Will notify in a week cashless treatment scheme for road accident victims: Centre to SC
Justice Oka told the Secretary, who appeared before it Monday: 'People are dying in road accidents. You are constructing huge highways but people are dying there because there is no facility. There is no scheme for golden hour treatment. What is the use of constructing so many highways?'
The Central Government under Section 162(2) of the Act is required to frame a scheme to provide cashless treatment to motor accident victims during the 'golden hour'. Section 2(12-A) of the Act defines 'golden hour' as the period of one hour following a traumatic injury when prompt treatment has the highest likelihood of preventing death.
The scheme is yet to be implemented though Section 162 came into force on April 1, 2022. On January 8 this year, the SC had asked the Centre to frame the scheme by March 14.
Hearing it on April 9, the SC noted that the scheme was yet to be framed and asked the Secretary, MoRTH, to appear before it through videoconferencing.
On Monday, the bench told the Secretary that he was in contempt of court and wondered why he had not even filed an application seeking extension of time.'You are in contempt. You have not bothered to seek extension of time. What is this going on? You tell us when will you frame the scheme? You don't care for your own statutes. This is one of the welfare provisions. Three years (since) this provision has come into place. Are you really working for the welfare of common man?' asked Justice Oka.
The Secretary said that a draft had been prepared but the government faced a roadblock due to issues raised by the General Insurance Council (GIC).
'The GIC has not been cooperative,' he said, adding that it has contended that it should be permitted to check the status of insurance policy of the motor vehicle involved in an accident.
Justice Oka asked, 'Can you be so casual? Are you not serious about this provision?'
The bench pointed out that another agency could be appointed if GIC is not cooperating. The Secretary agreed to do this.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, who is amicus curiae in the matter, said the issue could be sorted out by authorising the State Health Agency (SHA) to release payments directly to hospitals.
In its order, the SC also recorded that the 'Secretary states that the government tenders an apology for non-compliance with the direction' to frame the scheme and notify it.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- Indian Express
33% seat reservation: Govt looks at quota for women in next Lok Sabha polls
The Modi government intends to roll out reservation of seats for women, which is linked to the delimitation exercise, in the 2029 Lok Sabha elections, highly-placed sources said Wednesday. Official sources said the government is targeting implementation of the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam that reserves one-third of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies in the next election. 'The Census has been announced and the other steps will follow. The women's reservation Bill is linked to the delimitation process. We are aiming to roll it out in the next election,' sources in the government said. According to the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2023, the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, passed in September 2023, reservation of one-third of seats for women in Lok Sabha and state Assemblies shall come into effect after an exercise of delimitation is undertaken based on figures from the first Census that is conducted after the enactment of the Act. Earlier this month, the government announced that the process of data collection for the Census, along with caste enumeration, would commence next year and offer a snapshot of the country's population as on March 1, 2027. For women's reservation to become a reality in the next Lok Sabha elections, delimitation will have to be completed well in time for the Election Commission of India to conduct the 2029 polls on the basis of the new delimitation of constituencies. Government sources claimed that the Census data will be available faster than the previous time with the advancement of technology – the enumeration will be conducted digitally using mobile applications for data collection and a central portal to collate the details and manage it. The Census data is significant for delimitation because the process of readjusting the seats of Lok Sabha and state Assemblies and redrawing their territorial boundaries is expected to be launched once the data is available. There have been concerns among southern states regarding delimitation changing the proportion of seats allocated to various states in Lok Sabha to conform to the constitutional principle of 'one person, one vote, one value', which will lead to a jump in seats for the northern states where populations have grown briskly since 1971 and reduce the relative weight of southern states where the population rate has slowed down in the same period. Senior ministers have said that the concerns expressed by the southern states will be addressed, and that no room for complaints will be left. In February this year, Union Home Minister Amit Shah had said that the southern states would not lose even a single seat on a pro-rata basis, making A Raja of the DMK ask whether pro-rata meant population-based or based on the present number of constituencies. Later, at the RSS's Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha meet at Bengaluru, RSS joint general secretary K Mukunda said the share of seats of the southern states would be maintained as it is in case the number of Lok Sabha seats is increased via delimitation. However, NDA ally Upendra Kushwaha has already made 'justice for Bihar', through allocation of seats as per present population share, as a poll plank for the Bihar Assembly elections, taking the line multiple times in Bihar and Delhi. For delimitation to happen after the next Census, Parliament will have to pass a Delimitation Act, which will constitute a Delimitation Commission for the exercise that is likely to lead to an increase in Lok Sabha seats. Article 82 of the Constitution mandates readjustment of seats after every Census. However, the present Lok Sabha reflects the population figures of the 1971 Census because the delimitation of seats was frozen in 1976 for 25 years, and in 2001 for another 25 years, through Constitutional amendments, with the Vajpayee government stating in 2002 that this would provide an incentive for family planning. If another Constitutional amendment is not passed by Parliament by 2026, the freeze on delimitation will automatically be over. Under Article 81(2) (a) of the Constitution, 'there shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the state is, so far as practicable, the same for all States'. The only exception to this rule are small states whose population do not exceed six million.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Dear Editor, I disagree: Not all speech is free
