SC declines urgent listing for clarification plea by Bhima Koregaon accused Hany Babu
A vacation bench comprising justices KV Viswanathan and NK Singh directed that the matter be listed after the court reopens following the summer break, and declined to entertain the application during the limited working days of the vacation.
During the mentioning, the counsel for Babu argued that several co-accused in the case had been granted bail by the Supreme Court either on merits or due to prolonged incarceration.
The application was filed seeking a clarification following a May 2 observation by the Bombay High Court, which stated that Babu should seek clarity from the Supreme Court about his liberty to approach the High Court for bail after withdrawing his special leave petition.
Justice Viswanathan questioned the delay in filing the application. 'The order was passed on May 2. The court was fully functional till May 23. Why was the application not moved earlier?' he asked.
In response, the counsel submitted that obtaining certified copies of the court's orders took time. However, Justice Viswanathan remarked, 'Even in urgent matters, we have filed and got cases listed without certified copies.'
Babu was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in July 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for alleged Maoist links in connection with the Bhima Koregaon violence. His bail plea was rejected by the Bombay High Court in September 2022.
In May 2024, he withdrew his bail petition from the Supreme Court stating a change in circumstances, intending to move the High Court afresh.
However, the High Court noted that the Supreme Court's order did not explicitly grant him liberty to re-approach the lower court, prompting the present application for clarification.
The Supreme Court's refusal to list the matter urgently means the issue will now be heard only after the court's summer recess concludes.
UNI SNG PRS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
16 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court hearing on Presidential Reference: Elected State governments at the mercy of Governors' whims
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 20, 2025) asked the Centre if elected State governments were at the mercy of the whims and fancies of Governors, who could fail Bills by merely withholding assent for them. A Presidential Reference Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai was testing a submission made by the Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and Kanu Agarwal, that State Bills would lapse if Governors withheld assent to proposed laws presented to them for approval under Article 200 of the Constitution. Presidential Reference hearing updates | August 20, 2025 'So, are Governors being given total powers to sit in appeal over the elected representatives? This way, if Bills are failed by Governors, governments formed by majority will be at the mercy of their whims and fancies,' Chief Justice Gavai quizzed Mr. Mehta's interpretation of Article 200. Mr. Mehta responded that the power of a Governor to withhold assent was meant to be used sparingly and only in extraordinary situations, especially when a State Bill frustrated the very democratic will of the nation, or violated fundamental rights, or was repugnant to an existing Central law. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal interjected to point out that if a Governor had the power to lapse a Bill by withholding assent, the same logic would apply to the President of India under Article 111. 'The President can also withhold and fail Bills passed in the Parliament,' Mr. Sibal submitted. The Solicitor General argued that a Governor had 'four' options under Article 200 — grant assent to the Bill; withhold assent to the Bill due to which the proposed law lapses; reserve the Bill for consideration to the President. But in case the Governor exercises the 'fourth' option to return the Bill to the State Assembly, which re-passes the Bill, the Governor is bound to grant assent. He could not withhold the Bill though he could refer it to the President on the ground of repugnancy. High Constitutional authorities, including the President and Governors, were presumed to act within the law and uphold the dignity of their offices, Mr. Mehta said. Governors were not 'nobodies', he submitted. They were representatives of the President, who was bound by the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet, which represented the interests of the nation. 'Governorship is not a sanctum for retired politicians,' Mr. Mehta said. The Chief Justice asked the Solicitor General whether, over the years, the expectations of the Founding Fathers and Mothers regarding these Constitutional functionaries had actually been fulfilled. 'Governors and the elected Ministers of the States are expected to function in harmony, are they?' the Chief Justice queried. Justice Narasimha reasoned that Constitutional interpretation by courts could not be idealistic. Judicial review had to take into account the present day realities. Governors and Speakers were idealistically considered high offices, presumed to function within the law, but the flood of litigation said otherwise. The judge referred to the cases filed in the apex court under the anti-defection law (the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution). The Tenth Schedule was introduced with the best intentions and with ideal expectations about the high office of the Speaker, Justice Narasimha said. But views had changed over the years. 'Constitutional interpretation cannot be static,' Justice Narasimha observed. The Chief Justice said the outcome of the litigation in many Tenth Schedule cases had been 'operation success, patient dead'. Mr. Mehta enumerated instances when Governors were not bound by the aid and advice of the State Cabinet. One of these instances was the Governor's application of discretion to decide which party or political front had a majority to form a government in a State. 'We have seen how, in some cases, the Governors have exercised their discretion and end up in litigation in the apex court,' the CJI responded. The Solicitor General dismissed them as 'aberrations'. It was 'hazardous to interpret the Constitution based on aberrations', Mr. Mehta said.
