HC to hear afresh pleas against Maratha quota law from July 18
After the Supreme Court directive, HC, in May, constituted a new three-judge bench to hear the petitions, including those filed as public interest litigations, challenging the constitutional validity of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2024, which provides 10% reservation for the Maratha community in govt jobs and admissions to educational institutions.
The state opposed the request for consideration of any interim relief.
The new full bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge, N J Jamadar, and Sandeep Marne on Wednesday recorded submissions of advocate general Birendra Saraf. There were detailed arguments heard in 2024 on interim relief, after which there was an interim arrangement that all further admissions to educational institutions and employment would be subject to court orders.
Saraf submitted that this has operated for over a year and that the request for fresh consideration of interim relief was unwarranted.
Pradeep Sancheti, senior counsel for a petitioner, sought an earlier date. Other lawyers also argued, saying students who took admission last year were also affected and hence, were seeking interim orders.
In May, Supreme Court asked HC to expeditiously hear the pleas, including applications by students appearing for the undergraduate and postgraduate National Eligibility cum Entrance Test of 2025.
The students filed pleas seeking interim relief, claiming that a delay in the disposal of pleas was impacting their right to equal consideration in the admission process.
The petitions were not fully heard when the then HC Chief Justice was transferred in Jan as Delhi high court Chief Justice. Supreme Court said if Bombay HC cannot hear the matter for final disposal then it may consider interim relief. HC has now fixed a schedule to hear the matter at length on the main challenge.
Last July, HC had observed that the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission, headed by former HC judge Justice S B Shukre, was a necessary party to be heard in one of the PILs filed before it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
12 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC stray dog order spotlights poor pet registration in Delhi
The Supreme Court's recent directive to relocate stray dogs in Delhi-NCR has put the spotlight on another long-standing problem — the capital's dismal pet dog registration rate. Despite it being mandatory under Section 399 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (MCD) Act, only 5,767 pet dogs are registered in the city, with 381 applications pending, according to MCD data. The Supreme Court ruling on Monday had outright rejected the idea of stray dogs being adopted. It focused solely on relocation of community dogs and made no specific directive on pet dog registration. (AFP/Representational image) Officials warn that this gap leaves a dangerous grey area between pets and strays, opening the door to disputes and misuse of the complaint system. 'Registration and the token serve as proof of ownership. With the recent SC judgment, we expect a surge in applications, especially for adopted indigenous breeds,' said a senior MCD official. Non-registration can attract fines and prosecution under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita dealing with negligent behaviour with respect to animals. The Act also allows detention of unregistered dogs found in public places, a step veterinary officials say is rarely enforced. Experts warn that poor compliance risks deepening confusion and triggering disputes. Gauri Maulekhi, activist and trustee at People for Animals (PFA), said the lack of registration creates a grey area between pets and community dogs. 'Some people collar strays, keep them indoors for long periods, or adopt indies as full-fledged pets. If neither strays nor pets are tagged, it's bound to cause confusion,' she said, adding that this could even pit neighbours against each other. 'A neighbour might report my dog as a stray, or conversely, collar a stray and claim it's a long-time pet.' The Supreme Court ruling on Monday had outright rejected the idea of stray dogs being adopted. It focused solely on relocation of community dogs and made no specific directive on pet dog registration. Asher Jesudoss, whose 2022 plea in the Delhi high court led to the creation of the Delhi Animal Welfare Board, said that since very few dogs are registered in Delhi, one can find it difficult to differentiate between pets and strays. 'As the name suggests, community dogs are those that belong to the entire community. But nothing stops an individual from collaring the stray and taking it indoors and keeping it as a pet. As per our rules, all breeds and dogs need to be registered. MCD needs to register all pets as proving ownership otherwise becomes tricky,' he said. Pet registration can be done online, with a uniform ₹500 fee. A veterinary official said actual registrations are far below the real number of pets. 'We issue a brass token for the dog's collar, which also lets us track vaccination status,' the official added.
