Teeth to domestic violence law
The bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma also directed the National Legal Services Authority to instruct the state legal services authorities to make women aware of their right to free legal aid and advice under the Act.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Kerala high court slams Centre over indecision on Wayanad loan relief
Kerala high court slams Centre over indecision on Wayanad loan relief KOCHI: Kerala HC on Friday pulled up Union government for its delay in taking a definite stand on granting loan waiver to those affected by the July 2024 landslides at Chooralmala and Mundakkai in Wayanad. The Centre cited omission of a relevant section in the Disaster Management Act. The court was hearing a suo motu petition on rehabilitation of the landslide victims. Justices A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and P M Manoj observed the Centre cannot take the position that it lacks the power to waive loans for the landslide victims due to the omission of Section 13 of the Act, which earlier empowered the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) to recommend relief in repayment of loans. "We want to know categorically, through an affidavit filed by someone responsible in Union government, whether they are stating that they do not have the power to direct banks to waive loans. We can understand a reluctance to act, but at least have the courage to say so. The decision must be taken by the Union govt. Let the Union take a decision," court said. While NDMA might no longer have the statutory authority to recommend such relief, the Union government still retains residual powers to take a decision, the court said. The landslides had claimed 298 lives and caused extensive property destruction.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Two FIRs under the Atrocities Act registered against ex-MP Jaleel
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: Two FIRs were registered against former MP Syed Imtiaz Jaleel in the 24 hours ending Friday for allegedly using a discriminatory word against district guardian minister Sanjay Shirsat during a press conference, days after he made serious allegations against Shirsat's family over land acquisitions. Police said the two FIRs were registered at Kranti Chowk and Osmanpura police stations. Officers said they also received complaints on similar lines at different police stations, including Vedantnagar, but no decision was made to register fresh FIRs. Jaleel told TOI, "I just want Shirsat to reply to the questions I have raised about the huge moveable and immovable assets he has amassed. Unable to silence me, he is using police machinery to file such cases against me. I am ready to face all the consequences until all such elements are exposed." Police said based on the complaint lodged by Laxman Hivrale, an office-bearer of the Republican Party of India (Athawale), the Kranti Chowk police registered an FIR on Thursday night. In this FIR, Section 3 (1) of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was invoked against Jaleel. On Friday, the assistant commissioner of police (City) issued directives to the Kranti Chowk police inspector for conducting a preliminary inquiry into the case and submit a report to him. The FIR was registered after a large number of Shirsat's supporters gathered at the police station on Thursday afternoon. The list of those who gathered included Jaleel's former loyalist Arun Borde, who said he intended to get FIRs registered across the state. "Though the second FIR was registered at Osmanpura police station, it will be merged with the first one registered at Kranti Chowk. The law is clear that there cannot be two FIRs for one violation, for which a person was already booked," said a senior police officer from the city police. Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .
The Print
4 hours ago
- The Print
Justice Varma row: Congress seeks SC-appointed panel's report to decide its stand on impeachment proposal
The government has indicated that it plans to bring an impeachment motion against Justice Varma during the monsoon session of Parliament which is slated to begin on 21 July. Congress sources told ThePrint that the party conveyed to the government that access to the committee's report was essential to determine its position on the proposed impeachment of Justice Varma, who is currently posted at the Allahabad High Court but has not been assigned any judicial work. New Delhi: The Congress has asked the Centre for the report of the Supreme Court-appointed committee investigating allegations of corruption against Justice Yashwant Varma. The Union government has informed the party of its decision to initiate impeachment proceedings against the judge, sources said Friday. On 14 March, wads of currency notes were discovered in a room at Justice Varma's official residence in New Delhi, while he was serving as a judge at the Delhi High Court. The incident sent shockwaves through judicial and political circles. Justice Varma was subsequently repatriated to the Allahabad High Court by the Supreme Court Collegium and has rejected the allegations against him in response to probes undertaken by the Delhi High Court chief justice and the SC committee. While the Congress has formally demanded the inquiry report of the SC committee, some of its legal brains have argued that the report of the panel could not be the sole basis to impeach the judge. The committee, set up by former Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna, comprised the chief justices of Punjab and Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice GS Sandhawalia respectively, and Karnataka High court judge Justice Anu Sivaraman. The committee submitted its report on 3 May. On 8 May, days before his retirement, Justice Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, enclosing a copy of the inquiry report and Justice Varma's response. Congress sources said that the party is consulting legal experts on the need to get the government to follow the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968 which kicks in once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the chambers of Parliament. Under the Act, the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of one of the 25 high courts and a 'distinguished jurist'. In a public statement Wednesday, Congress Rajya Sabha MP Vivek Tankha also questioned the unavailability of the three-member SC committee report with MPs. 'Chairman Rajya Sabha, an eminent SC lawyer, is on record saying that the three judge inquiry report has no constitutional or legal sanctity. It's conducted for the benefit of CJI & SC judges. Not a legal material for parliamentarians to move a motion! Is the government short of legal advice?' Tankha asked. Earlier, when Dhankhar sought to make a case for the revival of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) citing the Justice Varma episode, the Congress had indicated that it was open to the idea of changes in the judicial appointments process. 'The recent incident of recovery of cash from the residence of a judge is indeed alarming. While the Congress Party recognises that an independent judiciary is intrinsic to protection of Constitutional principles and democracy, it is also true that Judiciary must set safeguards and standards for accountability. A mechanism for judicial accountability, without compromising judicial independence, is the need of the hour,' stated a resolution adopted by the All India Congress Committee at its session in Ahmedabad in April. (Edited by Viny Mishra) Also read: Hidden in plain sight: The unanswered questions in the Justice Varma cash controversy
