UP Govt advisor Awanish Awasthi visits Vrindavan, holds talks over opposition to Banke Bihari corridor
He then visited the Banke Bihari Temple, where he performed the Dehri Pujan and offered Itr Seva.
Following the rituals, he met with the temple's Goswami Sevayats to discuss the project, the resistance it has faced, and the potential benefits it could bring.
After the discussions with the Goswamis, Awasthi's convoy proceeded to the Tourist Facility Centre (TFC) in Vrindavan, where he is currently holding a meeting with representatives from various sections of the local community to address concerns and deliberate on the corridor project.
Earlier on May 27, the Supreme Court slammed the Uttar Pradesh government for 'hijacking' the litigation between two private parties over management of the Shri Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said that if the state government starts entering into private disputes between parties, it will result in a 'breakdown of the rule of law.
The bench asked the counsel appearing for the state, 'Was the state a party to the proceedings? In what capacity has the state entered the dispute? If states start entering into private disputes between parties, it will break the rule of law. You can't hijack the litigation. In private litigation between two parties, a state filing an impleadment application and hijacking it is not permissible.'
The apex court's observation came while hearing a petition seeking the modification of its order permitting the Uttar Pradesh government to utilise funds from the Shri Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan to purchase five acres of land around the temple for corridor development.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for petitioner Devendra Nath Gooswami, told the bench that a fund of Rs 300 crore has been given to the Uttar Pradesh government without making him a party.
'They can't take away the funds of a private temple,' said Sibal.
On the other hand, counsel appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government told the bench the state has passed an Ordinance and set up a trust to manage the Banke Bihari temple and oversee work on the proposed corridor.
'Now, the enactment has come into force. Funds are with the Trust, not with the state. This enforcement will dilute the direction of the apex court. The state is not using the funds. The Ordinance bars the state from implementing the court's direction, and the Ordinance says the Trust will manage funds and the state has no role to play,' said the counsel of Uttar Pradesh.
The apex court then directed the counsel for the state government to place on record a copy of the Ordinance passed concerning the Trust. It directed the concerned Principal Secretary to file an affidavit by July 29.
The petition filed by Gooswami said he was a 'lineal descendant' of the temple's founder, Swami Hari Das Goswami, and his family had been managing the affairs of the sacred temple for the last 500 years.
He said he actively managed the temple's daily religious and administrative affairs.
In filing the plea, he said the implementation of the proposed redevelopment project was practically unfeasible, and any attempt to redevelop the temple premises without the involvement and input of those who were historically and operationally associated with the temple's functioning was likely to result in administrative chaos.
On May 15, the top court had permitted the state to use the Trust's fund and also allowed the use of Sri Banke Bihari Temple Trust's fixed deposits after taking into note the state government's Rs. 500 crore development plan for the corridor. (ANI)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
5 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Five bedrooms, two offices, a family lounge & more: Inside the new MP houses in Delhi
Members of Parliament will soon be getting new accommodation as Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday inaugurated a new apartment complex on Baba Kharak Singh Marg in Delhi. The complex has four residential towers, with 23 floors each, and comprises 184 flats. Each tower has two basement levels, a stilt floor, and a fire refuge floor. The MPs allotted flats in the complex will have a unit spanning 461.5 square metres. The flat will also have an MP office and an office for their personal assistant; both of these offices will have attached toilets. Each unit will also consist of a drawing and dining room, a family lounge, a puja room, and five bedrooms with attached dressing areas and toilets. The wardrobes are modular. Balconies are provided in all rooms and offices. Two staff units with kitchenettes and attached bathrooms are included. There are separate entries for staff, the MP's office, and the PA's room. The kitchens are modular, with cooking hobs and chimneys, Other amenities in each unit include double-glazed UPVC windows, wooden flooring in the office and master bedroom, vitrified flooring in other rooms, and air conditioning with a VRV system. Provisions include a video door phone, WiFi, centralised cable TV, EPABX telephone, piped natural gas, RO water system, refrigerator, and kitchen geyser. The complex will also have an six-storey amenity block housing shops, a service centre, dispensary, community hall, canteen, club, gym/yoga facilities, and guest rooms. Green and technology features include a monolithic concrete construction with aluminium shuttering, rooftop solar panels with a 400 KWp capacity, rainwater harvesting, sewage treatment and water recycling, dual plumbing, low-flow fixtures, energy-efficient lighting and fans, and garbage chutes. Two basement levels, stilt, and surface parking can together accommodate 612 vehicles. The campus will also have concrete roads and walkways with lighting, CCTV and boom barriers, DG sets for power backup, landscaped lawns, public toilets, an ATM, and art installations on building exteriors and in reception areas. The apartment complex was completed at a sanctioned cost of Rs 646.53 crore. The project was approved by the Lok Sabha Secretariat in January 2022, and was scheduled for completion by May 2025.
