Protect Tolly directors' right to profession: HC
on Monday to ensure that the "right to life and business, trade and profession" of the directors is not interfered with.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
If required, the secretary should take help from a jurisdictional police station to ensure the same.
In case of any interference or difficulty faced by the directors, they have been asked to report to the secretary, who would take immediate remedial steps. Justice Amrita Sinha gave this order in response to multiple contempt cases filed by a group of
. They alleged that despite the court's order on April 3, the
(FCTWEI) continued to interfere.
One of the directors' advocates submitted, "After the order passed in the writ petition, the situation has become worse. Because of the litigations, there is a vindictive attitude shown towards us. Messages are being flooded on WhatsApp groups and elsewhere. People are making statements that this order has no binding effect. They are not going to listen to this order. Now the situation is even worse."
Meanwhile, the state came under fire for not complying with the orders of the court.
On April 3, the judge directed the secretary of INCA to consider the issues raised by the directors who approached the court regarding the right to carry out a profession independently. A decision was supposed to be placed by the state, but it was not done.
The Senior Standing Counsel representing the state informed that they were going to move an appeal before the division bench challenging the order and are awaiting a certified copy to do the same. To this, Justice Sinha said, "There is an order you have not complied with, and there is no stay order. Somebody's right to life is being infringed, and the state is not taking any step to protect the right of these people. This is what is troubling the court.
If the decision is placed, then at least the court will come to know the stand of the state in this impasse which has been created."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
30 minutes ago
- Hans India
Justice Sudarshan Reddy symbolises humanitarian values in judiciary
INDIA Bloc's decision to nominate former Supreme Court judge as its candidate for the post of Vice-President of India is indeed a commendable decision. From every perspective, Justice B Sudarshan Reddy is eminently qualified for this constitutional position. A judge deeply committed to the rule of law; he has dedicated his life to upholding constitutional values in the Indian democratic framework. Among the pillars of the Indian Constitution, the judiciary holds a critical role. Some judges have etched their names in history through their unwavering integrity, distinctive vision, and faith in democratic principles—Justice Sudarshan Reddy is one among them. Journey in legal education: Born in 1948, Justice Sudarshan Reddy pursued his legal education in Hyderabad and obtained his law degree from the Law College. Even during his student days, he displayed a strong commitment to the legal system, a deep understanding of constitutional values, and a dedication to social justice. He began his legal career in 1971, advocating on constitutional matters in both the High Courts and the Supreme Court. He gained recognition for his fearless arguments in public interest litigations and constitutional issues. In 1995, he was appointed a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, and later in 2007, he took charge as a judge of the Supreme Court. His judgments consistently reflected a reverence for the Constitution, a protection of people's rights, and a firm commitment to transparent governance. He also served as the Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), launching several initiatives to ensure access to justice for ordinary citizens. Judicial integrity and distance from politics: One of the most notable aspects of Justice Reddy's career is his strong belief in keeping the judiciary free from political influence. His landmark judgments continue to serve as guiding lights for legal professionals. His rulings in cases of national importance have had a profound impact on society. Vice-presidential nomination: In today's politically turbulent environment, nominating a figure like Justice Reddy symbolizes a stand for ethics and democratic values. The INDIA alliance's decision reflects their respect for judicial integrity and the dignity of constitutional offices. Justice Reddy is also to be commended for his commitment to democracy. His presence in the office of the Vice-President would enhance the stature of the Constitution and uphold moral values. This role would be a fitting tribute to a life devoted to justice. Landmark Salwa Judum judgment: Particularly worth discussing is his historic verdict in the Salwa Judum case, which stands as a milestone in Indian judicial history. This decision played a vital role in defending citizens' fundamental rights and upholding constitutional values. The Salwa Judum case: In the case Nandini Sundar & others vs State of Chhattisgarh, on July 5, 2011, Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy, along with Justice S.S. Nijjar, delivered a historic and significant judgment. This verdict deserves an entire book of its own (which the author had the privilege of translating and was published by Malupu Publications). The case dealt with the Chhattisgarh government arming tribal youth under the banner of Salwa Judum to combat Maoists. Key points of the verdict: 1. Salwa Judum declared unconstitutional: The Court held that the government's act of arming tribal civilians to fight Maoists was against the Constitution. 2. Arming civilians is unethical and dangerous: Appointing untrained villagers as Special Police Officers (SPOs) and giving them weapons was described as highly unethical and risky. 3. Violation of fundamental rights: The policy was deemed in violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution. 4. Immediate disbanding ordered: The Court ordered an immediate halt to Salwa Judum activities and withdrawal of arms given to civilians. 5. Citizens' safety must be ensured: The ruling stressed that the government must address the Maoist problem through legal and secure means, not by turning civilians into combatants. Through this landmark judgment, Justice Reddy sent a clear and powerful message to the government about the protection of citizens' rights. It was a significant step in defending human rights and constitutional values. This verdict stands as a shining example of 'Judicial humanism' in Indian legal history. Speech on the Constitution's preamble: Recently, in a public address related to a book titled 'Preamble of the Constitution' (authored by the writer), Justice Reddy criticized certain senior figures who argue that the Indian Constitution does not truly belong to India. He cited how, even on the day the Constituent Assembly drafted the Constitution, an editorial in the Organizer newspaper openly refused to recognize the tricolour flag and the Constitution. They declared that they would neither accept it nor follow it. Justice Reddy, referring to such intellectuals, highlighted Dr. Ambedkar's response, who proudly stated that if India's Constitution has been borrowed from multiple global sources, there was no shame in it. 