HC asks govt to regulate e-rick movement in US Nagar's Kashipur
Dehradun: The Uttarakhand high court (HC) on Monday heard a public interest litigation concerning the absence of designated routes for e-rickshaws in Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar district.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
A division bench comprising Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra concluded the hearing by directing the petitioner to submit their case to the appropriate department within three months. The court noted that the issue involves policy considerations and should be addressed by the govt accordingly.
The petition, which was filed by Kashipur resident Abhimanyu Bhardwaj, pointed out that e-rickshaws, despite having a capped speed of 25 kmph, are currently operating on all available roads, including highways, posing significant safety risks.
Although the Union govt has exempted e-rickshaws from permit requirements under section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the power to allocate specific routes lies with the state govt. The petitioner contended that the state authorities have yet to designate routes, and the lack of permit obligations has led to a significant increase in the number of e-rickshaws. The plea sought judicial intervention to ensure route planning and public safety.
Dehradun: The Uttarakhand high court (HC) on Monday heard a public interest litigation concerning the absence of designated routes for e-rickshaws in Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar district. A division bench comprising Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra concluded the hearing by directing the petitioner to submit their case to the appropriate department within three months. The court noted that the issue involves policy considerations and should be addressed by the govt accordingly.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The petition, which was filed by Kashipur resident Abhimanyu Bhardwaj, pointed out that e-rickshaws, despite having a capped speed of 25 kmph, are currently operating on all available roads, including highways, posing significant safety risks.
Although the Union govt has exempted e-rickshaws from permit requirements under section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the power to allocate specific routes lies with the state govt. The petitioner contended that the state authorities have yet to designate routes, and the lack of permit obligations has led to a significant increase in the number of e-rickshaws. The plea sought judicial intervention to ensure route planning and public safety.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
32 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
ADM Jabalpur: The top court's fall and redemption
Fifty years after the Emergency, the memory of that period continues to haunt the conscience of India's constitutional democracy. Central to that collective reckoning is the Supreme Court's judgment in ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivkant Shukla case in 1976, famously dubbed the 'Habeas Corpus case'. Also Read: HC orders judicial inquiry into construction of 17 illegal buildings in Shil Daighar At a time when the judiciary was expected to act as the guardian of civil liberties, the apex court chose to become an instrument of the executive, handing down a verdict that effectively sanctioned state authoritarianism. The judgment is a cautionary tale of how legal formalism and deference to executive authority can gut the soul of a liberal constitutional democracy. Also Read: Supreme Court denies anticipatory bail to alleged 'dunki' agent HT takes a look at the legal, political and moral dimensions of the case, the dissent that stood tall against the tide, and the decades-long journey of constitutional redemption that culminated in its formal overruling in 2017. The context On June 25, 1975, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a national Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution, citing internal disturbances. Civil liberties were curtailed, political opponents jailed, and press freedom muzzled. The government invoked Article 359(1), issuing a presidential order suspending the right of citizens to move courts for the enforcement of Articles 14, 21 and 22 -- rights guaranteeing equality, life, personal liberty, and protection against arbitrary arrest. Also Read: Chhota Shakeel aide discharged from 2022 extortion case due to lack of evidence Against this backdrop, several high courts granted relief to detainees under Article 226, questioning the legality of their arrests under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971. The Union government challenged these orders, leading to the Supreme Court's decision in ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivkant Shukla. The pivotal legal issue was whether a citizen could seek judicial remedy via habeas corpus (essentially challenge detention) when the enforcement of Article 21 (right to life and liberty) stood suspended. In a 4-1 majority, the Supreme Court ruled that no individual had the locus standi to approach courts for enforcement of fundamental rights during the Emergency. The majority judgment, delivered by then Chief Justice of India AN Ray and concurred with by justices MH Beg, YV Chandrachud and PN Bhagwati, held that the suspension of Article 21 rendered the right to life and personal liberty non-justiciable. Even if a detention was illegal, arbitrary or mala fide, the courts had no authority to intervene, stated the majority opinion, asserting that rights existed only insofar as the Constitution recognised and enforced them. This effectively meant that during the Emergency, the State could deprive a person of their liberty or even life without any legal recourse. The verdict was an endorsement of unchecked executive power. It subordinated the