Hindustan Times
7 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC upholds conviction of Medha Patkar in defamation case, waives penalty of ₹1 lakh
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the conviction of social activist Medha Patkar in a defamation case filed by Delhi lieutenant governor (L-G) VK Saxena but waived the penalty of ₹1 lakh imposed on her. The sessions court in April this year, upheld the conviction but set aside the jail term and released Patkar on probation. (File photo) A bench of justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh passed the order in relation to an appeal filed by Patkar challenging the July 29 order of the Delhi high court upholding her conviction. 'We are not inclined to interfere with the conviction. However, the penalty imposed on the appellant stands set aside,' the bench said. The Delhi high court upheld the trial court's order convicting and sentencing Patkar in a 2001 criminal defamation case filed by L-G Saxena, concluding that her statements were defamatory and tarnished Saxena's image. The defamation case was filed by Saxena at the time when he was heading the non profit National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL)-- which actively supported the Sardar Sarovar Dam Project in Gujarat. Also Read: Delhi HC upholds conviction of Medha Patkar in criminal defamation case It stemmed from the press release issued by Patkar, who led the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) that mobilised protests against the construction of the dam. The release titled 'True Face of Patriot', alleged that Saxena had donated a cheque to NBA, which later bounced and implied that he covertly aided the movement, which he publicly opposed. In May last year, metropolitan magistrate Raghav Sharma found Patkar guilty, sentenced her to five months imprisonment and imposed ₹10 lakh fine. The sessions court in April this year, upheld the conviction but set aside the jail term and released Patkar on probation. The HC upheld the sessions court order, observing that the same was passed after due consideration of evidence and law. The order of July 29 said, 'The record suggests that the essential ingredients of Section 499 (criminal defamation) of the IPC are clearly made out. The imputations made were specific, published in the public domain and caused harm to the reputation of the respondent. The order under challenge appears to have been passed after due consideration of the evidence on record and the applicable law.' Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh appearing for Patkar said that the HC disbelieved the statement of witnesses produced in favour of Patkar's defence. Patkar asserted she had no connection either with and did not have knowledge about the press note. Parikh further submitted that the release could have been typed by anyone and mere addition of the name at the end of the note, could not be considered as a proof that the release was issued or caused to be published by her. Saxena was represented in the top court by senior advocate Maninder Singh. The L-G maintained that Patkar was actively involved in the issuance of the press release. He further submitted that even though the 70-year old activist was not a convenor of the web portal on which the press release was uploaded, she was directly correlated to it since the portal contained NBA's office address, which is same as Patkar's address. The high court had modified the condition of probation requiring her to physically appear before the trial court every three months. The high court said that she could either appear online or through her lawyer. The top court held that the supervision order in this regard will not be given effect to.
Indian Express
7 minutes ago
- Indian Express
SC confirms Medha Patkar's conviction in defamation case by Delhi LG Saxena
The Supreme Court on Monday confirmed the conviction of activist Medha Patkar in a 25-year-old defamation case filed by Delhi LG V K Saxena. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said it was not inclined to interfere with the Delhi high court order on the matter that released Patkar on 'probation of good conduct' but required her to appear before the trial court once every three years. It added, 'However, taking into consideration the submission of the counsel for the petitioner the penalty imposed stands set aside and we further clarify that the supervision order will not be given effect.' The high court on July 29 upheld the conviction and punishment awarded to 70-year-old Patkar. Saxena filed the case 25 years ago when he was heading an NGO in Gujarat. The high court had said there was illegality or material irregularity in the findings of the trial court and added that the order of conviction was passed after due consideration of evidence and the applicable law. It had said that Patkar failed to demonstrate any defects in the procedure which was followed or any error in the law which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. The high court also upheld the order on sentence, where Patkar was released on 'probation of good conduct', and said it did not require any interference. Probation is a method of non-institutional treatment of offenders and a conditional suspension of sentence in which the offender, after conviction, is released on bond of good behaviour instead of being sent to prison. The high court, however, had modified the condition of probation imposed by the trial court, requiring Patkar to appear before the trial court once in every three months, and allowed her to either appear physically or through videoconferencing or be represented through the lawyer during the appearances. The Narmada Bachao Andolan leader challenged the April 2 sessions court order upholding her conviction handed out by a magisterial court in the case. The sessions court, which upheld Patkar's conviction in the case, released her on 'probation of good conduct' on furnishing a probation bond of Rs 25,000 on April 8 and imposed a precondition on her of depositing Rs 1 lakh as fine. The magisterial court on July 1, 2024 sentenced Patkar to five months of simple imprisonment and slapped a Rs 10 lakh fine after finding her guilty under Section 500 (defamation) of the IPC. Saxena filed the case as president of the National Council of Civil Liberties against Patkar for her defamatory press release against Saxena issued on November 24, 2000. On May 24, 2024, the magisterial court held that that Patkar's statements were not only per se defamatory but also 'crafted to incite negative perceptions' about him. The accusation that the complainant was 'mortgaging' the people of Gujarat and their resources to foreign interests was a direct attack on his integrity and public service, it had said. On April 2, the sessions court had dismissed a challenge to the order and held Patkar was 'rightly convicted' and there was 'no substance' in the appeal against the verdict of her conviction in the defamation case.
