Supreme Court bans hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran
A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria said that those plying it are not doing so by choice but because they have no other source of livelihood.
'Permitting such an inhuman practice, which hits at the basic concept of human dignity in a country like India, which is a developing country, belittles the constitutional promise of social and economic justice,' the court added.
The bench pointed out that the SC had in the case People of India for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, given an expanded meaning to Article 23, holding that it was intended to abolish every form of forced labour and said that even if remuneration is paid, labour supplied by a person will be hit by Article 23 if it is forced labour.
It referred to the SC's 1980 ruling in the case Azad Rickshaw Pullers Union (Regd.) vs State Of Punjab & Others which dealt with the rehabilitation of cycle rickshaw pullers in Punjab. The bench said it was then held that the practice of allowing cycle-pulled rickshaws was inconsistent with the preambular promise of social justice.
The bench said, 'it is really unfortunate that after 45 years of the observations made by this Court in the case of Azad Rickshaw Pullers Union, the inhuman practice of a human being pulling another human being is still prevalent in the town of Matheran.'
It said that allowing manual rickshaws today would be a betrayal of the promise of social and economic justice that the people of India promised to themselves. 'The question that we ask ourselves is as to whether this practice is alive to the Constitutional promise of social and economic equality and social and economic justice. The answer, unfortunately, will have to be in the negative. To continue such human practice even after 78 years of tecountry getting freedom and after 75 years of the Constitution being enacted and promising social and economic Justice to its citizens, however, would be betraying the promise given by the people of India given to themselves,' the order said.
The SC added, 'we therefore find that the practise of permitting hand-pulled rickshaws needs to be stopped forthwith.'
It directed the 'state to stop the practice of hand-pulled rickshaws in a phased manner within a period of 6 months from today'.
The bench said the question would then arise as to what will happen to those dependent on it for their livelihood.
It said that the answer lies in switching to environmentally friendly e-rickshaws.
The Court asked the Maharashtra government to roll out a rehabilitation scheme for the rickshaw pullers of Matheran saying 'the state… has also a duty under the directive principles to ensure that social and economic justice is done to the citizens…'.
The bench said that the non-availability of funds 'cannot be an excuse for non-implementation of the…scheme' and added, 'we earnestly hope that the state would tender necessary assistance in stopping such an inhumane practice.'
The court asked the state to adopt the model followed in Kewadia of Gujarat, where the state purchases e-rickshaws and gives them to genuine rickshaw pullers on hire.
It asked the Matheran monitoring committee, headed by the Collector, to identify genuine rickshaw pullers who need to be rehabilitated and said the committee will decide the number of e-rickshaws needed after taking into account ground realities.
It permitted the state government to lay paver blocks from Dasturi Naka (bus station) up to the Shivaji Statue in Matheran and said that no paver blocks are to be laid on the internal road and the trading routes. The court also directed that any concrete blocks already laid should be replaced by paver blocks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
11 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Plea Not Worth Entertaining": Supreme Court Setback For Judge In Cash Row
The Supreme Court has knocked back Justice Yashwant Varma 's challenge of an in-house committee that recommended his impeachment over burnt piles of money found at his Delhi home in March. The recommendation - delivered by then-Chief Justice Sanjiv Kumar - has legal sanction and is constitutionally valid, as was the three-judge committee, the court said Thursday morning, ruling Justice Varma's petition "not worth entertaining" and reproaching him for his not "confidence-inspiring" conduct. This clears the way for the impeachment process initiated last month. Justice Varma - who could become the first High Court judge in independent India to be removed from office - will now be investigated by Parliament under Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Constitution. In his writ petition Justice Varma, listed as 'XXX' in the records, had offered the two-judge bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and AG Masih five reasons why he could not be sacked. These included questions over the jurisdiction and authority of the in-house committee to investigate a sitting judge. Justice Varma argued the committee ignored questions he had raised, and that could speak to his innocence, and denied him a fair hearing. He also argued that neither the Chief Justice of India nor the Supreme Court had 'power of superintendence', i.e., they cannot take disciplinary action against High Court judges, because their tenure is protected by the Constitution. He also argued his colleagues' recommendation "usurps parliamentary authority... it empowers the judiciary to recommend removal of Judges from constitutionally-held office". Justice Yashwant Varma Impeachment The impeachment process began July 21, i.e,. on the first day of the current Parliament session. Over 145 MPs - from the opposition and the government's ranks - submitted a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla calling for an investigation into Justice Varma and the cash-at-home row. What Is Impeachment? It is a constitutional mechanism to remove a sitting judge - specifically those from the Supreme Court or a state High Court - from his/her office. Once appointed, judges cannot be removed from office without an order from the President, who, in turn, requires consent from Parliament. NDTV Explains | How Do You Remove A Sitting Judge? Impeachment Explained The Constitution does not actually refer to the word 'impeachment', but the procedure to remove judges is outlined in the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 and mentioned in two constitutional provisions - Article 124 (for Supreme Court judges) and Article 218 (for those from High Courts). How Is Impeachment Done? An impeachment motion can be introduced in either House of Parliament. At least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs must sign the motion - which is a record of the intention to impeach - for it to proceed further. In the Lok Sabha that number is 100. Once that threshold is reached, the Chair of the former or the Speaker of the latter, depending on which House admits the motion, will review the available materials.
