Talangana HC warns Rangareddy collector over contempt in pay scale case
The court has granted a final four-week deadline for compliance, warning that failure to act could invite punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The contempt proceedings stem from an earlier high court order dated April 2, 2024, directing the authorities to process the petitioners' claims for minimum pay scale in light of the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others. The ruling mandates that temporary workers performing duties similar to those of permanent employees should receive equal pay for equal work.
Despite clear directions, Narayana Reddy, who was then the Nalgonda district collector, passed a 'speaking order' on August 5, 2024, rejecting the petitioners' representations. He cited the petitioners' lack of employment in regular sanctioned posts as grounds for denial.
In response, the petitioners' counsel argued that the collector's stand was a deliberate deviation from the high court's order.
Justice Madhavi Devi observed that the IAS officer had intentionally overlooked the SC ruling and failed to apply the legal standards laid down in the April 2 order.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
36 minutes ago
- Indian Express
POCSO and age of consent debate in India: Debunking the misconceptions
The recent debates around the alleged reduction of the age of consent have gripped civil society and social media. Some concerns were raised in an article by Flavia Agnes and Audrey Dmello ('The faultlines of consent', IE, August 9). The purpose of this article is to clear some misconceptions and to clarify what has been argued before the Supreme Court (this writer is assisting Indira Jaising, the amicus curiae, before the SC on the matter). While propriety demands that the case be argued before the Court, and not in the court of public opinion, I feel it necessary to clarify some of the arguments so that sensationalism can be avoided. The case before the Supreme Court is about the age of consent. It has been pegged at 18 years by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual activity between children between the age of 16-18, since it is against the order of puberty at which point sexual awareness is attained. The case which has been pleaded here is not a blanket reduction of the age of consent, but to decriminalise consensual intercourse between children aged 16-18 by introducing a close-in-age exception. In recent times, there have been several cases of non-exploitative, non-abusive consensual relationships being criminalised. A significant proportion of cases being registered under the POCSO Act pertain to situations where girls leave their homes with their romantic partners, and cases of consensual sexual activity between teenagers. These cases — usually with a missing persons complaint or an FIR for rape — are usually initiated by the parents of these girls. After the teenage boy has been put through the rigmarole of the criminal process, branded as a criminal, the case usually falls on its face, with the girl turning hostile. The case is subsequently quashed, or the accused is released on bail. Such criminalisation is also much more common in cases of inter-caste and inter-faith relationships, where members of disadvantaged communities and religious minorities often find themselves at the wrong side of the law. Sometimes, while the Supreme Court has refused to quash the cases, they have stopped the execution of sentences by using its powers under Article 142. Under common law, minors are now understood to have evolving capacities to make decisions, including decisions about their life and death. In India, the age of majority is understood as outlined in the Abduction Acts of England. However, in England, this understanding has changed. Post R v D [1984] 2 All ER 449, the current law, even in England, for medical decisions, recognises that the minor has sufficient understanding and intelligence to make a decision and that is not to be determined by reference to any judicially fixed age limit. From 1940 to 2012, the age of consent was 16 years. It was raised to 18, post the December 2012 gangrape case. No reasons were provided for this change, either by the Verma Committee or on the floor of either House when POCSO was brought in or during the 2013 Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act. Agnes and D'mello argue that 16 is an arbitrary age. But so is 18. Sixteen years, as the age of consent, was the law for over eight decades, and it recognised that teenagers are sexually active. This criminalisation of consensual relationships, read along with the mandatory reporting provision, has also deterred teenagers from accessing sexual and reproductive health services and put their lives at risk. The National Health and Family Survey-5 noted that 45 per cent of teenage girls in the age group of 15-19 have had sexual intercourse. How can one protect the health interests of teenagers while also ensuring that abusive relationships are not decriminalised? The answer to this is simply allowing for a close-in-age exception to POCSO and IPC, in cases where relationships are non-abusive and non-exploitative. Agnes and Dmello seem to read this as a defense of abusive incestuous relationships, or relationships where the abuser is in a position of care or authority over the child. Such abuse is not defensible, and the arguments attack a fabricated imagination of the arguments advanced in Court. On a fundamental principle of criminal law, there cannot be mens rea when the relationship is non-exploitative and non-abusive, and thus, trying to criminalise such a relationship serves no legitimate purpose. This is a case of balancing competing interests. Different people may come to different conclusions as to how such interests can be balanced. It is equally true that child sexual abuse is a serious problem, and POCSO addresses the issue of child sexual abuse. I say this as someone who was sexually abused as a child. However, to be so rigid in the application of law, and to use the law in a manner so as to curtail the fundamental right to access to healthcare, and personal autonomy of children between the ages of 16 to 18, who are otherwise capable of giving consent and are involved in consensual sexual relationships, is a fool's errand. The writer is a bioethicist and a lawyer at the Supreme Court
India.com
38 minutes ago
- India.com
If not Aadhaar-PAN or Voter ID then what? Here's how you can prove your citizenship; documents like...
