Madras HC flags procedural lapses in probing caste discrimination complaints
'In several matters relating to complaints made under SC/ST (PoA), procedural lapses are being noticed. The second respondent-DGP shall communicate a copy of this order to all SPs who shall ensure strict compliance with the provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and the Rules, particularly Rule 7 relating to rank of the IO (investigating officer) and time-bound filing of final report,' said Justice P Velmurugan in a recent order.
Citing a Supreme Court order, he said when a complaint discloses a cognisable offence under the provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 'no preliminary inquiry is permissible either under this Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)' and the inquiry on the complaint shall be held by an officer in the rank of a DSP and not by an inspector as provided under Section 7 (1) of the Act.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
9 minutes ago
- First Post
'Free speech will suffer': Musk's X locks horns with UK over online safety laws
While X has taken steps to comply, such as introducing age verification systems, it expressed concerns about the law's broader implications. read more A 3D-printed miniature model of Elon Musk and the X logo are seen in this illustration taken January 23, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration The social media platform X, owned by US billionaire Elon Musk, has publicly criticised the UK's newly implemented Online Safety Act, warning that its broad regulations could pose a risk to free speech. The company issued a stark statement: 'Free speech will suffer. The Act's laudable intentions are at risk of being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach. Without a more balanced, collaborative approach, free speech will suffer.' New provisions of Online Safety Act The criticism follows the rollout of new provisions under the Online Safety Act, which took effect recently. A key requirement mandates that websites, including social media and adult content platforms, verify the age of users to shield children from explicit or violent material. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While X has taken steps to comply, such as introducing age verification systems, it expressed concerns about the law's broader implications. The platform cautioned that the threat of hefty financial penalties could push companies to over-censor content, stating, 'Many are now concerned that a plan ostensibly intended to keep children safe is at risk of seriously infringing on the public's right to free expression.' UK govt stands strong by legislation The UK government has stood by the legislation, stressing that non-compliant companies could face fines of up to £18 million or 10 per cent of their global turnover—a penalty that could reach £200 million for X. The UK's media regulator, Ofcom, has already launched investigations into dozens of websites failing to implement required safeguards and has reached out to US-based companies, including X, to remind them of their legal obligations. X also took issue with provisions allowing police to monitor social media for content deemed anti-immigrant, arguing that this 'oversteps the intended mission' of protecting children. The platform's concerns align with remarks from Elon Musk, who previously labelled the Online Safety Act as a 'suppression of the people.' Musk has also thrown his support behind a public petition calling for the law's repeal, which has garnered over 450,000 signatures. In response, Ofcom defended the regulations, clarifying that they do not mandate restricting legal content for adults. A spokesperson stated, 'They must carefully consider how they protect users' rights to freedom of expression while keeping people safe.'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
39 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Fraudsters pose as govt officials to dupe A-I crash victim's kin, FIR filed
The family of Vardi Chand Menaria, a victim of the Air India flight AI171 crash, has filed a complaint against two individuals, who allegedly tried to deceive them by pretending to be government officials and a Supreme Court lawyer to help the family get compensation, The Indian Express reported. The flight, bound for London, had crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad airport on June 12, killing 260 people. According to the FIR, the accused claimed they could help the family get compensation worth ₹8 crore-₹10 crore if they agreed to sign some documents. The police have registered a case under Section 329(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for 'criminal trespass'. This offence carries a punishment of up to three months in jail or a fine of ₹5,000. Vardi Chand Menaria's son, Deepak, said in his complaint that on the evening of July 17, he received a call from a man named Bhupendra. The caller introduced himself as a representative from the central government and said a 'secret verification' would be conducted at their home by a team from Delhi and Mumbai. He asked Deepak to arrange a copy of his late father's passport and ticket, the news report said. Duo visits house, pressures family to sign The next day, on July 18 at around 7:45 pm, a man and a woman arrived at the Menaria home in Rundeda village in a car bearing a Gujarat registration number. They entered the house and spoke with Deepak's mother, making confusing claims and eventually introducing themselves as representatives from the Supreme Court. 'When I returned home, they pressured us to sign and put thumb impressions on some documents related to a supposed case against Boeing in America,' Deepak said. He refused to sign without understanding the purpose. Eventually, the two left the house at around 8:40 pm, the news report said. FIR filed after legal authority's intervention On July 19, the same individuals returned and parked their car a kilometre away from the family's house. Sensing danger, Deepak called his neighbours and the Vallabh Nagar police station. The police arrived and took the two to the station. However, Deepak claimed that the station house officer refused to register the FIR and asked him to collect it from the superintendent of police's office as he had lodged a complaint there. It was only after Deepak approached the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) that the FIR was officially filed on July 29, the news report said. The crash, one of the worst air disasters in India in decades, involved a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner that crashed into a medical hostel complex in Ahmedabad's Meghani Nagar area shortly after takeoff on June 12. Of the 242 people onboard, 241 were killed, with only one survivor. The total death toll stood at 270, including casualties on the ground.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
NEET UG 2025: SC Declines To Consider Plea Alleging Errors In Question Paper
Last Updated: NEET-UG 2025: The petitioner's counsel argued that the three questions were incorrect, citing two expert opinions that supported this claim. On Friday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a plea asserting that there were 'serious errors" in three questions from the NEET-UG 2025 examination. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar advised the petitioner's counsel to approach the relevant high court. The National Testing Agency conducts the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-Undergraduate (NEET-UG) for admissions to MBBS, BDS, AYUSH, and other related courses in both government and private institutions nationwide. The petitioner's counsel argued that the three questions were incorrect, citing two expert opinions that supported this claim. He stated that these questions affected the petitioner's score by 13 marks. 'These (three) questions were absolutely wrong. I have taken two expert opinions and those experts also concur with my views. They have certified my views," the counsel of the petitioner argued. The bench noted that the exam had already concluded. 'You withdraw this and go to the high court," the bench suggested, emphasising not wanting to deny the petitioner any remedy. The counsel requested that the Supreme Court appoint a panel of experts to review the questions within three days and consider their opinions. After the bench expressed unwillingness to entertain the plea, the petitioner's counsel decided to withdraw it. On July 4, the Supreme Court also declined to entertain a separate petition challenging the NEET-UG 2025 results due to an alleged error in one of the questions. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
