Latest news with #BenchofJustice
Indian Express
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
HC lists multiple flaws in Punjab's land pooling policy, explains reasons for stay
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has spelt out in detail why it stayed the Punjab government's Land Pooling Policy, 2025, in its order passed on August 7 and released today. The Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda listed a series of legal and procedural shortcomings — from the absence of environmental and social impact studies to the lack of timelines, grievance redressal and budgetary clarity. Policy 'notified in haste' The court said it was 'prima facie… of the view that the policy appears to have been notified in haste' without addressing key concerns. These included Social Impact Assessment (SIA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), fixed timelines for execution, and a grievance redressal mechanism — all of which, it said, 'should have been addressed at the very outset… before its notification.' No impact assessments before large-scale land takeover The Bench noted that the State planned to 'take over tens of thousands of acres of fertile land' without first conducting SIA or EIA, despite Supreme Court directives that environmental studies must precede urban development. It cited Resident's Welfare Association vs UT of Chandigarh (2023), in which the apex court had urged governments to strike 'a proper balance… between sustainable development and environmental protection' and to make EIA studies mandatory before permitting urban expansion. Compulsory acquisition built into 'voluntary' scheme While the government maintained the policy was 'purely voluntary', the court pointed to Clause 6 of the May 14 notification, which allowed land not offered under the pooling scheme to be acquired compulsorily under the 2013 land acquisition law. This, it held, brought the policy within the definition of a 'project' under the Act, triggering the requirement for impact studies and other safeguards. No provision for the landless The order flagged the absence of any rehabilitation plan for landless labourers, artisans, MGNREGA workers and others dependent on the targeted land. 'Payment of subsistence allowance has been provided to the land owners, but there is no provision for rehabilitation of those… dependent on the land,' it observed. The Bench also reminded that acquisition of multi-cropped land was barred under the 2013 law, except in exceptional circumstances. No timelines, no grievance mechanism The court said there were no prescribed timelines for key stages — voluntary participation, taking possession, starting or completing development, delivering developed land to owners, or paying subsistence allowances. It also found no grievance redressal framework or penalty provisions for delays and non-delivery. Budgetary gap Noting that the Amicus Curiae had estimated development costs at ₹1.25 crore per acre — about ₹10,000 crore for Ludhiana district alone — the Bench recorded that the State's counsel had 'no instructions' on whether any budgetary provision had been made. Past delays under pooling policies The judges referred to earlier instances where landowners surrendered plots under previous pooling schemes but waited years without receiving the promised developed land. In one case from Mohali, they noted, 'developed plots have not been allotted even after ten years' and no development had started in the concerned sectors. Fertile farmland at stake Calling the land 'amongst the most fertile in the State of Punjab', the court said the acquisition could 'impact the social milieu' and emphasised the need for careful evaluation before proceeding. Stay to prevent creation of rights The policy notified on May 14 and June 4, and amended on July 25, was stayed 'lest any rights are created', with the matter to be taken up again on September 10. The State has been asked to address all concerns and complete its reply before that date.
The Hindu
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Kerala HC denies life convict's plea for emergency parole
Stating that parole cannot be granted to convicts sentenced in serious cases by invoking the extraordinary powers of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Kerala High Court has denied emergency leave to a life convict, who was convicted of murder, to provide 'pregnancy care' to his wife. A Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that while granting emergency leave by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction, the court must always keep in mind the interests of the victims and their relatives. Their kith and kin might have been murdered after sustaining fatal injuries. No court can grant parole to convicts sentenced in serious cases by forgetting the victims and invoking the extraordinary powers of this court. The court will always try to balance interests of victims and basic needs of convicts. Emergency parole, as per the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014, is to be granted only on rare occasions. Most of the fundamental rights of convicts are suspended once they are convicted and sent to prison. These rights cannot be diluted by granting emergency leave on a regular basis, except in truly extraordinary circumstances, the court observed.
