Latest news with #1968Act
Time of India
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Admitted or submitted? Crucial technicality over Justice Varma motion in spotlight after Dhankar's exit
Former Vice-President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar 's abrupt resignation on Monday has stirred a constitutional and political storm, particularly over his handling of a motion seeking the removal of Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma. At the centre of the controversy is a crucial legal distinction: was the notice filed by 63 Opposition MPs merely submitted , or was it admitted by Dhankhar? That difference isn't just semantic—it could determine who gets to pick the three-member panel that will examine the charges against Justice Varma. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category others Management Leadership Digital Marketing Public Policy PGDM Healthcare Design Thinking Operations Management Finance Artificial Intelligence Cybersecurity Product Management Technology MCA Data Science MBA Project Management Data Analytics healthcare CXO Data Science Others Degree Skills you'll gain: Duration: 16 Weeks Indian School of Business CERT - ISB Cybersecurity for Leaders Program India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 16 Weeks Indian School of Business CERT - ISB Cybersecurity for Leaders Program India Starts on undefined Get Details by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Mountain Gear for Extreme Conditions Trek Kit India Learn More A move that upset the govt According to TOI sources, Dhankhar earned the ire of the ruling establishment by taking cognisance of the Opposition's Rajya Sabha notice for initiating proceedings against Justice Varma. This, despite the government having already signalled its preference to initiate the process in the Lok Sabha, backed by signatures from 145 MPs across party lines. That notice had been submitted earlier on Monday to Speaker Om Birla. Live Events While Dhankhar's move may have been procedurally valid—the Rajya Sabha notice had the required minimum of 50 signatories—it was seen by the government as undermining its broader strategy to build an all-party consensus on the judge's removal. Notably, the Rajya Sabha motion was signed only by Opposition MPs. The Legal Tangle: Submission vs Admission In a statement made in the Upper House on Monday afternoon, Dhankhar referred to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, noting that when such notices are received in both Houses on the same day, no inquiry committee can be formed unless the motion is admitted by both. If admitted in both Houses, the Speaker and the Chairman are to jointly form the committee. Crucially, however, he stopped short of stating that he had formally admitted the motion, instead noting that it met the numerical requirement. He also argued that the Speaker or Chairman has no discretion to reject or admit such a motion if presented simultaneously in both Houses—a claim that legal experts say is not explicitly supported by the 1968 Act. He directed the Rajya Sabha Secretary General to initiate further steps, a move that suggested at least partial procedural endorsement. Who will decide now? With Dhankhar's resignation accepted by President Droupadi Murmu, Deputy Chairman Harivansh has taken over as officiating Rajya Sabha Chairman. His next steps will be closely watched. 'There's no guarantee he will back Dhankhar's reading of the situation,' a senior official told TOI. "In any case, he has no special interest in matters concerning judiciary and is unlikely to diverge drastically from the speaker in the choice of the members of the inquiry panel," the source further said.
Time of India
18-07-2025
- General
- Time of India
Heritage structure revamp faces criticism for alteration
T'puram: Despite Kerala Art Heritage Commission declaring the iconic Kanakakunnu Palace a protected heritage zone, state tourism department undertook renovation works that significantly altered the historical monument's architectural identity, prompting widespread criticism and judicial scrutiny. The commission's declaration explicitly prohibited any structural changes or modifications, considering the palace's heritage value. However, under the Travancore Heritage Project, tourism department initiated construction for a new digital museum and undertook extensive illumination works without ensuring the preservation of the palace's original architectural elements. The renovations involved modern interventions such as the use of vitrified tiles in place of the original Italian ones, the application of cement and concrete instead of traditional lime mixtures, repainting original murals in the Durbar Hall with acrylic paints and installing false ceilings, gypsum partitions, and modern electrical fixtures. These additions not only deviate from traditional building techniques but also violate conservation norms under Kerala Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1968. The matter reached the high court, which on June 24 directed state govt to determine whether Kanakakunnu Palace qualifies as an ancient monument under the 1968 Act. Responding to the directive, state govt submitted an affidavit on July 8. In a shocking admission, archaeology department acknowledged that the use of modern materials and unscientific methods compromised the palace's "antiquity and historicity. " It even issued an order on June 24 stating that the structure's original heritage character was irreparably altered. Environmental activist Sanjeev S J, president of Environmental Protection and Research Council and a petitioner in the case, expressed dismay over state of the palace. "Kanakakunnu was last renovated during the reigns of Sree Moolam Thirunal and Sree Chithira Thirunal in 1934 and 1937. Now, vitrified tiles replaced the original Italian ones, walls were painted over with acrylic and large halls were partitioned with gypsum boards," he said. He added that the unscientific changes "almost destroyed the traditional internal structure," making the palace "unrecognizable from the original." Meanwhile, Ajeesh Kumar R, deputy director (planning) of tourism department, defended the ongoing works. Speaking to TOI, he said, "At present, the work of digital museum is ongoing. It will not be affected. The court has only raised concerns over construction in other parts of the palace. We will examine the legalities and submit another affidavit accordingly."