Hindustan Times
16 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Parliamentary panel urges law for OBC, SC, ST quotas in private universities
New Delhi: A Parliamentary panel on Wednesday flagged the 'considerably low' enrolment of Other Backward Classes (OBC) students and the 'abysmally low' presence of Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) students in India's three private universities with Institution of Eminence (IoE) status and recommended a law making reservations mandatory in private higher educational institutions—27% for OBCs, 15% for SCs, and 7.5% for STs—in line with government norms. Proceedings of the Lok Sabha underway during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, in New Delhi on Wednesday. (Sansad TV/ANI Video Grab) The central government has granted IoE status to 20 institutions (10 public and 10 private), thereby giving them special recognition, greater autonomy, and financial support to achieve world-class standards. The Parliamentary standing committee on education, women, children, youth and sports, chaired by Congress MP Digvijaya Singh in its report on the necessity for reservations for OBC, SC, and ST students in private higher educational institutions, reviewed the latest students' strengths from O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat; Shiv Nadar University, Greater Noida; and Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS) Pilani. Citing various Supreme Court's orders, the Parliamentary standing committee on education, women, children, youth and sports, headed by Congress MP Digvijaya Singh in its report submitted to Parliament said that reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs in private educational institutions is 'constitutionally permissible.' To introduce reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs in private higher education institutions, the Committee asked the government to follow the Right to Education (RTE) Act's 25% quota in private schools model – where fees are reimbursed by the government. Private educational institutions are currently not bound by law to implement reservation policies, as no statute mandates them. The panel called the absence of reservations in private educational institutions an 'impediment to attaining social justice in this country.' 'The committee, therefore, recommends that Article 15(5) of the Indian Constitution be implemented in full across the country through legislation by parliament. The committee recommends that 27%, 15% and 7.5% seats should be reserved for OBCs, SCs, and STs respectively in private higher educational institutions,' added the report. Article 15(5) of the Constitution, inserted through the 93rd Constitutional amendment in 2006, allows the government to mandate reservations for SC, ST, and OBC students in private educational institutions. In May 2014, in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the entirety of Article 15(5) of the Indian Constitution. Citing All-India Survey of Higher Education (AISHE) 2021-22 data, which lists 517 private universities, 240 central institutions and 445 state institutions, the panel noted that public institutions alone cannot meet demand, making private HEIs crucial for accommodating students from all sections of society. Congress general secretary (communications) Jairam Ramesh in a statement said it is 'no longer possible to ignore' the demand of SC, ST and OBC communities for reservations in private higher education. Stating that the panel report has given 'renewed impetus' to the demand which was also mentioned in the party's 2024 'Nyay Patra' manifesto, he said, 'The ball is now in the Modi government's court.'
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
How India's nuclear mission can be both ambitious and realistic
— Renuka As the world faces the accelerating threat of climate change, India stands at a crucial stage in its energy transition. With a commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2070 and a parallel goal of net-zero electricity by 2047, the country is under growing pressure to reshape its energy mix towards cleaner and more sustainable sources. Within this transition, nuclear energy has become an inevitable option capable of offering reliable, low-carbon baseload power to complement renewable energy like solar and wind. India's current nuclear installed capacity is 8180 MW, spread across 24 nuclear power reactors. Also, there has been more than a 70 per cent surge in India's nuclear power capacity in the last 10 years, increasing from 4,780 MW in 2013-14 to 8,180 MW at present. However, despite more than 75 years of nuclear research and development, India's nuclear power generation remains modest, contributing only a small fraction to the country's overall energy mix. The annual electricity generation from nuclear power plants is 47,971 million units, which is not sufficient considering the growing population and energy demands. Considering this, the government has recently signalled a renewed focus on nuclear energy, aiming to triple its current nuclear power capacity by 2032. To achieve this ambitious target, the government expressed its intention to open its nuclear sector for privatisation, as the sector remains constrained by a state-controlled model. India's current nuclear energy model is based on the state-centric framework under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. The Act confers the central government the exclusive authority over all nuclear activities in India, and leaves no scope for private investment. The Department of Atomic Energy and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) are largely responsible for the nuclear power generation along with Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Limited (BHAVINI). The Atomic Energy Act was amended in 2015, and the definition of 'government company' was expanded. It allowed NPCIL to form joint ventures with other Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) to mobilise additional funding for the nuclear programme. But the amendment still prevents direct