The Hindu
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Disrespect to Mahatma's statue: HC quashes criminal proceedings against law student
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a law student who had been charged with disrespecting a statue of Mahatma Gandhi on his college campus in Aluva in 2023. He had allegedly placed a pair of sunglasses and a Christmas wreath on the statue and added that 'Gandhi is long dead'. A video recording of this was also posted in WhatsApp groups of students, following which a complaint was lodged with the Principal. Subsequently, a criminal case was registered, and he was suspended from college for five days and directed to remit ₹5,000 as fine. Allowing the student's petition to quash the case, a Bench of Justice V.G. Arun said that the alleged act was undoubtedly immoral. But it cannot be termed as illegal in the absence of any law that prohibited such conduct or prescribed punishment for such conduct. The court said that every Indian citizen had the moral duty to respect freedom fighters who played a crucial role in liberating the country from colonial rule. It hastened to add that 'Our transition from 'native Indian subjects' to 'proud Indian citizens' wouldn't have been possible, but for the untiring and selfless crusade led by Mahatma Gandhi and other national leaders. To borrow the words of Will Durant, an American historian, not since Buddha has India so revered any man. Not since St. Francis of Assissi has any life known to history been so marked by gentleness, disinterestedness, simplicity of soul, and forgiveness of enemies. The preface became essential as this case is about a youngster, then a law student, who is facing prosecution on the allegation of having denigrated the image of Mahatma Gandhi,' the court said.
The Hindu
6 days ago
- Health
- The Hindu
Uttarakhand High Court stays scientist's conviction in abetment of suicide case in ‘larger public interest'
The Uttarakhand High Court has stayed the conviction and five-year rigorous imprisonment of a vaccine scientist who was found guilty of abetting his wife's suicide. Granting relief to the scientist, Akash Yadav, who has done PhD in biotechnology from IIT Kharagpur, the single Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani said suspending his conviction was in the larger public interest. The court observed that the convict was a scientist actively engaged in vaccine research and development and due to his conviction, he was unable to perform his duties. It also said that the scientist's research holds critical value for the society at large. Mr. Yadav was booked under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the dowry death of his wife. He was later acquitted of the dowry-related charges by a trial court in Rudrapur but was convicted for abetment of his wife's suicide and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Earlier, the High Court granted him bail and stayed the execution of the sentence during the pendency of the appeal. Subsequently, Mr. Yadav filed an appeal seeking a stay on the conviction, arguing that it was necessary for him to continue his vital work in vaccine development. Based on several legal precedents concerning the suspension of conviction and execution of sentence, the court ordered a stay on the execution of both until the final disposal of the appeal. For the last three years, Mr. Yadav has served as senior manager at Indian Immunologicals Ltd., a leading vaccine manufacturer, where he is directly involved in vaccine R&D. (Those in distress or having suicidal thoughts are encouraged to seek help and counselling by calling the helpline numbers here)
The Hindu
01-08-2025
- The Hindu
Allegations of impotency made by wife in divorce proceedings not defamatory: HC
The Bombay High Court dismissed a man's complaint against his estranged wife, noting that allegations of impotency made by a woman against her husband in matrimonial proceedings do not amount to defamation when she has made them to protect her interests. A Bench of Justice S.M. Modak held that in a Hindu Marriage Act petition, the allegations of impotency are very much relevant. The court dismissed the petitioner's complaint seeking a defamation case against his estranged wife and her family for alleging that he was impotent in the divorce proceedings initiated by her. A copy of the order passed on July 17 was made available on Friday. The court held that the woman was justified in making these allegations to show that she had suffered cruelty in the marriage. The allegations of impotency being a ground for divorce are necessary, it said. "This court feels that when litigation between spouses arises in a matrimonial relationship, then the wife is justified in making those allegations to support her interest," the court said, adding the same cannot be held as defamatory. The man had stated that his estranged wife had, in her pleas seeking divorce and maintenance and also in her FIR against him and his parents, claimed that he was impotent. These documents were part of the public record and hence defamatory. The woman, her father and brother had moved the High Court seeking to quash a Sessions Court order, directing a Magistrate's Court to conduct an inquiry into the man's defamation complaint. The woman, in her plea to the High Court, said that her husband's impotence was one of the grounds for dissolving the marriage.
