Latest news with #2013Act
The Hindu
3 days ago
- The Hindu
Govt. asks Commissioners of ULBs in Andhra Pradesh to ensure no person is engaged in manual scavenging
Following the directions issued by the Andhra Pradesh High Court as part of its judgment on April 23, the Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MA&UD) Department has asked the Commissioners of all the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) to ensure the strict implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. The court had emphasised the need for timely payment of compensation and provision of full rehabilitation measures, including employment to the spouse, free education to children, and appropriate skill training to the kin of the deceased sewer workers. Following the directions, the department had on June 6, 2025, directed the Commissioners of all the ULBs in the State to see to it that no person was engaged in manual scavenging and that all cleaning operations were fully mechanised. 'Manual entry into sewers or septic tanks shall be strictly prohibited under all circumstances,' an official release said. The release added that in exceptional cases, where manual intervention was unavoidable, prior approval must be obtained from the Commissioner concerned and all prescribed safety equipment must be provided in accordance with the PEMSR Act, 2013. In the event of death in a sewer or septic tank, irrespective of whether the deceased was employed directly, indirectly, or through a contractor, an ex gratia of ₹30 lakh shall be mandatorily paid to the next of kin by the agency concerned, the release said. The department also asked the Commissioners to ensure that FIRs were promptly registered against any individual, agency, or contractor under relevant sections, and set up a dedicated helpline or mechanism for reporting violations and grievances related to manual scavenging. The Commissioners had been asked to create awareness among municipal staff, contractors, and the public on the legal prohibitions and penalties associated with manual scavenging, and the rights and rehabilitation measures available to the affected persons. The 2013 Act deals with the provisions of sanitary latrines, identification of manual scavengers and their rehabilitation, responsibilities of local authorities for elimination of insanitary latrines, implementation mechanism, procedure for trial, vigilance committees and miscellaneous.
The Hindu
13-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Congress govt. is no different if anti-people development policies continue, says NAPM
There must be no hope that a government, such as the one by Congress, which replaced the decade-old autocratic rule by Bharat Rashtra Samithi would be any better. 'The Congress government is no different, it continues the anti-people and anti-nature model of development, and hence civil society must be alive to rebut its way and strengthen people's movements in Telangana,' said the Telangana People's Joint Action Committee (TPJAC). Along with National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM), the Committee on Monday, with several grassroot leaders voiced against the 'destructive and anti-people' developmental framework of the State government in a roundtable held here at Sundarayya Vignana Kendram. According to rights activist G. Haragopal, who chaired the meeting, only people's movements can stop such a development model and cause an alternate development model to emerge. 'People's lives will be put in danger if the government continues environmental destruction in the name of development. It must re-think its design. Congress was believed to behave in a different way, but it is doing the same thing as the previous government,' he said. Leaders who stood up for various people's movements — Saraswathi Kavula on Mucherla Pharma City, retired IICT scientist K. Babu Rao on ethanol distilleries, Kiran Vissa on farmers' rights, Meera Sanghamitra and Nikitha on Damagundam Navy Radar Station, suspended headmaster Vijaya Kumar on Dilawarpur ethanol plant, and several legal and land rights activists — presented the ground situation, and their before-after experience with Congress leaders. 'We walked the Bharat Jodo Yatra, we rallied against BRS ways. Several Congress leaders too visited Mallannasagar, Mucherla, and Yadadri Thermal Power Plant, and objected to KCR's Land Acquisition Act of 2017, liquor sale in Telangana, and many other anti-people issues. But those very Congress leaders don't take calls, give us appointments now. Congress continues land acquisition like KCR, and in many ways behaves like BRS,' they said. According to TPJAC's Ravi Kanneganti: 'It is true that some representatives, who are not here, believe that criticising the Congress government would benefit BJP and BRS. But it is clear — the role of civil society is to stand with the people and their struggles and not with any party.' The collective made four demands: High-polluting industries such as ethanol, pharma and thermal projects must not be encouraged in the State; land acquisition must be done as per the 2013 Act; a fourth future city is unnecessary and the proposals must be withdrawn; and permission for Navy Radar Station to Indian Navy in Damagundam must be cancelled.
