SC refuses to interfere in Madras HC order against Tamil Nadu government scheme
A bench of justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar refused to entertain the state's appeal as it said, 'We are not willing to interfere as the order passed is interim in nature.' Senior advocate P Wilson appearing for the state argued that the high court stayed the outreach scheme titled 'Oraniyil Tamil Nadu' on the ground that collection of mobile numbers amounts to violation of privacy.
'If the court is applying this yardstick, then this is being done by other national parties as well. What the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) do, we are doing it,' Wilson said.
The bench said, 'This argument does not justify not having scrutiny. They (similar schemes by other parties) are equally bad. If somebody challenges it, the matter will be heard.' Wilson, who is also a member of parliament, informed the court that the entire drive has come to a standstill with nearly 17 million members having enrolled with the drive.
The senior lawyer insisted the court entertain the appeal and consider the correctness of the HC order explaining that sharing of the mobile phone is only for the purpose of receiving OTP, similar to what is done while using a taxi service app such as Ola. He further stated that the petition before the HC has been filed by a functionary of the rival AIADMK party Rajkumar.
Advocate Balaji Srinivasan appearing for Rajkumar told the court that the state has approached the high court challenging the interim stay and the same is listed on Tuesday.
The court asked the state whether it is keen to argue against the stay granted by the high court or on the maintainability of the petition in the high court. It said that the issue is sensitive and the court will always weigh in favour of protecting the citizens.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
'Why can't you disclose….: Supreme Court asks ECI on Bihar SIR issue
The Election Commission of India told the Supreme Court on Thursday that it is caught in the struggle of political parties. The Supreme Court of India (Arvind Yadav/HT Photo) According to the ECI, if a political party wins, electronic voting machines (EVM) are a good thing, but if a party loses,the EVM suddenly turns bad. 'Caught between struggle of political parties, if they win EVM is good, if they lose EVM is bad," ECI said during the hearing. Why can't you disclose names of people who have died, migrated or shifted to other constituencies, SC asks ECI.
Mint
28 minutes ago
- Mint
Dog owner backs SC order to remove strays from Delhi-NCR, faces backlash: ‘Selective compassion'
The Supreme Court's directive to remove all stray dogs from the streets of Delhi and the National Capital Region, and permanently house them in shelters, has caused a split in opinion—mostly raising an outcry among dog lovers and animal rights activists, who have called the judgement "not a doable order." Several who have opposed the apex court's judgement have underlined the unavailability of government-run dog shelters in the NCR region where the canines could be kept. The order has stirred conversations on social media, with many commenting on X. A user who goes by the name Arun Prabhudesai, and who defines himself as a CEO of a video production house, backed the order, saying that he himself is a "dog parent" but wants the directive to be implemented in Maharashtra too. "Stray dogs in India aren't just an inconvenience; they're a menace," he said. The CEO drew comparisons with other nations where dogs are not "free-roaming hazards." "We've normalised dog-bite cases, rabies deaths, and aggressive packs chasing kids, cyclists, and delivery personnel. You don't see this in any other country. Go to Singapore, Japan, Europe, or the US, where dogs are pets and not free-roaming hazards. Don't get me wrong, I love dogs, but I also love seeing kids play in the park without fear, delivery agents ride without being chased, and pedestrians walk without dodging packs. This decision will anger many. But it might finally make Indian cities safer for humans and for the dogs themselves," Prabhudesai wrote. Another user believed that "dog lovers" are always from wealthy families, which many in the comment sections opposed. ' So-called dog lovers are almost always from the rich crowd. Their pampered kids never walk a single step on foot. It's the poor kids who get chased, bitten, and die from rabies. Funny—never met a dog lover earning less than ₹ 1 lakh a month,' she wrote. A third user, Mohit Chauhan, Cultural Envoy of Mongolia to India, voiced opposition to the order, saying, "Delhi's stray dogs are not a menace. They are part of an ecosystem. Their brutal removal is not a solution. Empathy is. Getting civic agencies to do their job properly is a solution, and supporting caregivers so that they can provide more is a solution. Lend your voice to the voiceless now." A fourth user suggested that dog lovers adopt one stray dog each to mitigate the problem. 'If every dog lover on social media adopts one stray dog and keeps it at home, there won't be any stray dogs.' Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court strongly criticised authorities while hearing petitions challenging its order. Another bench of the court questioned why authorities in several areas had started capturing the animals even before the earlier order was made public. The court also criticised the authorities for failing to implement established guidelines for animal control, which it said had contributed to the current situation.
Scroll.in
28 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
SC tells Centre, several states to reply to plea alleging Bengali Muslims being ‘illegally' detained
The Supreme Court on Thursday sought responses from the Union government and several states on a petition alleging that Muslim migrant labourers from West Bengal were being detained on unverified claims of being foreigners who entered India 'illegally' from Bangladesh, Bar and Bench reported. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, however, refused to pass an interim order on the petition. The bench orally observed that it cannot ignore the ground reality that there were risks of foreigners 'illegally infiltrating' into India. 'How to deal with that situation?' the court asked. 'If you don't detain, the writing on the wall is that they will disappear.' The development comes amid the Trinamool Congress repeatedly raising concerns about several Bengali-speaking migrant workers being detained in parts of the country on the suspicion of being Bangladeshis. Since the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, the police in several states ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party have been detaining Bengali-speaking persons – mostly Muslims – and asking them to prove that they are Indian citizens. Several persons have been forced into Bangladesh after they allegedly could not prove their Indian citizenship. In some cases, persons who were mistakenly sent to Bangladesh returned to the country after state authorities in India proved that they were Indians. The petition in the Supreme Court was filed by the West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board, Bar and Bench reported. It said that a letter was issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in May that directed states and Union Territories to verify the credentials of persons suspected to be undocumented migrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar. This direction was being 'misused' by several states to target and detain Bengali migrant workers because of their religion or because they converse in Bengali, the petition claimed. 'The detention policies reinforce harmful stereotypes and unfounded suspicion against inter-state Bengali migrants, undermining constitutional principles of equality and fraternity,' Bar and Bench quoted the petition as saying. The West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board urged the court to direct the Union government to withdraw the letter issued in May and also restrain states from unlawfully detaining Bengali migrant workers. It sought the release of migrants who had already been detained on suspicion of being foreigners. At the hearing on Thursday, advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, asked the bench whether state governments could pick up Bengali Muslims randomly and detain them, Bar and Bench reported. Bhushan said that there is no power to detain a suspected foreigner under the Foreigners Act. In response, the court said that there must be a system put in place to easily verify the home state of migrant workers to make it easier to confirm their Indian citizenship. 'A nodal agency is needed to coordinate between state of origin and the state where they are earning livelihood,' Bar and Bench quoted Kant as saying. Bhushan also told the court that there was a sense of panic among Bengali Muslims about the current state of affairs, where migrant workers were being picked up at random and detained. The advocate also alleged that some of the migrant workers were being tortured in such detention centres. 'Even Foreigners Act does not give authority for this, even if someone is termed a foreigner," Bhushan said. The court then issued notice and sought the responses of the Union government and the Odisha, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Delhi, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Haryana and West Bengal governments. It also declined to issue an interim restraining order without first hearing the government authorities. The matter was listed for further hearing on August 25. In July, non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch said India should stop unlawfully deporting people to Bangladesh without due process. The organisation said that the government should instead 'ensure everyone's access to procedural safeguards to protect against arbitrary detention and expulsion'.
