Prohibitory orders imposed around Nainital HC ahead of key election hearing
Authorities anticipate a significant gathering of petitioners, supporters, and other interested parties near the court premises, prompting pre-emptive security measures to maintain public order and ensure the smooth conduct of judicial proceedings.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate Nawazish Khaliq, who issued the order, stated: 'A significant petition regarding the Nainital District Panchayat Chairman election is scheduled for hearing before the Chief Justice's bench of the Uttarakhand High Court on Monday. There is a strong possibility of a large number of petitioners and supporters converging at the court, which could affect peace and order. This prohibitory order has been issued in anticipation of such a situation to safeguard public safety and judicial integrity.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
12 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Prohibitory orders imposed around Nainital HC ahead of key election hearing
DEHRADUN: Prohibitory orders have been enforced within a 500-metre radius of the Uttarakhand High Court complex in Nainital, ahead of a crucial hearing scheduled for Monday. The move, enacted under Section 163 of the newly introduced Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, comes in response to concerns over potential public disturbances linked to a high-profile petition challenging the District Panchayat Chairman election. Authorities anticipate a significant gathering of petitioners, supporters, and other interested parties near the court premises, prompting pre-emptive security measures to maintain public order and ensure the smooth conduct of judicial proceedings. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Nawazish Khaliq, who issued the order, stated: 'A significant petition regarding the Nainital District Panchayat Chairman election is scheduled for hearing before the Chief Justice's bench of the Uttarakhand High Court on Monday. There is a strong possibility of a large number of petitioners and supporters converging at the court, which could affect peace and order. This prohibitory order has been issued in anticipation of such a situation to safeguard public safety and judicial integrity.'
The Print
a day ago
- The Print
Protests erupt in Chennai over SC order on removal of street dogs in Delhi-NCR
Police said the demonstrations in Delhi were organised despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), formerly Section 144 of the CrPC, which is currently in force as part of security measures ahead of Independence Day. According to officials, the protests turned unruly when police attempted to disperse the demonstrators, leading to clashes at some sites. The protests in Chennai came days after similar demonstrations in the national capital. On Friday, Delhi Police registered four FIRs in connection with protests held by dog lovers without prior permission on August 11 and 12 in the New Delhi district. Chennai: Animal lovers and rights activists staged a protest in Chennai on Sunday against the Supreme Court's order directing that all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR be moved to shelters within eight weeks. 'Those who refused to leave the protest sites despite repeated requests were detained. Legal action will be taken against all those found violating the law,' the Delhi Police said. One viral clip from the protests shows the Station House Officer of Tughlaq Road police station being manhandled by protesters, while another video shows a confrontation between a woman sub-inspector and a female demonstrator inside a bus. The protests followed the Supreme Court's August 11 order directing authorities to ensure that all localities in Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram and Faridabad are free of stray dogs. The court had ruled that captured animals should not be released back onto the streets. On Thursday, a three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria reserved its order on petitions seeking a stay on the directive. The bench said it would pass an interim order after hearing arguments from all sides. At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi government, said there was a 'loud vocal minority' opposing the order, while a 'silent suffering majority' supported action. 'In a democracy, there is a vocal majority and one who silently suffers. We had seen videos of people eating chicken, eggs, etc., and then claiming to be animal lovers. It was an issue to be resolved. Children were dying… Sterilisation did not stop rabies; even if you immunised them, that did not stop mutilation of children,' Mehta submitted. Citing World Health Organisation data, the Solicitor General said 37 lakh dog bites were reported in 2024, with 305 rabies deaths, most among children under 15 years of age. 'Dogs do not have to be killed… they have to be separated. Parents cannot send children out to play. Nobody is an animal hater,' he added. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing an NGO, questioned whether municipal authorities had created enough shelter homes for the dogs. 'Now dogs are picked up. But the order says once they are sterilised, do not leave them out in the community,' he argued, seeking a stay on the August 11 order. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi also opposed the directive. He said, 'Dog bites exist, but there have been zero rabies deaths in Delhi this year. Of course, bites are bad, but you cannot create a horror situation like this.' The bench observed that the core problem was the failure of local bodies to implement the Animal Birth Control Rules. Justice Nath remarked, 'Rules and laws are framed by the Parliament, but they are not followed. Local authorities are not doing what they should be doing. On the one hand, humans are suffering, and on the other hand, animal lovers are here.' In its detailed order, the court stressed that the August 11 decision was not taken on a 'momentary impulse' but after two decades of authorities failing to address a matter directly affecting public safety. A separate bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Madadev noted that the issue concerns both human welfare and animal welfare. 'This is not personal,' the bench said. (ANI) This report is auto-generated from ANI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content. Also read: How Delhi is mobilising to save its street dogs — shelters, safe houses, and watch patrols
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
SC to hear plea over Haridwar temple receiver appointment on August 19
The Supreme Court is slated to hear on August 19 a plea filed by the "sevayat" of the Maa Chandi Devi temple in Haridwar, seeking a stay on an order of the Uttarakhand High Court directing the Badri Kedar Temple Committee to appoint a receiver for overseeing the shrine's management. Independence Day 2025 Modi signals new push for tech independence with local chips Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose gave India its own currency A "sevayat" is a priest actively involved in the daily rituals and management of a temple. A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S V N Bhatti issued a notice to the Uttarakhand government in the matter on July 28 and sought a reply within two weeks. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like TV providers are furious: this gadget gives you access to all channels Techno Mag Learn More Undo The top court had earlier said any decision taken by the Badri Kedar Temple Committee would be subject to the outcome of the petition. The plea of Mahant Bhawani Nandan Giri, filed in the top court through advocate Ashwani Dubey, has contended that the Uttarakhand High Court had, without any evidence and complaint, delegated the control of the temple to a committee despite there being a panel consisting of the district magistrate (DM) and senior superintendent of police of Haridwar that was constituted by it in 2012. Live Events The petitioner has also argued that the direction to appoint the receiver was passed during an anticipatory bail plea hearing of an accused in a criminal matter. The Maa Chandi Devi temple was founded in the 8th century by Jagadguru Sri Adi Shankaracharya and since, it is stated that the petitioner's ancestors have been managing and looking after it as "sevayat". There is neither a single complaint nor the question of mismanagement or misappropriation has ever been flagged by the committee consisting of the DM and the SSP appointed by the high court, the plea has said. "The high court passed directions which are arbitrary, illegal and perverse and outside the pleadings and without any specific relief, that too in violation of the principle of natural justice as the petitioner, who is the sevayat/chief trustee, was not heard," the plea has said. The petitioner has further said the high court did not issue a notice and passed the impugned directions. The plea has said the high court "erroneously" entrusted the work of the temple to the Badri Kedar Temple Committee, without appreciating that the panel consisting of the DM and the SSP was working diligently. The high court passed the order while hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by one Reena Bisht, claiming to be the live-in partner of Rohit Giri, the head priest of the temple. Rohit Giri's wife, Geetanjali, got an FIR lodged on May 21 against her husband, Bisht and seven others, alleging that the woman attempted to run over her son with a vehicle on May 14. On the same day, Rohit Giri was arrested by the Punjab Police in a separate molestation case and is currently in judicial custody. The high court had observed that Rohit Giri was living with Bisht when his divorce proceedings were pending and Bisht gave birth to their child in January. "Trustees of the temple are creating a noxious atmosphere ... and there is complete mismanagement in the trust. It cannot be ruled out that there may be misappropriation of donations," it had said.