Time of India
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court sets July to hear matter over Lokpal's jurisdiction in examining complaints against judges
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to hear in July arguments over an order of anti-corruption ombudsman Lokpal to examine complaints against sitting high court judges Justice B R Gavai , who was heading a special bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka, said the matter will have to go before another bench."It is something for the chief justice to decide," Justice Oka said, "it is a matter of propriety.""We will have it somewhere in July," Justice Gavai apex court was dealing with a suo motu proceeding initiated over the Lokpal's January 27 order on two complaints filed against a sitting additional judge of the high complaints allege the judge influenced an additional district judge in the state and a judge of the same high court slated to deal with a suit filed against the complainant by a private company to favour the private company, it was alleged, was earlier a client of the high court judge in question while he was practising as an advocate at the top court had on February 20 stayed the Lokpal's order, saying it was "something very, very disturbing" and concerned the independence of the then issued notices and sought responses from the Centre, the Lokpal registrar and the hearing the matter on March 18, the apex court said it would examine the issue over the jurisdiction of Lokpal in entertaining complaints against sitting high court asked senior advocate Ranjit Kumar to assist it as an amicus curiae in the general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said a high court judge would never fall within the ambit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, its order, the Lokpal directed the complaints and relevant materials received in its registry in the two matters to be forwarded to the office of the Chief Justice of India for his consideration."Awaiting the guidance of the Chief Justice of India, consideration of these complaints, for the time being, is deferred until four weeks from today, keeping in mind the statutory time frame to dispose of the complaint in terms of Section 20 (4) of the Act of 2013," said the Lokpal bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar on January Lokpal added, "We make it amply clear that by this order we have decided a singular issue finally -- as to whether the judges of the high court established by an Act of Parliament come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act of 2013, in the affirmative. No more and no less. In that, we have not looked into or examined the merits of the allegations at all."The order noted it would be "too naive" to argue that a high court judge would not come within the ambit of expression "any person" in clause (f) of section 14 (1) of the 2013 Act.
Hindustan Times
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC sets July to hear matter over Lokpal's jurisdiction in examining complaints against judges
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to hear in July arguments over an order of anti-corruption ombudsman Lokpal to examine complaints against sitting high court judges. Justice B R Gavai, who was heading a special bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka, said the matter will have to go before another bench. "It is something for the chief justice to decide," Justice Oka, "it is a matter of propriety." "We will have it somewhere in July," Justice Gavai added. The apex court was dealing with a suo motu proceeding initiated over the Lokpal's January 27 order on two complaints filed against a sitting additional judge of the high court. The complaints allege the judge influenced an additional district judge in the state and a judge of the same high court slated to deal with a suit filed against the complainant by a private company to favour the firm. The private company, it was alleged, was earlier a client of the high court judge in question while he was practising as an advocate at the Bar. The top court had on February 20 stayed the Lokpal's order, saying it was "something very, very disturbing" and concerned the independence of the judiciary. It then issued notices and sought responses from the Centre, the Lokpal registrar and the complainant. While hearing the matter on March 18, the apex court said it would examine the issue over the jurisdiction of Lokpal in entertaining complaints against sitting high court judges. It asked senior advocate Ranjit Kumar to assist it as an amicus curiae in the matter. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said a high court judge would never fall within the ambit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. In its order, the Lokpal directed the complaints and relevant materials received in its registry in the two matters to be forwarded to the office of the Chief Justice of India for his consideration. "Awaiting the guidance of the Chief Justice of India, consideration of these complaints, for the time being, is deferred until four weeks from today, keeping in mind the statutory time frame to dispose of the complaint in terms of Section 20 of the Act of 2013," said the Lokpal bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar on January 27. The Lokpal added, "We make it amply clear that by this order we have decided a singular issue finally as to whether the judges of the high court established by an Act of Parliament come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act of 2013, in the affirmative. No more and no less. In that, we have not looked into or examined the merits of the allegations at all." The order noted it would be "too naive" to argue that a high court judge would not come within the ambit of expression "any person" in clause of section 14 of the 2013 Act.