'It is only wise to adopt good ideas, no matter where they come from.' Nehru's resolution and the idea of Union: Before the Constitution's enactment, Jawaharlal Nehru had drafted the Objectives Resolution, a precursor to the Preamble. He envisioned a Union of States, emphasizing greater powers to the States, with only essential powers retained by the Union government. This resolution was introduced on April 31, 1946, even before the Partition Plan. Justice Reddy questioned critics who belittle Nehru's contribution, asking whether they even understand his depth of knowledge—evident in his seminal work The Discovery of India, which explores the Upanishads, the Himalayas, the Ganges, the Aryans, and Mohenjo-Daro. He challenged those who pretend to be learned while unfairly blaming Nehru. Gandhi's wisdom: Quoting Gandhi, 'I keep all my windows open to let in fresh ideas from wherever they come,' Justice Reddy remarked how some people try to create artificial conflict between Ambedkar and Gandhi and then take satisfaction in such misrepresentations. Justice Reddy stands as a symbol of judicial ethics, human rights, and constitutional morality. His nomination to the Vice President's office reflects a broader commitment to preserving democratic and humanitarian values in India. His judicial career, particularly the Salwa Judum verdict, is a legacy that exemplifies how law can be a tool for justice and compassion in a democratic society. (The writer is a former CIC and Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
6 hours ago
- Business Standard
States will be at whims of governor if nod to Bills withheld: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the power of the governor to permanently withhold assent to bills would leave the state government, which is elected with majority, at his 'whims and fancies'. 'Would we not be giving total powers to the governor to sit in over an appeal. The government elected with the majority will be at (the) whims and fancies of (the) governor,' Chief Justice of India(CJI), Justice B R Gavai, said. The court was hearing the maintainability of the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143. The reference was concerning the April 8 ruling of the top court that set timelines for governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by the legislature. In the April 8 judgment, a bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan invoked its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to fix deadlines for the President and governors to act on state bills. Replying to the query of the CJI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the Constitution Bench of CJI B R Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice P S Narasimha, and Justice Atul S Chandurkar that everyone derives power from the Constitution. On the powers of the governor under Article 200, Mehta said the governor has four options- assent to the bill, withhold assent, reserve the bill for consideration of the President or send it back to the legislature. He said that when the governor withholds assent, the bill falls through. Article 200 of the Indian Constitution outlines the governor's powers regarding assent to bills passed by the state legislature. If a bill is returned, the legislature can pass it again with or without amendments, and the governor is then bound to give assent. The bench, however, remarked that the governor has to communicate his or her decision and that the focal point of the debate would be whether withholding is temporary or permanent. Mehta said the power to withhold is to be used rarely and only in the first instance, as it leads to the death of the bill. 'The governor is not just a postman. He represents the Union of India, appointed by the President. The President is elected by the entire nation by way of the entire election and that is also a way of democratic expression,' Mehta said. After the April 8 judgment, the President invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India to consult the Supreme Court. This Article, commonly referred to as the power of 'Presidential Reference', empowers the President of India to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. President Murmu, on May 13, posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court of India on several aspects of law, including the ambit of the powers under Article 142. In response, the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu filed an application questioning the maintainability of the reference. It urged the Supreme Court to return the reference unanswered and said it was an attempt by the Centre to indirectly overrule binding judgments without disclosure. Meanwhile, the central government supported the reference, arguing that the power of governors and the President to act on bills cannot be bound by judicial timelines. The hearing will continue on Thursday.
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
Stay on KJ George, officials extended till Aug 28
Bengaluru: The high court extended till Aug 28 the interim stay on further proceedings before the special court in a complaint against energy minister KJ George and some Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (Bescom) officials. This is in connection with the July 17 private complaint filed by BJP functionaries alleging irregularities in issuance of a tender for procuring and installing smart electric meters across the state. Justice MI Arun, who heard the matter for some time, adjourned the hearing. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru | Gold Rates Today in Bengaluru | Silver Rates Today in Bengaluru Apart from the minister, Mahantesh Bilagi, former managing director of Bescom and presently MD of Karnataka State Minerals Development Corporation, along with HJ Ramesh, director (technical), Bescom, have sought quashing of the private complaint registered for offences under Sections 314, 316, and 61 of BNS, 2023, and Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Three BJP MLAs — CN Ashwath Narayan, SR Vishwanath, and D Muniraj — had lodged a complaint with Lokayukta police in April. Subsequently, they filed the private complaint before the special court for elected representatives. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
