SC asks Delhi government to issue order declaring Lodhi-era 'Gumti of Shaikh Ali' protected monument
The two-judge bench of the top court, headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, passed the direction to the Delhi govt after hearing an appeal filed by Defence Colony resident Rajeev Suri, who sought a direction to declare the Gumti as a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act).
Suri had knocked the doors of the apex court after his plea was earlier dismissed by the Delhi High Court.
During the course of the hearing on Wednesday, the top court went through some report filed by the Delhi government, including a notification and clarified that it was not 'happily (properly) worded'.
'Let the notification (to declare the monument as a protected one under the law) be re-issued by the Delhi government,' the bench told the Delhi govt.
Making it clear that there should not be any illegal structures or encroachments near the area, the court asked the authorities to demolish the illegal structures, if any, inside the monument site.
It directed the court commissioner to visit and inspect the concerned area and apprise the bench about the work undertaken in pursuance of the directions issued.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
12 minutes ago
- Hans India
If mass exclusion, we will immediately step in: Supreme Court on Bihar SIR
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday orally remarked that it would 'immediately step in' if there is mass exclusion of voters following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar. The observation came from a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi as it dealt with a clutch of petitions claiming that if the June 26 decision of the ECI directing SIR is not set aside, it can "arbitrarily" and "without due process" disenfranchise lakhs of voters, disrupt free and fair elections and democracy. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, citing a statement issued by the poll body, submitted that 65 lakh individuals had not submitted enumeration forms during the SIR process, as they were either deceased or had permanently relocated. 'We are here, we will hear your concerns. We are overviewing the matter as a judicial authority. If there is mass exclusion, we will immediately step in,' the Justice Kant-led Bench assured Bhushan and posted the clutch of petitions against SIR for hearing on August 12 and 13. The apex court added that the Election Commission of India (ECI), being a constitutional authority, is presumed to act in accordance with the law and the Constitution. On Monday, the Justice Kant-led Bench declined to grant an interim stay on the publication of the draft electoral rolls but emphasised that the ECI should consider Aadhaar and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) for voter verification. As senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing on ECI's behalf, raised concerns over the reliability of documents -- citing the prevalence of fake ration cards -- the top court had remarked: "As far as ration cards are concerned, we can say they can be forged easily, but Aadhaar and voter cards have some sanctity and have a presumption of genuineness. You proceed with these two documents (Aadhaar and EPIC). Wherever you find forgery, that's on a case-to-case basis." As per the SIR schedule released by the poll body, every elector who has submitted the enumeration form -- with or without supporting documents -- will be included in the draft electoral roll set to be published on August 1. Electors who have not submitted their forms will still be entitled to seek inclusion in the final roll by filing a claim in the prescribed form along with the required declaration. "Therefore, any person excluded from the draft roll has another opportunity to be included by submitting the form with the necessary declaration and documents. This claims period will remain open for 31 days following the publication of the draft roll, i.e., until September 1, 2025," the Commission said in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court. After the completion of the entire process, the final roll will be published on September 30, and the reply document added. The ECI also submitted that even after the final roll is published, new electors may still be enrolled up to the last date for filing nominations for the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections.
Indian Express
41 minutes ago
- Indian Express
SC to begin hearing President's reference on timeline to act on Bills from Aug 19
The Supreme Court will start hearing on August 19 the reference made to it by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution, following the apex court's verdict on setting timelines for the President and governors to act on Bills passed by state Assemblies. Fixing the timeline for the hearing, a five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar asked the parties to file their written submissions on or before August 12. The bench said that it will first hear the parties on the question of maintainability of the reference. Kerala and Tamil Nadu have opposed the reference and have urged the court to return the reference. 'We will hear parties on maintainability first. The ones opposing shall be heard on 19, 20, 21 and 26 August. Supporting the reference will be heard on August 20, Sept 2, 3 and 9. Time schedule will be strictly followed. Let parties complete arguments as prescribed,' the court said. In the reference, President Murmu has posed 14 questions over the top court's April 8 verdict in which it set a timeline for governors to act on pending Bills, and for the first time, prescribed that the President should decide on the Bills, reserved for consideration by the governor, within three months from the date on which such reference is received. Under Article 201 of the Constitution, no timeframe has been set for a President's decision. President Murmu sought to know whether the actions of the governors and the President are justiciable and whether such timelines can be imposed on them in the absence of any such provision in the Constitution. The reference pointed out that 'there are conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court as to whether the assent of the President of India under Article 201 of the Constitution of India is justiciable or not'. Under Article 145 (3), when the President makes a reference for the court's opinion, it is placed before a five-judge bench. In its April 8 ruling, a two-judge bench headed by Justice J B Pardiwala had said that 'in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed' to the state concerned. The ruling set aside Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi's decision to withhold assent to 10 Bills for consideration of the President in November 2023 after they had already been reconsidered by the Assembly, and said that the action was illegal and erroneous. President Murmu sought to know: 'Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?' Article 201 prescribes the powers of the President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to Bills or withholding assent therefrom, but 'does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under' it. 'Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable? Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?' President Murmu pointed out that Article 200 of the Constitution, which prescribes the powers of the governor and the procedure to be followed while assenting to Bills, withholding assent to Bills and reserving a Bill for the consideration of the President, 'does not stipulate any time frame upon the Governor for the exercise of constitutional options'. President Murmu asked whether 'in light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President', she 'is required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's assent or otherwise?' 'Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?' she further asked. The President also asked: 'Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President / Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?' Some of the other questions referred to the top court are: 'What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?; Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?' The reference pointed out that the Constitution enlists numerous instances where the assent of the President has to be obtained before a legislation can take effect in a state. It said that 'the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively are essentially governed by polycentric considerations, inter alia being federalism, uniformity of laws, integrity and security of the nation, doctrine of separation of powers'. The President said, 'States are frequently approaching the Supreme Court of India invoking Article 32 [and not Article 131] of the Constitution of India raising issues which by their very nature are federal issues involving interpretation of, inter alia, the Constitution of India.' The reference also said that 'the contours and scope of provisions contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also needs an opinion of the Supreme Court of India.' The President also said that 'the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor'.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Supreme Court fixes timeline for considering pleas on SIR in Bihar; hearing to start from August 12
The Supreme Court on Tuesday fixed a timeline for considering a batch of pleas challenging the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar, and said that hearing on the issue will be held on August 12 and 13. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the petitioners challenging the poll panel's decision to file their written submissions by August 8. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioners, once again alleged that people are being left out from the draft list to be published on August 1 by the poll panel, and they will lose their crucial right of voting. The bench said the Election Commission is a constitutional body, and it has to abide by the law and if any wrong is being committed, petitioners can bring it to the notice of the court. "You bring 15 people who they claim are dead but are alive, we will deal with it," the bench told Sibal and Bhushan. The bench appointed nodal officers from petitioners side and the Election Commission side for filing written submissions/compilations. On Monday, underscoring the "presumption of genuineness" of Aadhaar and voter ID, the top court refused to stay the publication of the draft electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, and said it would once and for all decide pleas against the Election Commission's SIR of electoral rolls. It asked the poll panel to continue accepting Aadhaar and voter ID for the SIR exercise in Bihar in compliance with its order, saying both documents had a "presumption of genuineness". "As far as ration cards are concerned, we can say they can be forged easily but Aadhaar and voter cards have some sanctity and have presumption of genuineness. You continue accepting these documents," the bench said.
