Having argued various cases in city civil courts in Hyderabad and later in the then combined high court of Andhra Pradesh, Reddy later became the government pleader on August 8, 1988 in the high court, arguing cases pertaining to the revenue department. He continued in the post till January 8, 1990. Reddy was elected as president of Andhra Pradesh high court advocates' association in 1993-94. He was elevated as the additional judge of the high court on May 2, 1995. And he was appointed as chief justice for Gauhati high court on December 5, 2005. On January 12, 2007, he was elevated to the Supreme Court of India; he retired on July 8, 2011. Among his notable verdicts was one declaring Salwa Judum, a local militia propped up by the state government in Chhattisgarh to fight Maoists, as anti-constitutional. Along with justice SS Nijjar, he said arming civilians was 'unethical and dangerous' and was violative of Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life). After his retirement, he was appointed as the first Lokayukta of Goa in March 2013. He resigned from the post on personal grounds in October 2013. A staunch supporter of formation of separate Telangana, Reddy was an active participant in various movements in support of bifurcation. He also raised his voice in support of bifurcation of the combined Andhra Pradesh high court. Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu, former Central Information Commissioner, who has known Reddy for over three decades by virtue of his legal profession, having worked as a professor at NALSAR University of Law, said that as a judge, Reddy was deeply committed to the rule of law and he has dedicated his life to upholding constitutional values in the Indian democratic framework. 'Some judges have etched their names in history through their unwavering integrity, distinctive vision, and faith in democratic principles — justice B Sudarshan Reddy is one among them.'
Hindustan Times
24 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Presidential reference not a review of Tamil Nadu order: Supreme Court
The judgment in the Tamil Nadu vs Governor case holds no matter what the Supreme Court's response is to the presidential reference on the powers of governors and the President in granting assent to state bills, according to the constitution bench of the Supreme Court, which is considering the reference. The Supreme Court's clarification came during an exchange with senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who argued on behalf of the state of Tamil Nadu that the April 8 verdict by a two-judge bench and the point of law had become inseparably fused, such that any contrary view in the reference would unsettle the decision itself. (HT) The bench made it clear on Tuesday that it was exercising only its advisory role and not sitting in appeal over the judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which mandated fixed timelines for Governors and the President to sign off on state bills. The five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, further emphasised that the presidential reference under Article 143 is 'purely advisory' in nature, does not bind any authority, and it is ultimately for the President to decide whether to accept the court's opinion. 'We will be expressing just a view of law, not revisiting the decision in the Tamil Nadu case,' said the bench, also comprising justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar. It stressed that under Article 143 the court may clarify whether a judgment lays down the correct law but cannot overrule it. This clarification came during an exchange with senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who argued on behalf of the state of Tamil Nadu that the April 8 verdict by a two-judge bench and the point of law had become inseparably fused, such that any contrary view in the reference would unsettle the decision itself. The bench, however, responded: 'If we accept your views, once a judgment is delivered, everything should stop at that? This is purely advisory and there is nothing mandatory. This has been settled by previous benches as well… We are not deciding the correctness of the Tamil Nadu judgment. We are only going to answer the reference. It is only an opinion and therefore, the question of it having a binding effect on a judgment does not arise.' The May 13-reference followed the April 8 judgment, which for the first time prescribed a deadline of three months for the president to decide on a bill referred by a governor, and held that a governor must act 'forthwith' or within one month on re-enacted bills. If a governor withholds assent or reserves a bill for the president's consideration, the judgment held, this must be done within three months of its presentation. In that case, which involved 10 pending bills from Tamil Nadu, the court went so far as to invoke Article 142 to hold that the governor's inaction was 'illegal' and the bills would be deemed to have received assent. The reference asked the court to clarify whether the president and governors must follow judicially prescribed timelines despite the Constitution being silent on such timeframes, and whether such executive actions are justiciable before the courts prior to a bill becoming law. The first day of the hearing in the reference began with senior advocates KK Venugopal, representing Kerala, and Singhvi, for Tamil Nadu, raising preliminary objections to the maintainability of the reference. They argued that the April 8 judgment had already settled the issues, making it impermissible for the advisory jurisdiction to reopen the matter. 