PIL in SC seeks grounding of Air India Boeing fleet
New Delhi: A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking an immediate suspension of operations of all Boeing aircraft operated by Air India, pending a comprehensive safety audit.
The petition comes in the aftermath of a tragic Air India Boeing crash on the Ahmedabad–London route on June 12, which claimed the lives of 241 passengers and crew members, along with 29 individuals on the ground.
The PIL, filed by advocate Ajay Bansal, urges the apex court to ensure stringent compliance with safety regulations and passenger service standards under the Aircraft Act, 1934, and Aircraft Rules, 1937.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Missing ‘sub-section' prompts U.P. to delay release of man who got bail, SC orders State to pay him ₹5 lakh compensation
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 25, 2025) directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay ₹5 lakh in interim compensation to a man who remained in jail for 28 days despite the Court's order granting him bail in an abduction and unlawful religious conversion case. The man, identified as Aftab, was granted bail by the apex court, followed by a release order by the trial court. However, State authorities delayed his release, citing that the court orders did not explicitly mention that he had been charged under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh termed the State's justification both 'preposterous' and 'unfortunate'. 'The whole episode is unfortunate. Each one of the stakeholders in the process was aware as to what the man's offence was, what the crime number of the case was, what the Section under which he was charged with and what was the punishing Section. Despite this, he was sent on a spin,' Justice Viswanathan observed. While Aftab was supposed to be released on May 27, he was finally freed only on the night of June 24. 'Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed to persons under the Constitution. It cannot be bartered on these useless technicalities. We only hope no other convicts or undertrials languishing in jails are victims of similar technicalities,' Justice Viswanathan said. Addressing Director General of Prisons P.C. Meena and the Superintendent of Ghaziabad Jail, where Aftab was lodged, Justice Viswanathan remarked, 'Is this what you tell your officers? To look for Sub-sections and to see whether they have been mentioned or not? What is going on in this State… a vast State with many jails… God knows how many people are languishing in your jails despite valid judicial orders for their release on bail.' Mr. Meena assured the Bench that he would personally sensitise prison officials on the matter. The Court observed that jail authorities must not 'nit-pick' valid judicial orders to delay the release of undertrials and convicts. 'As long as basic particulars are available [in bail and release orders of courts], and there is no dispute identifying the individual, nit-picking on court orders and on that pretext not implementing them and keeping individuals behind bars would be a serious dereliction of duty to start with,' Justice Viswanathan said. 'The jail department must focus on the substance of the order and not look out for irrelevant and minute errors to use them as a pretext to deny liberty,' he added. The Bench directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Ghaziabad to conduct an inquiry to determine whether the absence of the specific Sub-section was indeed the reason for the delay, or whether there was 'something sinister.' 'The enquiry would focus on the reason behind the delay in release [of Aftab]. Why was he detained beyond May 27? Is the missing Sub-section the real reason or was there something sinister? The judge must independently look into whether there was any gross negligence by prison authorities, and fix responsibility on the officer/officers in case of any negligence,' the court said. The enquiry report is to be submitted to the apex court. Meanwhile, the Bench directed the State to pay ₹5 lakh in 'ad hoc, provisional compensation' to Aftab and report compliance by July 27. 'The net result of this non-issue is that the applicant [Aftab] lost his liberty for at least 28 full days. The only way to remedy the situation is to order ad hoc monetary compensation which would be provisional in nature,' the Bench said. It added that final compensation would be determined based on the outcome of the District Judge's enquiry and that the Court would also consider recovering the amount or part thereof from the officers found responsible. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on August 18.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
NSE's ₹1,388-cr settlement plea could pave way for IPO this fiscal
The National Stock Exchange (NSE) has agreed to settle the long-pending colocation and dark fibre case with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) for ₹1,388 crore — a move seen as crucial for advancing its initial public offering (IPO). Sources indicate that this settlement — the biggest ever, and the second such resolution for NSE — clears a major hurdle for its much-anticipated listing. The exchange filed its settlement application with Sebi on June 20. 'The settlement amount aligns with Sebi's regulations, and approval is expected soon, expediting the IPO process. The exchange has set its sights on concluding the IPO this fiscal,' said a person familiar with the matter. Queries sent to Sebi and the BSE remained unanswered. NSE is awaiting a no-objection certificate from Sebi to proceed with its draft IPO filings. Sebi Chairman Tuhin Kanta Pandey recently hinted at the impending settlement, stating that no further obstacles remain for the IPO. The colocation issue, currently before the Supreme Court, pertains to allegations that certain brokers received preferential server access at NSE between 2015 and 2016. If Sebi approves the settlement, it will need to file an affidavit in the Supreme Court to withdraw its appeal. In January 2023, the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) upheld non-monetary penalties in the case but set aside a disgorgement order, instead imposing a ₹100 crore fine on NSE for due diligence lapses. Later that year, the Supreme Court directed Sebi to refund ₹300 crore to NSE related to the case. NSE had previously deposited ₹1,108 crore with Sebi in 2019 as part of penal actions. Sources indicate nearly ₹1,000 crore remains in an escrow account. In October 2023, NSE, former chief executive Vikram Limaye, and eight others settled a separate case involving misuse of trading access points (TAP) for ₹643 crore. Sebi also dropped charges against NSE and former executives in the colocation matter, citing insufficient evidence of collusion with OPG Securities. NSE's unlisted shares have surged 87 per cent over the past year, currently trading at ₹2,325 apiece, reflecting strong investor interest. The country's largest bourse is currently valued at nearly ₹6 trillion, dwarfing the valuations of several listed firms. 