judiciary to the will of the government, silenced legal dissent, and undermined the foundational promise of the Constitution: That liberty is not at the mercy of the State. The dissent The lone dissent came from justice HR Khanna, who rejected the majority's formalism and asserted that the right to life and liberty is not a gift of the Constitution but an inherent natural right. Drawing from natural law and common law traditions, justice Khanna argued that certain rights are so intrinsic to human dignity that they transcend constitutional text. His judgment famously stated, 'Even in the absence of Article 21, the state has no power to deprive a person of his life or liberty without the authority of law.' Justice Khanna underscored that the Constitution did not create the right to life and liberty; it merely recognised it. As he eloquently put it: 'Rule of law is the antithesis of arbitrariness.' This means that the executive branch cannot misuse its power and claim protection simply because the President has issued a proclamation. Therefore, he held, even when fundamental rights are suspended by a presidential order, judges still have the authority to review the actions of the executive to ensure they are lawful and not arbitrary. His principled stand cost him the Chief Justiceship as he was superseded by justice Beg despite being senior. The ADM Jabalpur judgment sparked outrage among jurists, scholars, and civil society. It came to symbolise judicial abdication, a moment when the Supreme Court failed in its primary duty to act as a bulwark against executive excess. Though the Emergency was lifted in 1977 and the Janata Party came to power, the damage had been done. Yet, the spirit of justice Khanna's dissent lived on, influencing a more expansive and liberal interpretation of rights in the years to come. Reversal and redemption The judicial journey from ADM Jabalpur to KS Puttaswamy Vs Union of India (2017) is one of moral and constitutional redemption. It began with Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India (1978), where the Supreme Court overturned the narrow reading of Article 21 established in AK Gopalan Vs State of Madras (1950) which held that each fundamental right operates independently and should therefore be interpreted in isolation. The Maneka Gandhi ruling declared that laws affecting personal liberty must be just, fair and reasonable, creating a triadic relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21 – as against the previous concept of fundamental rights existing in separate silos. Justice Krishna Iyer famously stated that natural justice is 'not a creation of the Constitution but inherent in human values.' In many ways, the Maneka Gandhi case was the jurisprudential response to ADM Jabalpur's moral collapse, reasserting the judiciary's role in preserving dignity and fairness. That trajectory culminated in the 2017 KS Puttaswamy verdict. In KS Puttaswamy, a nine-judge bench in the top court finally buried ADM Jabalpur. Writing the lead opinion, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud explicitly overruled the majority view in his father's judgment in ADM Jabalpur. He stated: 'The judgments rendered by all the four judges constituting the majority in ADM Jabalpur are seriously flawed. Life and personal liberty are inalienable to human existence. They constitute rights under natural law.' It was a rare and poignant moment of judicial introspection. In 2020, during the Covid-19 lockdown, the Supreme Court again revisited ADM Jabalpur. A bench headed by justice Ashok Bhushan, while ruling on police delays in filing chargesheets, emphasised that the right to liberty remains enforceable even in emergencies. The court noted that the 'retrograde steps' taken in ADM Jabalpur were immediately remedied by the 44th Amendment and formally overruled by Puttaswamy. The 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978 responded to the ADM Jabalpur verdict by inserting a critical safeguard -- even during an Emergency, Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended. This was Parliament's way of ensuring that the excesses sanctioned by ADM Jabalpur would not be repeated. It codified what justice Khanna had asserted all along – that certain rights are non-negotiable. The story of ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivkant Shukla is not just about a flawed judgment but stands as a grim reminder of what happens when courts choose executive convenience over constitutional conscience. It is about the fragility of constitutional rights, the dangers of judicial timidity and the enduring value of dissent. It is a crucial narrative that reveals about a moment when the rule of law bent under pressure, and how that breach was slowly repaired through principled jurisprudence and legislative intervention. Justice Khanna's dissent, once sidelined, now occupies a place of honour in India's constitutional canon. It reminds us that in times of crisis, the judiciary must rise above expediency and remain faithful to the moral foundations of the Constitution.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
'Popular' Yogi Adityanath, 'friend' Keshav Maurya: Decoding Amit Shah's UP speech
