"Will move SC to challenge DDA's demarcation of properties in Batla House area": AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan
New Delhi [India], June 12 (ANI): Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan on Thursday said he would move the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) demarcation of properties in the Batla House area of Okhla.
The move followed directions from the High Court's Division Bench, which granted affected residents three days to file individual writ petitions.
This comes a day after Khan withdrew his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) from the Delhi High Court that had sought to stop demolition action initiated by the DDA.
Speaking to ANI, the AAP MLA said, 'The Division Bench has given time for the affected parties to file their writ individually within three days. We have also withdrawn our PIL. People have been living there since 1971, and you suddenly declared it unauthorised and separated it from the PM-UDAY scheme.'
'...The manner in which DDA wants to demolish this entire area is beyond my understanding...The demarcation done by them is not accurate. I withdrew my plea because I will challenge the demarcation before the Supreme Court,' he said.
Khan withdrew the PIL on Wednesday to inform the residents of his area to file an appropriate petition before the court.
The withdrawal was allowed by a division bench of Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court, which suggested that individual residents approach the court with their grievances.
'In furtherance of the last order, senior counsel on the instructions of briefing counsel seeks permission to withdraw the petition filed by the petitioner, who is a public-spirited person, so he can inform the residents of Batla House to file an appropriate petition before the court,' the High Court said.
At the outset of the hearing, the High Court noted that some aggrieved individuals have already been given protection by the court after hearing their individual petitions.
The High Court at the beginning emphasised that any adverse order while deciding the PIL may affect the rights of the individuals who are already before the single-judge bench.
The court has also emphasised that any aggrieved individual may approach the court like other people who have already approached the court. This issue is not a subject matter of the PIL.
Khan had filed a PIL challenging the notice issued by the DDA for the demolition of alleged illegal properties in the area of Batla House in Okhla.
The High Court on Monday had refused to grant an immediate interim stay on the demolition, which was proposed for June 11.
Earlier, the apex court on May 7 refused to grant relief and directed the demolition of the illegal properties.
Senior advocate Salman Khurshid appeared for the petitioner and argued that they (DDA) are pasting notices on the properties which fall beyond the khasra no. 279. The order of the Supreme Court was regarding the illegal properties within this khasra.
The counsel for respondents contended, on the other hand, that the PIL is not maintainable as the Supreme Court specifically directed that the individual aggrieved persons adopt the legal remedy.
DDA's counsel also said that the notices issued by the DDA are not generic and are in compliance with the Supreme Court. All the notices were given 15 days to respond. No demolition was carried out during the notice period. (ANI)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Congress: SC report can't be used for impeachment of Justice Verma
NEW DELHI: Amid speculations that the Supreme Court inquiry into Justice Yashwant Verma may form the basis for the impeachment proceedings, Congress MP Vivek Tankha Thursday shot off a letter to Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar flagging that the SC's inhouse report cannot be used for impeachment, and that due process under the Judges Inquiry Act would be required. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The view among the legal eagles in Congress is that moving on the SC probe would not stand the test of legality, contrary to the arguments that the use of the SC report would expedite the process of dismissing the judge. The view is also likely to be conveyed by the Congress to the government. Senior lawyer and Congress MP Abhishek Singhvi said that investigation report of the apex court is merely the institution's practice in cases of professional misconduct, and cannot substitute the legal processes. Singhvi said setting up a three-member inquiry committee, comprising a member of the Supreme Court, a high court chief justice and a distinguished jurist, is required under the Judges Inquiry Act. "The statutory three-member committee is a must. The in-house investigation is not statutory though it is must by the practice of SC. But it is a purely SC mechanism," he told TOI. Tankha wrote to Dhankhar, "Impeachment is a very serious matter where we have to clearly spell out charges and, therefore, it cannot be based on TV debates, social media narratives or unverified clippings. As an eminent legal luminary yourself, we are confident that you share our concern for the sanctity of the constitutional procedures." While the govt has announced an intent to remove Verma through impeachment in the monsoon session and is consulting the political parties, the opposition or the Parliamentarians have not yet submitted a motion on the issue. This is unlike the case of Justice Shekhar Yadav of Allahabad High Court, who triggered a controversy by making "hate speech" over the uniform civil code. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now 55 opposition MPs from Rajya Sabha submitted a notice for his impeachment on December 13, 2024, but the RS is still to decide on it. Tankha said he is not sure if the government wants to help Justice Verma or impeach him by initiating the impeachment process on the basis of the SC's inhouse probe report. "The SC inquiry was for the benefit of the Chief Justice of India and the court judges. But it does not form the legal material for the Parliamentarians to move the motion for impeachment," he argued.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Judge orders Trump to return control of National Guard to California
