SC orders status quo in Ahmedabad slum demolition case, Assures to pay rent differential
New Delhi, Apr 25 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday directed that status quo be maintained at a slum site in Chharanagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, where demolition was allegedly being carried out despite the Court's earlier protective order.
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh passed the interim order while hearing a plea by 49 slum dwellers who claimed that they were being forcibly evicted without proper notice or rehabilitation, in violation of the Gujarat Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1973.
The matter was first mentioned before the Court on Thursday, when temporary protection from demolition was granted till Monday (April 28). However, after reports emerged that demolition activities had resumed at the site, the petitioner's counsel, AoR Sumitra Kumari Choudhary, urgently mentioned the matter again, seeking enforcement of the interim relief.
The Bench questioned the petitioner's counsel regarding relocation of slum dwellers as part of the area's redevelopment plan. When it was submitted that the rent compensation offered of Rs 6,000 per month was insufficient even for a slum accommodation, the Court advised the petitioners to accept the available alternative housing, and assured that the Court would address the rent differential if necessary.
Posting the matter for detailed hearing on April 28, the Court emphasized that no further demolition should take place in the interim.
The petitioners had earlier approached the Gujarat High Court challenging a public notice dated January 29, 2025, which required them to vacate their homes within 30 days.
They contended that individual notices were not served, and only a public notice was issued, violating their rights under the Slum Act. They also alleged that demolition began on March 20, 2025, without proper procedure.
The State of Gujarat, in response, argued that the area had been declared a 'Slum Clearance Area' in 2019, and that all structures were unauthorized. A work order had been issued to a private developer, and multiple public notices were pasted at the site. The State maintained that the petitioners were attempting to stall a long-pending redevelopment project, which had already benefited hundreds of residents.
The High Court had rejected the slum dwellers' plea, holding that due procedure was followed and over 508 beneficiaries were already relocated and awaiting new housing. It further observed that seven residential towers had already been constructed, undermining the claim that the petitioners were unaware of the redevelopment process.
The High Court had granted 30 days' time for voluntary vacation, provided the petitioners filed an undertaking.
Now, with the Supreme Court stepping in and indicating sympathy toward the plight of the slum residents, particularly on the issue of inadequate rent compensation, the case is set to be further heard on April 28, with the Court's assurance of balanced relief keeping the demolition in abeyance till then.
UNI SNG SJC
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
8th Pay Commission salary hike may miss January 2026 deadline: Will it impact fitment factor calculation?
Why the 8th Pay Commission might be delayed beyond January 2026? Live Events Fitment factor Dearness Allowance (DA) to be merged with basic pay Pensioners may see revised benefits What government employees should prepare for For nearly 35 lakh central government employees and over 67 lakh pensioners, the 8th Pay Commission has become a source of speculation. With growing chatter around possible pay hikes and revised pension benefits, expectations are soaring. Despite the excitement, there's still no official word from the government on when the 8th Pay Commission will be constituted, leaving many in employee unions have begun voicing concern over the delay, urging the government to form the Commission well in advance to ensure timely implementation and reduce uncertainty for both employees and 7th Pay Commission, which came into effect in January 2016, was announced nearly two years prior, in February 2014. That timeline gave enough room for report submission, cabinet approval, and a timely rollout. However, as of mid-2025, the 8th Pay Commission is yet to be formed, and the crucial Terms of Reference (ToR), which define the scope and goals of the commission, haven't been finalised officials have confirmed that internal discussions are underway, but given the pace of bureaucratic processes, the rollout may stretch well beyond the expected January 1, 2026 timeline. Even if the Commission is announced by the end of this year, historical patterns indicate a gap of 18-24 months before the recommendations are ready for implementation. At this pace, the hike might only materialise by late 2026 or early to the delay are fiscal constraints, with the government balancing welfare spending, election promises, and fiscal deficit targets. A