'Supreme Court is being asked to sit on judgments already decided… this is wholly outside Article 143,' it was submitted. The bench, however, questioned whether issues of such constitutional significance ought to have been decided by a larger bench in the first place. It also appeared to take a favourable view on the very maintainability of the reference, observing that there was 'nothing wrong' in the President seeking the court's opinion on such a matter. Responding to preliminary objections by Kerala and Tamil Nadu, the bench remarked: 'When the Hon'ble President is seeking views of this Court, what is wrong in that? Are you really serious about these objections? Do you not think that this objection is hyper-technical? ' Attorney General R Venkataramani countered the preliminary objections, underscoring that the President is the 'master of Article 143' and can legitimately seek guidance where conflicting judgments have created constitutional uncertainty. 'There is no threshold or limitation that the court cannot examine previous rulings. Given the importance of Article 143, the court can even depart from earlier precedents,' he submitted. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, reinforced this view, pointing out that the restriction on revisiting past rulings in a reference was self-imposed and not jurisdictional, citing the 2G Reference as authority for this position. Mehta added that the present reference raised larger questions of constitutional harmony between the executive and the judiciary. 'This is for the first time that the President has felt functional disharmony arises because of the absence of an authoritative pronouncement. There is a constitutional problem when timelines are fixed for another constitutional authority to act,' he argued. After hearing preliminary objections, the bench heard the AG on the merits of the reference, which raises 14 questions on the scope of the President's and governors' powers in dealing with state legislation. After Venkataramani concluded his submissions, SG Mehta commenced his arguments and will continue on Wednesday. The bench has set aside nine days of hearings, starting from August 19 and spreading into September, to conclude the hearing in the reference. In detailed written submissions for the Union government, SG Mehta cautioned the Supreme Court that imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on state bills would amount to one organ assuming powers not vested in it, upsetting the delicate separation of powers and leading to a 'constitutional disorder'. The Centre has further argued that the apex court cannot, even under its extraordinary powers in Article 142, amend the Constitution or defeat the intent of its framers by creating procedural mandates where none exist in the constitutional text. According to SG Mehta, while there may be 'limited issues in the operationalisation' of the assent procedure, these cannot justify 'relegating the high position of the gubernatorial office to a subservient one'.
The Hindu
24 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Assam job panel to drop controversial question on Manipur crisis
GUWAHATI The Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) has decided to 'drop/delete/cancel' a Manipur-related controversial question in an examination conducted on August 8 to recruit agricultural development officers. In a letter to APSC Chairperson Debaraj Upadhaya on August 17, the Meitei Heritage Society (MHS) stated that question no 95 in the exam paper was malicious, disturbing, and misleading. The question was on the conflict between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities and the role of Arambai Tenggol and Meitei Leepun, two radical groups. 'Such a one-sided portrayal is unbecoming of a Public Service Commission, whose mandate is to recruit public servants committed to fairness, impartiality, and service to the nation without prejudice,' the MHS said. The MHS expressed serious concern for 'selectively targeting one community while ignoring publicly available data on the role of Chin-Kuki militants and their civil society organisations'. It cited reports by the National Investigation Agency, Central Bureau of Investigation, and a Supreme Court-appointed committee to make a point. 'Such misrepresentation not only tarnishes the image of a community but also undermines the credibility of the Commission,' the Meitei group said, requesting the APSC to issue a clarification acknowledging the biased nature of the question and declare the objectionable question null and void, ensuring it is not used for evaluation purposes. 'After considering our representation, the APSC informed us today (Tuesday) that it has decided to drop/delete/cancel question number 95,' an MHS spokesperson said.
