HMR denies buzz on HC stay order on Old City Metro rail
He explained that the demolition of affected structures is proceeding at a good pace, with property owners receiving attractive compensation packages, mostly as consent awards. NVS Reddy further elaborated that in a counter affidavit previously filed in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by Act Public Welfare Foundation (APWF), HAML had submitted to the High Court that no heritage structure was being touched or demolished in the Old City, and that the Metro Rail alignment was situated far from the Charminar Falaknuma precincts.
On behalf of HAML, Additional Advocate General Imran Khan provided an assurance to the High Court that no heritage structure would be touched or demolished. NVS Reddy also praised the enthusiastic participation of Old City residents, who are pleased with the progress of demolitions, debris clearance, and the prospect of an early commencement of the long awaited Metro Rail works in the Old City.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
10 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Harish Rao insulting judiciary after being rattled with Ghose Commission's findings: Uttam
Irrigation Minister N. Uttam Kumar Reddy accused BRS MLA leader and former minister T. Harish Rao of insulting the judiciary for his criticism of the PC Ghose Commission's findings on the Kaleshwaram project, and demanded an apology. Mr. Reddy said the former Chief Minister K. Chandrashekhar Rao and Mr. Harish Rao were rattled after the Judicial Commission exposed the financial irregularities and that the Kaleshwaram project was approved without Cabinet consent, with contracts signed under dubious directions from Mr. KCR and Mr. Harish Rao. 'You committed a scam worth thousands of crores and now call the Judicial Commission a political vendetta?', he asked in response to Mr. Harish Rao's presentation on Tuesday. The Minister reminded that both former CM KCR and Mr. Harish Rao had appeared before the Judicial Commission. 'Why didn't Harish Rao raise these objections before the commission? Why come out now with baseless allegations in front of party workers?' he questioned. The commission's detailed report exposed widespread irregularities, design flaws and structural failures in the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project, particularly the sinking of the Medigadda barrage. Mr. Reddy said the Congress believes in democracy and the judiciary, which is why it was ready to hold a full discussion in the Assembly based on the Commission's report. 'Those found guilty, including former ministers, are welcome to join the debate and present their version,' he said.
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
SC refers plea seeking lifetime ban on convicted MPs/MLAs to CJI
New Delhi, Aug 5 (UNI) The Supreme Court today took note of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking permanent disqualification of Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) upon conviction in criminal cases, and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai for listing before an appropriate larger Bench. The PIL, filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, challenges the constitutional validity of provisions under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which currently bar convicted legislators from contesting elections only for six years after completing their sentence. Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria mentioned the matter before a Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, urging for an early hearing. 'This is a matter of grave concern. Orders have been passed from time to time. The February 10 order requires that it be listed before a three-judge bench,' Hansaria submitted. The Bench acknowledged the urgency and referred to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the February 10, 2025 order passed by a Bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta, directing that the matter be placed before the CJI for further directions. The plea is now expected to be heard finally on October 20, subject to the CJI's listing. In February 2025, the Union government opposed the plea, arguing that a lifetime disqualification of elected representatives was a matter purely within the domain of Parliament and not for the judiciary to decide. The Centre, through the Legislative Department, maintained that while the court may declare a provision unconstitutional under its power of judicial review, it cannot rewrite legislation to substitute "lifetime" for "six years" as suggested by the petitioner. 'The relief sought effectively asks the Court to read 'lifetime' instead of 'six years' in all sub-sections of Section 8. This is unknown to judicial review and constitutional law,' the Centre submitted. The government emphasized that Parliament has the discretion to decide what duration of disqualification is appropriate, keeping in view principles of proportionality and reasonableness. 'It is one thing to say that Parliament has the power to impose a lifetime ban, and another to say that it must necessarily exercise that power in all cases,' it said. The Centre further argued that the PIL failed to distinguish between the basis for disqualification (i.e., conviction) and the effect of disqualification (i.e., its duration). It noted that Indian penal statutes often impose time-bound restrictions on rights and freedoms post-conviction, and that extending these indefinitely would be unduly harsh and disproportionate. 'At the end of the prescribed time, penalties cease to operate automatically. Deterrence is ensured, while undue harshness is avoided,' the government stated. It also reiterated that any direction to Parliament on how to draft or amend laws would be beyond the constitutional powers of the judiciary. The PIL raises a larger question regarding the criminalisation of politics, an issue repeatedly flagged by the Supreme Court in the past. The Court has, over the years, issued directions for the expeditious trial of criminal cases against lawmakers and for greater transparency in candidate disclosures. As the matter now heads to a larger Bench, the decision could have far-reaching implications for electoral reforms, legislative accountability, and the scope of judicial intervention in matters of legislative policy. UNI SNG AAB
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Elgar Parishad case: Court junks Navlakhas plea seeking to live in Delhi
Mumbai, Aug 5 (PTI) A special NIA court here has refused permission to activist Gautam Navlakha, an accused in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, to live in Delhi for a brief period while rebuking him for seeking the same relief repeatedly. In the order passed on August 1, judge C S Baviskar said Navlakha, ordered to stay in Mumbai as part of his bail condition, had ingeniously found the trick to file multiple applications seeking same reliefs. The order copy became available on Tuesday. In November 2024, the special court for National Investigation Agency cases had granted him permission to stay in Delhi for two months. In his latest application, Navlakha relied on this order while seeking permission to live in Delhi again for 45 days. 'It is not at all expected. I recapitulate, the thing you shall not do directly, cannot do even indirectly," the court said in the order. While rejecting the application, it was restraining itself from imposing cost on Navlakha, it added. The earlier permission to live in Delhi for two months did not give him the license to claim the same liberty repeatedly, the court said. The Bombay High Court, while granting Navlakha bail, had laid down that he shall remain in Mumbai considering the seriousness of the offences in this case, the special court said. 'The applicant/accused may show total disregard towards the expectations of the High Court in its order that he should reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. However, the directions of the High Court are happily binding on this Court and this Court has to follow it scrupulously," the order said. Navlakha (72), a permanent resident of Delhi, was arrested in the case in April 2020. He was granted bail in 2024. The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches made at the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017, which police claimed triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial near Pune. Sixteen activists were arrested in the case. PTI SP KRK view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