A judge has ordered U.S. President Donald Trump to return control of the California National Guard to the state, saying the President's decision to deploy them to protest-hit Los Angeles over Governor Gavin Newsom's objections was "illegal." "His actions were illegal ... He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith," U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer wrote of the President in the ruling, seen by AFP. However, he paused the order until 12 p.m. local time (1900 GMT) Friday — and the White House almost immediately launched an appeal that could make it all the way to the Supreme Court. "Donald Trump will be relieved of his command at noon tomorrow," Newsom said in televised comments after the ruling was issued. "He is not a monarch, he is not a king, and he should stop acting like one," the 57-year-old Democrat said. Mr. Trump's decision to federalise the National Guard — a reserve force — and deploy them in California over the objection of the state governor was one not taken by a US president since 1965. The Republican has argued he did so because protests in Los Angeles against immigration raids ordered by his administration had gotten out of control, and the city was "burning." But Mr. Newsom and local law enforcement have stated repeatedly that there was no need for the deployment, and the protests have been mostly peaceful and contained to a few city blocks -- albeit tarnished by some spectacular violence, including the torching of several cars. Critics have accused Mr. Trump — who also deployed 700 active Marines to the sprawling city — of exaggerating the crisis and exceeding his authority to conduct a power grab. Breyer's 36-page opinion said the violence fell "far short" of the "rebellion" Trump described to justify calling in the guardsmen. There was "no evidence of organized, as apart from sporadic or impromptu, violence" during the protests, which first broke out in Los Angeles on Friday, he said. "Nor is there evidence that any of the violent protesters were attempting to overthrow the government as a whole; the evidence is overwhelming that protesters gathered to protest a single issue -- the immigration raids." Breyer also wrote that he was "troubled" by the implication that "protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion." There was no immediate reaction from the White House to the ruling.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Justice Yashwant Varma case: In-house inquiry is not immunity
The discovery of burnt currency at the residence of a sitting judge on the night of March 14 has caused cracks in the faith that the public has in the judiciary, the integrity of institutions and the perception of justice in a democratic society. Certain efforts appear to have been made to heal the injury caused by this incident by initiating an in-house inquiry. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) quite diligently constituted a panel of three senior judges. The committee has given its report to the Chief Justice, who has submitted it to the President of India. It is reported that on the basis of the findings arrived at by the panel of judges, the CJI has recommended the removal of the judge through impeachment. On June 10, an Independent member of the Rajya Sabha and former law minister, Kapil Sibal, claimed that any motion to impeach the judge on the basis of the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry would be unconstitutional. Sibal's view is well-founded. The in-house committee has conducted the procedure to satisfy the need for a regular inquiry under The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Act stipulates the procedure for an investigation by a committee into allegations of misbehaviour by — or incapacity of — a judge. A House or both Houses of Parliament can take up a motion of impeachment only after such an inquiry. The inquiry under the 1968 Act is, however, not relevant for assigning criminal liability if the proven misbehaviour also falls within the definition of a crime. In this case, no FIR has been registered so far. Union Home Minister Amit Shah, while addressing the Times Now Summit 2025, stated that without the permission of the Chief Justice of India, in the matter relating to the discovery of burnt currency notes from the residence of the judge, no FIR can be registered — nothing can be seized in the absence of an FIR. In light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in K Veeraswami v Union of India (1991), sitting judges of high courts and the Supreme Court cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution, including the registration of an FIR, without prior consultation with the CJI. This is necessary to protect the judges from frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment. The CJI must assess the veracity of the allegations against a sitting judge, to advise the President on the need for an FIR. The in-house inquiry is essentially meant for this purpose. By no stretch of the imagination can the law laid down in Veeraswami be a tool to protect a judge from criminal liability. Our criminal law is competent enough to take necessary care of every eventuality. The discovery of the burnt money from the house of a sitting judge potentially constitutes several offences under various laws, including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Income Tax Act, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The offences under all the above enactments are serious and mostly cognisable. With respect to the March 14 incident, according to media reports, the firefighters first informed the police, including the Delhi Police commissioner. The police team reached the spot, and upon arrival, some photographs were taken and a video was recorded. However, the police did not register any case despite being under the obligation to do so under the provisions of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This could have been done without naming the judge and without including him in the list of the accused. According to Section 173 of the BNSS, the police, on reaching the scene of the crime, should have secured the area to prevent tampering, destruction or contamination of evidence. As per Section 175, the officer conducting the investigation should have recorded observations regarding the physical evidence available and also drawn a site plan or sketch with photographs and videos. Under Section 176 of the BNSS, the police officers should also have collected physical and digital evidence and should have preserved the same for the use of forensic experts. The police had the duty to protect the crime scene and preserve evidence to ensure a fair trial, as and when that takes place. Adherence to this procedure is fundamental to our criminal jurisprudence and to maintaining public confidence in our justice system. In this case, though certain photographs were taken and a video was recorded, no further care appears to have been taken to protect the scene of the crime and the relevant evidence. The burnt currency wasn't seized immediately and debris was reportedly removed by unknown persons. These are serious breaches. The registration of a case was necessary for an effective investigation. The law laid down in Veeraswami and other Supreme Court guidelines do not restrict the police from taking these necessary measures and registering a criminal case. The failure of the police to take all these measures has caused significant damage to the investigation. It is also strange that no criminal case has been registered even after the submission of a report by a panel of judges holding the judge concerned guilty. The writer is former Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court