Union Home Minister Amit Shah's recent visit to Lucknow sparked political chatter as he shared the stage with Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya. The event, held to distribute appointment letters to over 60,000 newly recruited police personnel, marked Shah's first appearance in the state after the Lok Sabha elections and was closely watched for signals regarding the BJP's political direction in Uttar the hour-long event, Shah sat at the centre of the stage with Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on his right and Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Maurya on his the programme progressed, Shah was seen interacting with both leaders. However, it was his address that drew the most attention, particularly when he referred to Maurya as his "priya mitra" (dear friend) in Yogi Adityanath's presence. The remark gained significant traction on social media. While most viral clips focused on Shah calling Maurya his friend, they left out the earlier part of his speech where he praised Yogi as "the most popular (lokpriya ) and successful Chief Minister".With this, Shah seemed to make two key messages clear: one, that there is no question over Yogi's leadership in the state, and two, that Keshav Maurya remains an important and trusted figure within the BJP publicly acknowledging Maurya as his friend, Shah sent a clear message within party ranks that Maurya, despite recent setbacks, continues to enjoy the confidence of the top leadership. Shah's remarks also appeared to reassert Maurya's relevance as the BJP's most prominent OBC face in Uttar Pradesh, especially at a time when his political stature had seemingly diminished after losing his own seat in the Assembly elections and facing setbacks in his region during the Lok Sabha noted that Shah's speech not only reaffirmed Yogi Adityanath's place as the BJP's face in the state but also clarified that the party's future strategy would continue to revolve around key OBC leaders like Keshav BJP, which rose to power in UP with a carefully crafted caste coalition, appears to be returning to its old formula ahead of the 2027 BJP's renewed emphasis on OBC representation also comes against the backdrop of the opposition's growing focus on caste narratives. Akhilesh Yadav has repeatedly called the Yogi government a regime of a particular caste and has pushed the narrative of "Thakur vs PDA" (Pichda, Dalit, Alpsankhyak). Shah's subtle endorsement of Maurya, therefore, is also being viewed as a course correction to counter this opposition responding to Shah's speech, first took a swipe at the BJP on social media and later targeted the Yogi government during a press conference, pointing out the absence of Maurya in some posters and questioning the party's internal Shah's speech was also carefully aligned with the setting. Of the more than 60,000 recruits, 15 individuals representing various castes and communities received their appointment letters symbolically from the Union Minister. This caste-conscious selection was seen as a signal of the BJP's intention to maintain social balance and appeal across this visit, Shah appeared to have reset the BJP's political message in Uttar Pradesh. As the party looks ahead to 2027, the signal is clear: the top leadership stands firmly with Yogi Adityanath as the face of the government and sees Keshav Maurya as a vital part of its ongoing OBC Watch
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Karnataka students in Iran seek state government's help for evacuation
Bengaluru: Students from Karnataka studying medicine at Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, reached out to the state govt for help to evacuate them from Iran. The students are currently with Indian embassy officials amid the ongoing Iran-Israel conflict. The students are in constant touch with their parents. The state govt said one of the students and his parents in Bengaluru reached out to it seeking help in their evacuation. "Nine students are from Karnataka, of whom six are from Bengaluru. One student and his parents contacted us over the phone and expressed their fear and desire to return to India. Office of Non-Resident Committee vice chairperson Aarti Krishna wrote to the ministry of external affairs requesting it to take steps to immediately bring back the students. We are yet to hear back from them," said a senior official. "We are in constant touch with the officials concerned and are personally monitoring the situation," he said. "The students are unable to sleep at night. The conflict zones are 15-20 minutes away from their campus. They can see missiles flying over their hostels. They are extremely anxious and reached out to the university and the Indian embassy," said Fayaz Ali, father of a student in Iran and resident of Austin Town in Bengaluru. According to the parents, there are around 400 Indian students in the university. Exams were underway for the students. "They were supposed to come back by August after the exams get over. However, the exams stopped midway," said Shabab Zehra, mother of Nadeem Hussain. Nadeem is a second-year student at the university. "We are worried that the conflict will escalate and the students will be affected. We want them to come back safely as soon as possible," she said. "The embassy created a WhatsApp group with parents and students, and we are constantly kept posted on the developments. Currently, the students are being taken to a safer city," Fayaz said. Relatives in the state say there are students in other universities too. Hassan Abbas Syed, a class 12 student at Alipur, Gowribidanur, said his sister is pursuing her fourth-year BDS at Tehran University of Medical Sciences where there are three more from Karnataka. "They are being transported to a safer location in North Iran. One of their hospitals is very close to the conflict zone, and a blast happened quite close to it. When I last spoke to my sister, she said they have been instructed not to disclose the location but are being shifted and are in safe hands. Her internet connection has been patchy, and we have not been able to communicate frequently," he said. Union minister HD Kumaraswamy said on X that he spoke to several Kannadigas stranded in Israel via video calls and enquired about their well-being and safety. "I assured them of taking urgent steps to ensure their safe and speedy return to their homeland and will hold talks with @MEAIndia." He said he informed the students that the Union govt has taken "all necessary measures for the safety of Indian citizens in conflict-affected foreign countries..."