'From a market perspective, this resolution brings much-needed clarity and signals NSE's intent to prioritise governance and compliance. With this issue behind them, the path is now clearer for the exchange to move toward a public listing, and investor interest is likely to revive given NSE's strong fundamentals and dominant market position,' said Mrugank Paranjape, chairman, IMC Task Force on Capital Markets and managing partner, MCQube. Sebi has previously raised concerns about the independence of clearing corporations, emphasising public interest over commercial priorities. A working group is now reviewing fee structures to ensure sustainability. NSE may explore listing on the BSE or the Metropolitan Stock Exchange (MSEI), as self-listing is currently barred under Sebi rules. The country's only listed equity bourse, the BSE, is exclusively listed on the NSE. 'Under Sebi regulations, stock exchanges in India are not allowed to self-list in order to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure regulatory integrity. As a result, NSE cannot list on its own platform and will need to seek a listing on a competing exchange like BSE or MSEI,' said Uday Tardalkar, economist and market expert.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Allowing probe agencies, police to summon lawyers threatens justice administration: SC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Wednesday said allowing police or probe agencies to directly summon lawyers for advising clients would seriously undermine the autonomy of legal profession and was a "direct threat" to the independence of justice administration. Allowing probe agencies, police to summon lawyers threatens justice administration: SC A bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh observed the legal profession was an integral component of the process of administration of justice. "Permitting the investigating agencies/police to directly summon defense counsel or advocates who advise parties in a given case would seriously undermine the autonomy of legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice," the apex court said. The bench also framed a couple of questions in the matter. "Some of the questions which arise for consideration are: when an individual has a association with a case only as a lawyer advising the party, could the investigating agency/prosecuting agency/police directly summon the lawyer for questioning?" the bench asked. The other question read, "Assuming that the investigating agency or prosecuting agency or police have a case that role of the individual is not merely as a lawyer but something more, even then, should they be directly permitted to summon or should a judicial oversight be prescribed for those exceptional criteria?" Both points aside from other issues, the bench said, could arise and require addressal on a comprehensive basis for "what is at stake is the efficacy of the administration of justice and the capacity of the lawyers to conscientiously, and more importantly, fearlessly discharge their professional duties". The bench said since it was a matter directly impinging on the administration of justice, "to subject a professional... when he is a counsel in the matter... prima facie appears to be untenable, subject to further consideration by the court". The order came when the top court was hearing a plea of a Gujarat-based advocate, challenging an order of the high court passed on June 12. The high court on March 2025 refused to quash a notice summoning the lawyer before the police in a case against his client. The top court, however, directed the state not to summon him till further orders and stayed the operation of the police's notice issued to him. The bench also issued notice to Gujarat government, asking for its response. The top court noted an agreement was executed in June last year between two persons in a loan transaction. In February, one of them got an FIR registered against the other following which the accused was arrested. The top court noted the petitioner before it was engaged as a lawyer by the accused and he moved a bail application on behalf of his client before a sessions court in Ahmedabad. The court granted bail to the accused. However, a police notice in March summoned the lawyer to appear before police within three days. The issue assumes significance as the Enforcement Directorate on June 20 directed its investigating officers not to issue summons to any advocate in a money laundering investigation being carried out against their client, adding that exception to this rule could only be made after "approval" by the agency's director. The probe agency's statement came in the wake of the lawyer-client privilege linked controversy stemming from ED's summons to senior Supreme Court lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal. The counsel had offered legal advice to Care Health Insurance Limited on the employee stock ownership plan given to Rashmi Saluja, former chairperson of Religare Enterprises. The summons was condemned by the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association , which called it a "disturbing trend" that struck at the very foundations of the legal profession. The bar bodies urged the chief justice of India to take suo motu cognisance of the matter. On Wednesday, the top court said lawyers engaged in legal practice, apart from their fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution, had certain rights and privileges guaranteed being legal professionals and further as a result of statutory provisions. Article 19 of the Constitution deals with right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Underlining the issue as important, the bench called for assistance of the attorney general, the solicitor general, chairperson of the Bar Council of India, and the presidents of the SCBA and SCAORA. The bench asked the case papers to be placed before the CJI for passing appropriate directions. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