generous hike could significantly strain the exchequer, prompting policymakers to tread carefully.A major part of the salary revision hinges on the fitment factor, Fitment factor is the number used to recalculate an employee's basic salary. In the 7th Pay Commission, this was set at 2.57, raising the minimum pay from Rs 7,000 to Rs 18,000. Going by the views expressed by various experts 8th Pay Commission could recommend a fitment factor between 2.5 and 2.86. "Considering the inflation factor, there are indications that the fitment factor may stay between 2.5- 2.8 times, which will give a significant boost to employee salaries between Rs 40,000 and Rs 45,000," says Krishnendu Chatterjee, Vice President at the top-end 2.86 figure is accepted, the minimum basic salary could climb to over Rs 51,000. However, due to its fiscal implications, such a steep hike may be challenging. A 2.6x to 2.7x hike appears to be more likely, providing a significant increase while keeping the government's finances in fitment factor for the 7th Pay Commission was 2.57 and the minimum basic salary was hiked to Rs 18,000 from Rs 7,000. For the 6th Pay Commission, the fitment factor was 1.86 and the minimum basic salary was raised from Rs 2,750 to Rs 7, likely shift is the merger of the Dearness Allowance with the basic salary. Currently pegged at around 55% effective from January 2025, DA helps offset the impact of inflation and is revised twice in a year. Before the effective date of 8th Pay Commission early next year, there is one more DA hike is due to be announced in coming months which will be effective from July 2025. When a new Pay Commission is implemented, DA accumulated up to that point is typically merged into the revised basic this increases the overall salary package, it also means future DA hikes start from zero. Employees will see a rise in gross salary and related allowances, such as HRA and transport, but may also experience low DA in the near term. However, a higher base salary will mean that each DA hike will mean a higher increase in implementation of the 8th Pay Commission is not only being eagerly awaited by salaried employees. Nearly 67 lakh government pensioners are also impacted by any revision in the pay scale. Previous Pay Commissions have included changes in pension calculation formulas and benefits, and similar adjustments are expected this time as merger of Dearness Relief (DR) into basic pension also affects pensioners, as their payouts are tied to similar structures. Any revision in the base figures could significantly alter monthly pension employees' associations have echoed the concerns of serving staff, pushing for greater clarity from the government on how pension recalculations will be carried out in the new the uncertainty, a few things seem inevitable. A revised pay structure is coming, but it may take longer than expected. The eventual hike could push minimum salaries up to Rs 40,000 - Rs 45,000, with pension adjustments following suit. DA will reset, but higher allowances may offset the initial flattening in salary government staff would do well to temper expectations, at least in terms of timing. The gains could be significant, but the road to them may be more drawn out than previous 8th Pay Commission is aimed to deliver significant financial changes for government employees and pensioners. Yet, the pace of bureaucracy, pending approvals, and fiscal balancing may delay the implementation beyond the earlier-set target of January 2026.
India Gazette
36 minutes ago
- India Gazette
TMC MP Saket Gokhale extends apology to Ambassador Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri for labelling
New Delhi [India], June 10 (ANI): Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Saket Gokhale on Tuesday extended an apology for 'having put out a series of tweets against Ambassador Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri on June 13 and 23, 2021.' The TMC MP in a post on X clarified that his 'tweets' contained wrong and unverified allegations in relation to the purchase of property by Ambassador Puri abroad. 'I unconditionally apologise for having put out a series of tweets against Amb. Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri on 13th and 23rd June 2021, which tweets contained wrong and unverified allegations in relation to the purchase of property by Ambassador Puri abroad, which I sincerely regret,' the Rajya Sabha member said. This came after the Delhi High Court issued a notice to Trinamool Congress leader (TMC) and Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament, Saket Gokhale, directing him to explain why he should not face civil imprisonment for failing to apologise to former diplomat Lakshmi Puri over defamatory social media posts. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora presided over the hearing of an execution petition filed by Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri, seeking enforcement of the final judgment and decree dated July 1, 2024. The ruling had mandated Gokhale to pay Rs 50 lakh in damages within eight weeks and publish a public apology both in a newspaper and on his X (formerly Twitter) account within four weeks. On April 24, 2025, the High Court had ordered the attachment of Gokhale's salary, amounting to Rs 1,90,000 per month, until the full decretal sum of Rs 50 lakh was realised. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing Lakshmi Puri, highlighted that a coordinate bench hearing a contempt petition had, on May 9, 2025, directed Gokhale to issue the apology within two weeks as per the decree. Singh pointed out that this directive had neither been disclosed to the current Court nor challenged through an appeal, and more significantly, it had not been complied with. After hearing submissions from both sides, including arguments from Gokhale's Counsel, Naman Joshi, the Court noted that the Judgment Debtor appeared to be disregarding its directives and judicial process. The Court observed that despite granting additional time for compliance, Gokhale had failed to adhere to the decree dated July 1, 2024, as well as the subsequent order issued on May 9, 2025. In response, the Court issued a show-cause notice to Gokhale, requiring him to explain why he should not be sent to civil imprisonment. The Court further directed him to file a reply within a week. Lakshmi Puri was represented by Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, briefed by Karanjawala & Company. (ANI)
India Gazette
36 minutes ago
- India Gazette
Delhi Court frames charges against 3 cops for demanding bribe for not to arrest in a drug case
New Delhi [India], June 10 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue Court has framed charges of corruption against three cops, including a sub-inspector of the Delhi police crime branch. All three were posted at the Police Station Anti-Narcotics Task Force (ANTF). It is alleged that two demanded a bribe for saving two persons from arrest. The third accused accepted Rs 2 Lakh on behalf of the two other accused. Special Judge Shailender Malik directed to frame charges against Sub Inspector Sanjeev Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) Kirori Mal and Head Constable (HC) Sanjay Kumar. While framing the charges the court said that there is sufficient material and evidence prima facie on record to show that there was criminal conspiracy amongst all the accused persons in demanding bribe money from complainant which was accepted by HC Sanjay Kumar. 'As such there is prima facie material for framing the charge against accused Sanjay Kumar under section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 (being a substantive offence) as well as against all the accused persons under Section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 read with 61(2) of BNS. Let the charges be framed,' the Special Judge ordered on June 9. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a charge-sheet in this case has been filed against accused SI Sanjeev Kumar, ASI Kirori Mal and HC Sanjay Kumar. As per the charge-sheet, complainant Rohit Kumar gave the complaint to CBI on 23.11.2024 alleging therein that an FIR is registered in PS ANTF/Crime Branch, Old Kotwali, Daryaganj, Delhi. In that FIR, a notice was sent to two friends of complainant, namely Satpal and Mujahid Malik to join the investigation on 09.09.2024. It was mentioned in the complaint that complainant and his both friends came Delhi for the purpose of joining the investigation at PS ANTF, they met SI Sanjeev Kumar, ASI Kirori Mal who allegedly demanded bribe amount of Rs. 2 lakhs from complainant for not arresting his friends Satpal, and Mujahid Malik. It is alleged that the named police officials threatened the complainant that if he would not pay the bribe amount of Rs. 2 lakhs then they would implicate the complainant also in said FIR. A complaint was filed and thereafter a trap was laid to arrest accused persons on November 25, 2024. Sanjay Kumar was arrested after he received the bribe amount. It is mentioned in the charge-sheet, that CBI Inspector Abhishek Saini and Inspector Dharamveer confronted Sanjay Kumar HC for demanding bribe from complainant. Sanjay Kumar admitted to have received the bribe amount at the instance of Kirori Mal ASI. SI Sanjeev Kumar and ASI Kirori Mal joined the investigation after the order of Delhi High court in December 2024 and January 2025. They both had also moved application for discharge from offence under section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988, solely on the ground that sanction is not proper or invalid, as was accorded by DCP and ought to have been accorded by or under instruction of Commissioner of Police in view of Section 19 read conjointly with Article 311 of Constitution. While dismissing their applications the court said, 'Such challenge to validity of sanction in the opinion of this court involve both legal as well as factual aspects because Investigation Officer (IO) of this case sought sanction for prosecution of accused from office of Commissioner of Police.' (ANI)