The constitutional right to free speech — a fundamental democratic principle — is often misinterpreted. The editorial ('Whose free speech?', IE, June 3) circumvents the context, intent and impact of free speech by defending Sharmistha Panoli's inflammatory social media post, targeting Islam and the Prophet, as a legitimate exercise of free expression. An important disclaimer: My disagreement with the editorial is not a defence or endorsement of the carceral state. Rather, beyond the over-simplistic binaries, the focus here is on recognising hate speech as a form of violence. While the editorial rightly criticises the overzealous police action in arresting the 22-year-old law student — she was later released on bail — it ignores the context that enabled Panoli's remarks and fails to acknowledge the target of her outburst. Panoli's words are far from being an act of reckless indiscretion; they feed into the volatile environment, increasingly marginalising, vilifying, and disproportionately targeting Muslims. The editorial, too, acknowledges that Panoli's post echoed 'some of the most hurtful anti-minority tropes in circulation'. However, more than the troubling content of Panoli's post, one should be wary of the political sentiments that consider Muslims to be demographic threats. Condemning arrests for online posts is crucial, but one must differentiate between freedom of expression and provocative speech that perpetuates targeted hatred against marginalised communities. The editorial failed to realise the essence of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015). The judgment upholds freedom of speech but doesn't legitimise hate speech. On the contrary, the SC has clearly defined the boundaries between protected free expression and punishable hate speech. In Shreya Singhal, the court established a crucial framework by distinguishing three categories of speech: Discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It held that 'mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause, howsoever unpopular, is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution', and is therefore protected. However, as the court noted, once such speech crosses the line into incitement — particularly incitement to violence, hatred, or public disorder — Article 19(2) applies, and restrictions become constitutionally valid. By drawing this line, Shreya Singhal underscores a crucial principle: The right to free speech does not encompass a right to incite harm or hatred against others. Many judicial precedents affirm this critical distinction. Notably, in three rulings in 2018 — Tehseen Poonawalla vs Union of India, Kodungallur Film Society vs Union of India, and Shakti Vahini vs Union of India, the SC went a step further, laying down guidelines to prevent and address hate speech and vigilante violence. However, these directives have largely remained on paper, with little to no meaningful implementation. The antidote to overzealous state action cannot be universal impunity. The editorial rightly points out that young Muslims have often been arrested for social media posts and labelled 'anti-national' or 'pro-Pakistan', often with little evidence of real harm. But to use that injustice to suggest that no one should be held accountable for incendiary speech is a fallacy. The discourse on free speech must be shaped by consistent legal principles, not by selective outrage and the use of legal machinery by those in power. The solution to the wicked problem of protecting free speech lies in equal and principled application of the law, not in abandoning accountability altogether. In a system that disproportionately targets minority voices while mostly excusing and sometimes even celebrating those who vilify them, the overwhelming defence from all political cadres for free expression is amusing. The double standard is made evident through the ruling party's sudden invocation of the principle of freedom of speech and expression, championing Panoli's right to free speech while silencing dissenting voices from marginalised communities — the latest, the arrest of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, is a case in point. Defending insidious speech on the grounds of constitutional liberty risks defending the right to hate, a right not promised by the Constitution. The writer teaches law at Jamia Hamdard
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
SC deadline nears, illegal buildings in protected Aravalis face bulldozers
Gurgaon: Just a month-and-a-half to go for a Supreme Court-ordered deadline, the forest department and Faridabad administration on Wednesday started a 15-day demolition drive to remove all illegal construction and encroachments from protected Aravali land in the district. Officials said around a dozen banquet halls, boundary walls, gates and farmhouses that were built in Anangpur village of Faridabad were razed on Wednesday. This area is protected under Section 4 (special orders) of the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA), which bars construction and any non-forest activities in forests. "We have started the demolition drive. We appeal to people to remove illegal encroachment themselves," a senior forest official said. Haryana govt ordered the demolition drive after the Supreme Court gave the state a three-month extension to clear protected Aravalis of illegal construction. SC, in July 2022, had ruled that all Aravali land under PLPA (special orders) should be treated as forest, with provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act applicable there, and any illegal construction should be demolished. Despite clear directives, Haryana over the years did not complete the task, having razed some 30 structures in four villages of Faridabad since the 2022 ruling. The apex court will take up the case next on Sept 8. The 15-day time frame was given to the Faridabad administration after a meeting chaired by chief secretary Anurag Rastogi on June 7. "All unauthorised constructions, including boundary walls — whether built before or after the 2021 survey—must be demolished within 15 days. The Municipal Corporation of Faridabad will oversee the removal of debris, with all costs to be borne by the property owners," read a document on minutes of the meeting. The Faridabad district magistrate will have to submit an action-taken report to the chief secretary, who also said the DM will be held accountable for any delay. Rastogi will hold another review meeting on June 27. On Wednesday, environmentalists said Faridabad was not the only Haryana district where protected Aravali forests have been encroached on. "Although demolition has begun in four villages of Faridabad after nearly three years, the order actually applies to special orders of Section 4 PLPA on all of Haryana, not just these villages. So far, no other districts have initiated the drive," said Sunil Harsana, an ecologist and wildlife expert. After SC's 2022 order, Haryana forest department had carried out a survey to identify illegal construction and found that 6,973 structures – most of them banquet halls and residential settlements – were built over protected PLPA land in four villages of Faridabad. A majority of these were in Anangpur (5,948) and the remaining in Ankhir, Lakkarpur, and Mewla Maharajpur. No such survey has been organised in Gurgaon. But activists allege that illegal construction is rampant in the Aravalis of Sohna, Raisina and Gwalpahari in the city, all of which are also protected by PLPA's special orders.