Indian Express
12 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court's stray dog order: Amicus report flagged ‘fundamental right' to move freely without fear of dog bite or assault
Underlining the fundamental right of a human being to move freely without the fear of a dog bite or assault, the Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae had recommended relocating stray dogs to shelters and not releasing them back on the streets. In his recommendations to the court before Monday's order, Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, the amicus in the case, said: 'Putting the dog back on the street, where there is grave harm to us, is a direct violation of our fundamental rights to move freely without the fear of a dog bite/ assault.' On Monday, the court directed the authorities in Delhi-NCR to relocate all stray dogs to dedicated dog shelters, underlining that they should not be released back on the streets. 'The 2023 Rules somehow seems to suggest that the fundamental rights of stray dogs to roam around in the street(s), attack human beings and create public nuisance is at a higher pedestal than the fundamental rights of human beings,' the amicus report said. The 2023 Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules deal with the management of stray dog and cat population. The Rules reclassified them as 'community animals', included provisions for community animal feeding and specified that stray dogs cannot be displaced from their regular place of habitation. While the ABC Rules mandate that stray dogs be brought back to their habitat after sterilisation, the amicus report said there is 'absolutely no material to suggest that the sterilisation would eliminate the chance of the dog biting.' 'In almost all developed countries, there are no stray dogs on the streets,' the report said. 'There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that our streets/ public places should be free from stray dogs,' it added. Citing rising dog bite data, the report said: 'The presence of stray dogs on our streets/ public places like airports, railway stations is a direct infringement of our fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21 (right to move freely and the right to life respectively) of the Constitution of India.' Citing government data, it said that in 2024, there were 37,15,713 reported dog bites across the country and 25,201 dog bites in Delhi. According to the report, Delhi had 3,196 cases of dog bites in January alone. 'If figures of January 2025 are any indication, the cases of dog bites have increased by 50%,' the report said. The report suggested that the Court could issue directives to municipal authorities in Delhi to 'begin by creating dog shelter(s) for say 5,000 dogs in the next 6-8 weeks.' It also recommended that stray dogs captured would be detained in shelters and 'would not be released on the streets/ public spaces under any circumstance.' The amicus also recommended that stray dogs captured may be put up for adoption to individuals through animal welfare organisations.
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
Delhi High Court Rules Victim Compensation Scheme Not Applicable Retrospectively; 1984 Riot Claim Rejected
New Delhi: In a significant ruling, Delhi High Court has said the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme (DVCS) can't be applied retrospectively, rejecting a plea for compensation by a victim of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. Clarifying the legal position, a bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar also noted that DVCS compensation can be paid only in cases where victims have not already received money under other govt compensation schemes. The court was hearing a plea by a family that lost its breadwinner in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots following Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's assassination. Avtar Singh, a Sikh, was killed by a rampaging mob in the Raj Nagar area of Palam. The men accused were later acquitted in 1986. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi | Gold Rates Today in Delhi | Silver Rates Today in Delhi The HC traced the DVCS's origin to Section 357A of the erstwhile CrPC, which dealt with victim compensation. It opined that since the scheme owes its existence to Section 357A, it should apply prospectively. It added that "retrospective application of either the provisions of Section 357A of the CrPC or the DVCS would open the floodgates for all and sundry to rake up old and stale claims seeking compensation, be it for an incident occurring just before the introduction of the scheme or three decades prior, like in the present case." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What does it take to be an air traffic controller in Singapore? CNA Read More Undo While rejecting the compensation claim, HC noted that the complainant, Baljeet Kaur, disclosed in an affidavit that her family had already received a total of Rs 11,90,000 from the govt for the death of her father, Avtar Singh, in the 1984 Sikh riots. "Clause 4 (of DVCS) restricts eligibility for compensation to victims or their dependents who have not been compensated for the loss or injury under any other scheme of the Central Govt or State Govt. This clarifies that the DVCS was formed as an umbrella scheme to provide relief to those victims who have been deprived of compensation through any other scheme or Act," HC noted, after amicus curiae appointed in the matter, Senior Advocate Sumeet Verma, argued that Singh's family is entitled to additional compensation under DVCS. The bench noted that the "incident in question took place in the year 1984, and since then, multiple schemes have been introduced by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India, and later adopted and implemented by state govts, including the Delhi govt. A review of these schemes shows that the total monetary benefit, without indexation, would surpass the upper limit of compensation prescribed under the DVCS. The govt has taken additional initiatives to reimburse the victims for property damage and loss, and skill development as well. " While this case was one of five reopened in 2017 due to a botched investigation into the 1984 riots, the verdict narrowed down on the issue of compensation payable, after it emerged that accused Mahender Singh Manan, also known as Mahender Sharabi, and Ram Kumar, are now dead. However, HC made it clear that its ruling won't exclude any victims affected by the riots who have not received compensation under any schemes from lodging their claims under other existing schemes. The bench directed that such claims be verified by authorities within a period of sixteen weeks of receipt and, if approved, payments be made within a period of eight weeks. 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.