involvement of the private sector in the nuclear energy programmes of the country. While this closed nuclear model has worked well on the national security front, strategic autonomy and nuclear safety, it is often argued that over time, it has emerged as a major constraint in achieving energy independence, evident in: — The slow pace of capacity addition due to the non-involvement of the private sector. — The lack of competition and innovation, which are key drivers of technological advancement and cost efficiency. — Missed key opportunities in global developments such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and other advanced nuclear technologies due to financial and logical constraints. Hence, the closed nuclear model risks becoming a bottleneck in meeting India's growing demand for clean and sustainable energy and its climate commitments. Under the Nuclear Energy mission for Viksit Bharat, India now strives to achieve the target of 100 GW nuclear power capacity by 2047. The mission is largely focused on developing Bharat SMRs, where Public-private collaboration would be crucial. International experience underscores the value of private sector engagement in driving nuclear innovation and scale. Private companies in the USA, UK and France are pioneering advanced reactors and modular technologies. For India, liberalizing the nuclear sector could accelerate progress in SMRs, thorium-based technologies and next-generation safety mechanisms. Apart from this, private participation can bring innovation, efficiency, and global best practices, complement public institutions and enable faster, safer and sustainable expansion of nuclear capacity to meet climate and energy goals. For this, the government has expressed its intention to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1962. Recently, TEMA India has commissioned the first private depleted heavy water upgradation facility, seen as a 'milestone' in India's nuclear self-reliance, reducing dependence on Imports. It was India's first private sector test facility, which was unveiled by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and NPCIL. As India's energy demand is projected to double by 2024, nuclear energy, with its high-capacity factor and minimal emissions, is poised to play a vital role in this evolving energy mix, along with solar and wind energy. Amidst this, there are several concerns that continue to hinder broader acceptance of private sector participation. Nuclear safety continues to be the foremost concern. India, being a population-dense country, the consequences of a potential accident could be devastating. Although India has a relatively safe operational record, gaps in terms of transparency, regulatory independence, and emergency preparedness have often been highlighted. Another issue is liability. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, places liability on the operator and also on suppliers. This provision was intended to protect and compensate victims in the event of nuclear accidents. But this also deterred the private companies (foreign and Indian) from investing in the nuclear sector. Public trust around the expansion and privatisation of the nuclear sector remains fragile. Accidents like the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, Chernobyl, and Fukushima continue to impact the perception of people on nuclear and industrial risks. They serve as cautionary symbols and lead to a deep mistrust towards assurances on safety and emergency preparedness, especially in relation to new technologies. All these concerns need to be addressed to open the sector for private players efficiently and to ensure the safe design and operation of nuclear facilities. Lastly, experts underscore that to achieve 100 GWe of nuclear capacity by 2047 would require 18,000 tonnes of uranium and given the global scarcity, such a target raises serious questions about fuel supply security. For this, India needs to accelerate the shift toward closed fuel cycles and thorium-based technologies, which not only conserve uranium but also improve reactor safety. If India has to achieve its climate goal by charting its path towards a low-carbon future, nuclear power can prove to be an essential tool. It has the potential to provide reliable, large-scale, and emission-free power, which complements the expanding portfolio of renewable energy. In this context, opening the nuclear sector to carefully regulated private participation could offer the much-needed infusion of capital, expertise, and efficiency, especially in emerging technologies like small modular reactors and thorium-based systems. However, unlike other renewable energies, the path to harnessing nuclear energy is not easy. It carries challenges, from high-risk consequences and long-term nuclear waste. Strong regulatory oversight, public trust, and a reformed liability framework constitute the pillars of this transition. Equally important is to have specialized manpower experts. To conclude, India's nuclear mission must be both ambitious and realistic, grounded in secure fuel supply strategies, robust safety frameworks, public engagement, and indigenous innovations. Only then can nuclear energy emerge as a strong pillar of clean, secure and inclusive energy development. How has India's state-controlled nuclear energy model under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 both advanced and constrained the country's nuclear ambitions? To what extent can public–private partnerships address the institutional and financial bottlenecks in India's nuclear programme? What role could Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and thorium-based technologies play in making India's nuclear energy programme more viable? How do historical disasters like Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Bhopal continue to influence public perception of nuclear safety in India? What lessons can India draw from international experiences in liberalising the nuclear sector while balancing security and safety concerns? Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