Hindustan Times
11 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC junks Justice Varma's plea against in-house inquiry, CJI's recommendation
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the legality and findings of an in-house judicial inquiry that affirmed 'strong inferential evidence' of his involvement in the discovery of sacks of charred currency at his official residence in Delhi this year. Justice Yashwant Varma. (PTI) Delivering the judgment, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih affirmed the legality and constitutional validity of the inquiry mechanism, holding that it did not violate fundamental rights or constitutional provisions. 'With these observations, we have dismissed the petition,' Justice Datta said in court. The ruling came days after the court had reserved its verdict, having heard extensive arguments from senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi for Justice Varma. In its ruling, the apex court framed six legal and constitutional questions and answered all against Justice Varma. While noting that his conduct 'did not inspire confidence,' the bench said, even as it proceeded to examine the matter due to the important legal issues raised. The court held that the in-house inquiry mechanism has legal backing and has been consistently upheld in earlier Supreme Court judgments. It also rejected Justice Varma's contention that such inquiries create a parallel mechanism outside Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, which lay down the procedure for the removal of judges. The bench ruled that the process followed did not infringe on Justice Varma's constitutional or fundamental rights. Except for the release of a video showing the charred cash, which the court noted did not impact the outcome, the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna, and the committee 'scrupulously' followed the laid-down procedure. The court rejected the argument that the CJI's May 8 recommendation to the President and the Prime Minister for Justice Varma's removal was unconstitutional or made without affording him a hearing. 'The in-house procedure does not contemplate a hearing before the CJI or the collegium,' the bench said. The court also dismissed a related plea filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR into the matter, saying he had placed incorrect facts before the court. Earlier, while reserving its verdict on July 30, the court defended the role of the CJI in safeguarding institutional integrity, saying the top judge of the country is 'not a mere post office' but a constitutional functionary empowered to take proactive measures. It rejected Justice Varma's contention that the in-house committee's recommendation for removal overstepped its constitutional mandate. 'The recommendation for removal has to go. It is more than persuasive. When the CJI recommends removal, it virtually amounts to a death knell for a judge,' Sibal argued. But the court had then said the ultimate decision rests with Parliament, which is not bound by the CJI's recommendation. The bench, during the July 30 hearing, also pointed out that the Judges' Protection Act allows for non-punitive steps to be taken by judicial authorities in the interest of the institution, adding that the term 'otherwise' in the law gave the court and the CJI a broad mandate to preserve judicial integrity. Justice Varma, a former judge of the Delhi high court, came under scrutiny in March this year after sacks of charred currency were recovered from his official residence following a fire. He was stripped of judicial work and repatriated to his parent high court at Allahabad soon after. The CJI initiated an in-house inquiry, which concluded with a finding of 'strong inferential evidence' linking Varma to the incident. The May 3 report was forwarded by then CJI Khanna to the President and Prime Minister, triggering Varma's legal challenge. While Justice Varma's legal team argued that principles of natural justice were violated, including denial of cross-examination and personal hearing before the CJI, the court maintained that the in-house mechanism is limited in scope and not a full-fledged trial, with the final decision on removal resting with Parliament. The judgment now clears the way for potential parliamentary proceedings, which began with 145 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs submitting notices in Parliament for his removal on July 21, the opening day of the monsoon session. Earlier, the three-member in-house panel, comprising then high court chief justices Sheel Nagu, GS Sandhawalia, and Justice Anu Sivaraman, concluded its findings on May 3. Though it found no direct evidence linking Justice Varma to the charred currency, the report stated that his conduct 'belied the trust' reposed in a constitutional judge and warranted impeachment proceedings. Varma has denied all wrongdoing, terming the case a conspiracy, and in a letter to CJI Khanna on May 6, rejected the latter's suggestion to resign or opt for voluntary retirement.
Hindustan Times
39 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Elected govts at local body levels key to India's goal of being developed nation: Report
Lack of duly elected governments at the city or urban local body levels is an obstacle to India's ambitious goal of being a developed nation, a report released on Wednesday. The report by Bengaluru-based non-profit Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Democracy argued that developed cities are a key to India's economic growth, and globally, there are no examples of cities being developed well without strong urban local governments. (Representative file photo) To make their case, the authors said Indian cities already contribute 60% of GDP. But, compared to the global average of 3.9% increase in per capita GDP for every 1% increase in urbanisation, India delivers only a 1.7% increase. The study noted that a 932% increase in central government budgets for the urban sector from 2009–10 to 2024–25, along with a similar rise in investments by respective state governments, has failed to deliver optimum results. '59% of urban residents face water scarcity, 80% are exposed to unhealthy air quality, 36.4 crore urban residents faced very strong heat stress, and recurring urban floods across major cities, with the 2015 Chennai floods alone costing ₹15,000 crores. This signals deeper governance issues,' the authors of the report said. Titled 'Delays in Urban Local Government Elections in India: Analysis and Reform Pathways', the report flagged an average 22-month delay in conducting municipal elections, an 11-month average delay in electing mayors and forming councils, despite the Constitutional mandate of holding elections before council term expiry or within six months after dissolution. The study also shed light on many Constitutional silences, particularly in terms of laying down defined timelines and the lack of independence of state election commissions, with only eight of the 34 SECs having powers over both ward delimitation and reservation. Also Read: A road map to mitigate Delhi's pollution crisis As remedies, the report recommended reforms at the centre, state governments, and state election commission levels. Srikanth Viswanathan, chief executive officer at Janagraha, said, 'The centre should consider stopping central sector funding to states that do not facilitate duly elected city councils altogether, as done for 15th Finance Commission grants for cities without duly elected bodies.' He also said states should be incentivised for empowering state election commissions. The study collated findings from 13 court orders of various high courts and the apex court, CAG reports, interviews with state election commissioners, municipal legislations at the state level, and a roundtable organised with MPs, mayors, and sectoral experts held earlier in July. Janaagraha said that they will share the report with the chairperson of the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Housing and Urban Affairs who had chaired their roundtable, state governments, the Parliamentary Accounts Committee, and state election commissions.