File/Representational New Delhi: In a significant development amid the nation-wide discussions on the Special Intensive Revisions (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, the Supreme Court has remarked that the Election Commission of India (ECI) is correct in asserting that an Aadhaar card does not constitute conclusive proof of citizenship. In the recent development, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi has stated that the inclusion or exclusion of citizens and non-citizens from the electoral rolls lies within the mandate of the poll body. With the supreme court observation, a buzz regarding the criteria or documents required to prove citizenship are also gaining significance. Why Aadhaar cannot be accepted as proof of citizenship? 'The EC is correct in saying Aadhaar cannot be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship. It has to be verified,' it remarked. During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the SIR process could lead to large-scale disenfranchisement of vulnerable citizens, especially those unable to submit the required forms. Sibal argued that most of the enlisted documents are not available to people in Bihar. Earlier, the Bombay High Court also made it clear that Aadhar card, PAN card or Voter ID card are only identity cards or documents to avail the benefits of services and one does not become a citizen of India with the availability of these cards. How can anyone prove citizenship? Citizenship is a special legal status granted by a country, giving people rights like legal protection, employment, and contesting elections. Notably, Citizenship in India, governed by the Citizenship Act 1955, cannot be proved with Aadhaar, PAN, Voter ID or Ration Card. What to do if you don't have Aadhaar-PAN or Voter ID? If you don't have Aadhaar-PAN or Voter ID, documents like a birth certificate or domicile certificate serve as proof as a proof of citizenship. If you don't have a birth certificate, you can be obtain it from the Gram Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, and if unavailable, a 'non-availability' certificate must be issued first. Also, a domicile certificate, issued by the state government after three years of residence, can also prove citizenship. (With inputs from agencies)
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC to hear on Aug 14 plea for restoring Jammu & Kashmir statehood
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Supreme Court would on Thursday hear a plea for the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran is likely to hear the matter, according to the December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the revocation of Article 370, even as it ordered that assembly elections be held in Jammu and Kashmir by September 2024 and its statehood be restored "at the earliest".Last year, a plea was filed in the top court seeking directions to the Centre for the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir within two application was filed by Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, an academician, and Khurshaid Ahmad Malik, a socio-political activist."It is submitted that the delay in the restoration of statehood would cause serious reduction of democratically elected government in Jammu and Kashmir, causing a grave violation of the idea of federalism which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India," the application assembly elections and the Lok Sabha polls were conducted peacefully in Jammu and Kashmir without any incident of violence, disturbance or any security concerns being reported, it said."Therefore, there is no impediment of security concerns, violence or any other disturbances which would hinder or prevent the grant/restoration of the status of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir as had been assured by the Union of India in the present proceedings," the plea non-restoration of the status of statehood of Jammu and Kashmir, the plea said, would result in a lesser form of elected democratic government to the state, particularly given legislative assembly results were declared on October 8, the apex court's directions for the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir "at the earliest and as soon as possible", no steps have been taken by the Centre to provide any timeline for the implementation of such directions, it claimed."Jammu and Kashmir is being operated as a Union Territory for a period of almost five years now, which has caused many impediments and grave losses to the development of Jammu and Kashmir and has affected the democratic rights of its citizens," the plea its December 2023 verdict, the apex court held that Article 370, which was incorporated in the Indian Constitution in 1949 to grant special status to Jammu and Kashmir, was a temporary provision. The President of India was empowered to revoke the measure in the absence of the Constituent Assembly of the erstwhile state whose term expired in 1957, the court said.
