Orders reserved on petitions alleging sale of Bhoodan land
One of the main petitions was filed by Vadthya Ramulu, who urged the state government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the sale of Bhoodan lands to private parties. However, Justice Lakshman questioned the maintainability of the plea and expressed doubts about the utility of such a Commission.
'Suppose the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) is appointed, say a retired SC judge heads it, the report still goes to the government. Ultimately, it is the same officers who will decide what action to take. What happens if the government just places the report in an almirah?' the judge remarked during the hearing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Honest officers must be protected: SC on challenges to amend anti-graft Act
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 5, 2025) said a provision in an anti-corruption law which mandates prior sanction before prosecuting public servants serves to protect honest bureaucrats from becoming victims of political vendetta after a regime change. Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, introduced in July 2018, bars any 'enquiry or inquiry or investigation' against a public servant for recommendations made in discharge of official duties without prior approval from the competent authority. 'Honest officers who do not toe the line after a change in government will be protected,' Justice K.V. Viswanathan, part of a Bench headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, observed. The court was hearing a petition filed by the non-profit organisation Centre for Public Interest Litigation, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, challenging Section 17A. Mr. Bhushan argued the provisions crippled the anti-corruption law as sanctions were not usually forthcoming from the government, who was the 'competent authority'. The senior lawyer said the section made the government a judge in its own cause, and must be struck down. Mr. Bhushan submitted that only about 40% of the cases, that is involving the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), got prior approval under Section 17A for investigation. 'States are not granting sanction,' he submitted. He suggested giving the power of prior approval to an independent body. Strike a balance The Bench, however, said rather than 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater', the court would examine if a balance could be struck. 'There are officers who give their life and soul to the country. How does we ensure that they do not become prey to frivolous prosecution for their official actions or recommendations made in the line of duty,' Justice Viswanathan observed. Justice Nagarathna remarked that the court cannot approach the issue with a preconceived notion that 'all officers were dishonest or all of them were honest'. 'Honest officers must be protected while dishonest ones must be investigated. The former must not do their work with a Damocles sword hanging over their heads. Their hands should not shake before taking an official decision or we would run the risk of complete policy paralysis,' Justice Nagarathna observed. The judge said a provision cannot be held bad in law because its implementation may lead to abuse. 'The implementation of a provision on the ground is quite different from the question of its constitutionality. Ultimately, a balance has to be struck,' Justice Nagarathna observed. Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said without the shield of Section 17A, anybody with a grudge against a public servant could rope in an NGO to file cases against the official. When Justice Viswanathan said sanction may not be forthcoming from the government against its 'blue-eyed boys and girls' in the officialdom, Mr. Mehta responded that it was true in all three branches of governance. He said that such cases could be challenged in court on a case-to-case basis. He urged the court not to legislate and strike down Section 17A. 'He [Bhushan] cannot ask the Supreme Court to assume legislative functions,' the top law officer submitted. The court reserved the case for judgment.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
HC seeks to know TN's stand on quota for trans persons
Chennai: While commending Tamil Nadu govt's Policy For Transgender Persons, 2025, and calling it a significant step forward for the community, Madras high court said the govt's stand on granting horizontal reservation for the community in education and jobs remained unclear. "It is not clear as to whether the govt wants to provide horizontal reservation, which has been the request of the community and which has been reflected in many of the earlier orders passed by various courts, including a division bench of this court," said Justice N Anand Venkatesh on Tuesday. Hence, the state is directed to take a decision in this regard so that the community need not knock on the doors of this court every time and seek the reservation, the court added. Besides the horizontal reservation, the other issue requiring immediate consideration pertains to the district-level and state-level committees to monitor and review the progress in the implementation of the policy, the court said. "The state must ensure that there is representation of at least one transwoman, transman, and intersex person in the committee for its effective functioning," Justice Anand Venkatesh said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like AirSense 11 – Smart tech for deep sleep ResMed Buy Now Undo You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai Insofar as the marriage of transgender and intersex people is concerned, the same was already recognised by the Supreme Court; however, the real challenge is faced when they seek registration of marriages before the registrar," the court pointed out. "Hence, the state must issue necessary directions to the registrars about the legal sanction of these marriages," he added. Another suggestion for the govt was regarding the deed of familial association or other types of domestic partnership/civil union which the parties may enter to govern their rights. This issue has significance since none of the Succession Acts recognises such rights, and therefore, the parties must be able to at least deal with their rights by entering into such agreements, the court said. The court further recorded the submission of the govt that insofar as the policy for LGBTQIA+, the same is under process and some time is required to finalize it. Now that the govt has come out with a policy for transgender and intersex persons, it is time that it comes up with a policy for LGBTQIA+ people also. This process should be expedited, the court said.
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
SC reserves verdict on Telangana's domicile rule for medical admissions
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its verdict on pleas including one of the Telangana government against an order that struck down its domicile rule for admissions in medical colleges in the state. The state government through the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, amended in 2024, entitled only those students, who have studied for last four years up to Class 12 in the state, to admissions in the medical and dental colleges under the state quota. The Telangana High Court held that the state's permanent residents cannot be denied benefits of admissions in the medical colleges only because they lived outside the state for sometime. On Tuesday, a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard detailed arguments from both sides, including the Telangana government's counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi. Defending the state's four-year domicile criterion, Singhvi said once a domicile rule is established, "a threshold becomes inevitable". He said Telangana relied on a government order backed by a presidential order and, moreover, only the state government, not courts, could define "permanent residence". The CJI referred to the practical consequences of the rule, illustrating if "a Telangana judge is transferred to Bihar and his son studies in classes 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Bihar then the boy is disentitled from getting admissions in his home state". "Take a student born and raised in Telangana but moves away for just classes 10 and 11 and say, to Kota for coaching. Or an IAS officer from Telangana posted in Delhi, whose child studies outside the state for two years. Should such children be disqualified?" the CJI asked. Justice Chandran weighed in, "If a person remains idle in Telangana for four years, they qualify. But someone who leaves to study doesn't. Isn't that an anomaly?" Singhvi said the high court created the term "permanent resident," which only the state has the authority to define. The top court on September 20 last year stayed the high court order directing permanent residents or those domiciled in the state couldn't be denied the benefit of admission in the medical colleges only because they remained outside Telangana for sometime for their studies or residence. The state government, however, agreed to grant a one-time exception to 135 students, who had moved the high court, in admissions in the medical and dental colleges in 2024. The state's appeal argued that the high court erroneously held Rule 3(a) of the amended Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, to be interpreted to mean the respondents (candidates) were eligible to admission in the medical colleges in Telangana. The rule mandated four consecutive years of study in the state for students seeking admission in Telangana medical colleges before qualifying the exam. The state's plea argued such an order by the high court overlooked the fact that Telangana possesses the legislative competence to determine various requirements, including domicile, permanent resident status, etc. The high court's judgement, it said, mandates the state to prepare new rules for admission, which was a time-intensive process. "After framing the rules students have to apply and collect the requisite certificates from authorities concerned. Each certificate submitted by the student needs to be verified by the Health University. Whereas the present rule prescribes that the students can produce their educational certificate without approaching any office or authority. If the judgement of the high court is implemented, it will result in a huge delay in the allotment of seats to MBBS and BDS students," the plea added. PTI>
