India welcomes US's move to label Pahalgam attack group as terror outfit
In a significant development, Justice Yashwant Verma has approached the Supreme Court with a writ petition challenging the findings of a three-judge in-house inquiry panel against him in the 'Cash Hall case'. The petition seeks to quash the panel's report, which found strong inferential evidence, and also challenges the subsequent recommendation for his impeachment made by then Chief Justice of India, Sanjeev Khanna. Justice Verma contends that the inquiry violated the principles of natural justice, alleging he was denied a fair hearing and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. He states, "Inquiring committee erroneously shifted the burden of proof on him, requiring him to disprove a fact that the committee presumed fantasy to be true." The move is strategically timed ahead of the Parliament's monsoon session, where an impeachment motion was anticipated.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
Protests erupt in Chennai over SC order on removal of street dogs in Delhi-NCR
Police said the demonstrations in Delhi were organised despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), formerly Section 144 of the CrPC, which is currently in force as part of security measures ahead of Independence Day. According to officials, the protests turned unruly when police attempted to disperse the demonstrators, leading to clashes at some sites. The protests in Chennai came days after similar demonstrations in the national capital. On Friday, Delhi Police registered four FIRs in connection with protests held by dog lovers without prior permission on August 11 and 12 in the New Delhi district. Chennai: Animal lovers and rights activists staged a protest in Chennai on Sunday against the Supreme Court's order directing that all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR be moved to shelters within eight weeks. 'Those who refused to leave the protest sites despite repeated requests were detained. Legal action will be taken against all those found violating the law,' the Delhi Police said. One viral clip from the protests shows the Station House Officer of Tughlaq Road police station being manhandled by protesters, while another video shows a confrontation between a woman sub-inspector and a female demonstrator inside a bus. The protests followed the Supreme Court's August 11 order directing authorities to ensure that all localities in Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram and Faridabad are free of stray dogs. The court had ruled that captured animals should not be released back onto the streets. On Thursday, a three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria reserved its order on petitions seeking a stay on the directive. The bench said it would pass an interim order after hearing arguments from all sides. At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi government, said there was a 'loud vocal minority' opposing the order, while a 'silent suffering majority' supported action. 'In a democracy, there is a vocal majority and one who silently suffers. We had seen videos of people eating chicken, eggs, etc., and then claiming to be animal lovers. It was an issue to be resolved. Children were dying… Sterilisation did not stop rabies; even if you immunised them, that did not stop mutilation of children,' Mehta submitted. Citing World Health Organisation data, the Solicitor General said 37 lakh dog bites were reported in 2024, with 305 rabies deaths, most among children under 15 years of age. 'Dogs do not have to be killed… they have to be separated. Parents cannot send children out to play. Nobody is an animal hater,' he added. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing an NGO, questioned whether municipal authorities had created enough shelter homes for the dogs. 'Now dogs are picked up. But the order says once they are sterilised, do not leave them out in the community,' he argued, seeking a stay on the August 11 order. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi also opposed the directive. He said, 'Dog bites exist, but there have been zero rabies deaths in Delhi this year. Of course, bites are bad, but you cannot create a horror situation like this.' The bench observed that the core problem was the failure of local bodies to implement the Animal Birth Control Rules. Justice Nath remarked, 'Rules and laws are framed by the Parliament, but they are not followed. Local authorities are not doing what they should be doing. On the one hand, humans are suffering, and on the other hand, animal lovers are here.' In its detailed order, the court stressed that the August 11 decision was not taken on a 'momentary impulse' but after two decades of authorities failing to address a matter directly affecting public safety. A separate bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Madadev noted that the issue concerns both human welfare and animal welfare. 'This is not personal,' the bench said. (ANI) This report is auto-generated from ANI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content. Also read: How Delhi is mobilising to save its street dogs — shelters, safe houses, and watch patrols
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Ex-CJI Sanjeev Khanna to ONOE committee: Constitutional validity does not mean desirability
Former chief justice of India Sanjeev Khanna has told a parliamentary committee scrutinising the simultaneous election bill that the constitutional validity of a proposal in no way amounts to a pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of its provisions. Independence Day 2025 Modi signals new push for tech independence with local chips Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose gave India its own currency In his written opinion to the committee, Khanna, however, said that arguments related to the dilution of the country's federal structure may be raised about the constitutional amendment bill, as he listed the various claims made supporting and criticising the concept, sources said. Most of the experts, who have shared their views with the committee headed by BJP MP P P Chaudhary, have rejected the charge that the proposals are unconstitutional but have flagged some issues with the current provisions of the bill. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like War Thunder - Register now for free and play against over 75 Million real Players War Thunder Play Now Undo Khanna, who is scheduled to interact with the committee on Tuesday, has joined a few other former chief justices of India in raising concerns over the extent of power given to the Election Commission in the bill. He said the bill confers "unfettered discretion" on the EC in deciding that an assembly poll cannot be conducted along with that of the Lok Sabha, and to make a recommendation to the President on these lines, the sources said. Live Events "This clause will be open to question as violating and offending the basic structure of the Constitution on the ground of being arbitrary and offending Article 14 of the Constitution," he is learnt to have said. Article 14 deals with equality before law. Khanna added, "Postponement of elections by the Election Commission may result in indirect President's rule , in other words, the Union government taking over the reins of the state government. This will be questionable judicially, as violating the federal structure envisaged by the Constitution." Commenting on various arguments related to the bill, he said the fact that simultaneous elections were held in 1951-52, 1957, 1962 and 1967, is a "coincidence", certainly not an express or not even an implied constitutional mandate. Khanna said there is a difference between "merit review" and "judicial review". When the Supreme Court or high courts uphold constitutional validity, it is a mere affirmation of the legislative power and that the amendment or the provision is not violative of the constitutional limitations, he said. "The court decisions in no way amount to pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of such provisions," he added. Before Khanna, ex-CJIs D Y Chandrachud, J S Khehar, U U Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi have interacted with the committee members on various provisions of what is often referred to as " one nation one election " bill. The BJP and its allies have supported the bill, asserting that it will boost growth by cutting down on expenditure caused by the relentless poll cycle, leading to frequent deployment of security and civil officials on poll duty and the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct. The Opposition has argued that it undermines democratic principles and weakens federal structure.
Scroll.in
3 hours ago
- Scroll.in
SC overturns 2022 gram panchayat poll result in Haryana after recounting votes
The Supreme Court has overturned the result of a 2022 gram panchayat election in Haryana after issuing summons for the Electronic Voting Machines used during the polls and directing its registrar to conduct a recount of the votes. The case pertained to an election in November 2022 for the post of sarpanch of Buana Lakhu village in Panipat district. After the registrar recounted the votes in the Supreme Court, the defeated candidate Mohit Kumar was found to have obtained 51 more votes than Kuldeep Singh, the candidate who had been declared the winner. Subsequently, a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh on August 11 ordered the Panipat deputy commissioner-cum-election officer to issue within two days a notification declaring the defeated candidate as the elected sarpanch. The Supreme Court also said that the newly-elected sarpanch, who was the petitioner in the matter, would be entitled to assume his office immediately and perform his duties. It added that the result was subject to the final judgement of the election tribunal. The bench said that there was 'prima facie no reason to doubt the report submitted by the OSD [officer on special duty/registrar] of this court, especially when the entire recounting has been duly videographed and its result is signed by the representatives of the parties'. It added: '…we are satisfied that the appellant deserves to be declared as the elected sarpanch' in the election held in November 2022. During the hearing, Kant said that the candidate who was earlier declared as the winner of the election was not to be blamed as the 'blunder' happened only in one booth, Live Law reported. '…complete mess created by returning officer/the counting officer, it is he who committed a blunder,' Live Law quoted the judge as saying. 'In these kind of matters, the only solution is, you go for thought that High Court will write 15 pages to deny recount!' The case In 2022, a candidate Kuldeep Singh was declared the winner of the gram panchayat election in Buana Lakhu. However, the returning officer suo motu ordered a recounting of votes on the same day because of an error in the preparation of the result by the presiding officer at one of the booths, Live Law reported. Following this, another candidate named Mohit Kumar was declared elected. Kuldeep Singh had challenged the result the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which noted that the outcome of the election could not be suo motu changed by recounting the votes once a candidate was declared elected. The appropriate remedy available to an aggrieved party was to file an election petition, it added. The bench had set aside Kumar's election and directed authorities to notify Kuldeep Singh as the elected sarpanch. In response, Kumar filed an election petition, after which Kuldeep Singh raised a preliminary objection on the grounds of limitation. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which rejected Kuldeep Singh's objection and directed the election tribunal to decide the case within four months, Live Law reported. In April, the election tribunal held that there was a need to recount the votes at one of the booths and the deputy commissioner-cum-election officer was directed to conduct the exercise. However, this order was set aside by the High Court after Kuldeep Singh filed an appeal. Subsequently, Kumar moved the Supreme Court against the High Court order. In July, the Supreme Court ordered the production of the EVMs before a nominated registrar, Live Law reported. The registrar was directed to recount the votes for all five booths and this exercise was videographed. The report submitted by the registrar after the recount indicated that Kumar had secured 51 votes more than Kuldeep Singh in the revised result. On August 11, the Supreme Court reversed the earlier results but added that since one of the petitioners contended that certain other issues remained to be adjudicated, the parties were at liberty to present it before the tribunal.
