Latest news with #BenchofJustice
News18
6 days ago
- Politics
- News18
'All Disabilities Must Get Equal Treatment': SC Strikes Down Discriminatory Retirement Policy
Last Updated: The Court observed that such arbitrary distinctions among differently-abled individuals violate the principles enshrined in disability rights legislation. The Supreme Court has recently held that prescribing different retirement ages based on the nature of disability amounts to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court observed that such arbitrary distinctions among differently-abled individuals violate the principles enshrined in disability rights legislation and entitle all benchmark disabilities to equal service benefits, including retirement age. The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice KV Viswanathan made the observation in the case of a 60 per cent locomotor-disabled electrician who was compulsorily retired at the age of 58 by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, even though visually impaired employees were allowed to serve until 60 years under an Office Memorandum (OM) dated March 29, 2013. The Appellant challenged the policy as discriminatory and violative of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and its successor, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). His representations before the State Administrative Tribunal and the Himachal Pradesh High Court were dismissed, prompting an Appeal to the Supreme Court. In a detailed order, the Court set aside the impugned policy, holding that all benchmark disabilities under the RPwD Act, 2016 form a single homogenous class for the purpose of service-related benefits and must be treated uniformly. 'Prescribing different retirement ages for employees based solely on the nature of their disability is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. There appeared no intelligible basis to confer the benefit of age extension to one disabled category and deny it to the other when both are specified under the 1995 and 2016 Acts," the Court observed. It added that while the visually impaired were granted a two-year extension under the 2013 OM, the same benefit should have been extended to all employees suffering from any benchmark disability, including locomotor disability, as listed under the applicable disability laws. The Court relied on its previous affirmation of the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), where it was held that parity in service benefits must be maintained across all disability categories covered by the PwD and RPwD Acts. While the Court upheld the state's subsequent withdrawal of the OM on November 4, 2019, under the General Clauses Act, it recognized the appellant's legitimate expectation to continue employment until the withdrawal date. Therefore, the appellant was held entitled to the benefit of the extension in retirement age up to that point. 'Such discrimination offends not only Article 14 but also undermines the very spirit of the disability rights framework that envisions equal opportunity and full participation of persons with disabilities," the Court remarked. Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeal. 'The impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2021 of the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition of the appellant is set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of continuance in service until 04.11.2019. In consequence, he shall be entitled to full wages from 01.10.2018 to 04.11.2019, with all consequential benefits that may impact his pension," it ordered. Sukriti Mishra, a Lawbeat correspondent, graduated in 2022 and worked as a trainee journalist for 4 months, after which she picked up on the nuances of reporting well. She extensively covers courts in Delhi. First Published: May 30, 2025, 15:58 IST
Hans India
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Defamation case: Delhi HC warns Trinamool MP Saket Gokhale of civil imprisonment
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha member Saket Gokhale as to why he should not be sent to civil prison over his failure to pay Rs 50 lakh as damages in a defamation case to former diplomat Lakshmi Puri, wife of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri. A single-judge Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was hearing a plea filed by former diplomat Lakshmi Puri seeking execution of the judgment passed in July last year. The Delhi High Court had ordered the Trinamool leader to pay Rs 50 lakh damages in a defamation case filed by former diplomat Lakshmi Puri. It had also directed Gokhale to publish an apology in a newspaper and on his social media platform X within four weeks for publishing wrong and unverified allegations. Further, the Delhi HC had directed that the apology tweet published on Gokhale's X account should be retained for six months. Earlier in April, Gokhale's salary, which he draws as a Member of Parliament, was ordered to be attached until the sum of Rs 50 lakh was deposited with the registry. The Delhi High Court, in December last year, had issued notice on a contempt plea filed by Lakshmi Puri against Gokhale for his "wilful and deliberate non-compliance" of its judgment. It had then ordered the Rajya Sabha member to file an affidavit within the next four weeks disclosing all his assets, properties, and bank accounts and deposits. The defamation suit was filed following Gokhale's successive X posts accusing Lakshmi Puri of purchasing property in Switzerland disproportionate to her income. He also named Hardeep Puri in the tweets. The Delhi High Court had held that the plaintiff suffered irreparable harm on account of Gokhale's defamatory statements. It said: "The defendant (Gokhale) is restrained from publishing further defamatory content against the plaintiff. Damages to the tune of Rs 50,00,000 are awarded to the plaintiff for the harm caused to her reputation." On May 2, a single-judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav rejected the plea filed by the Trinamool Congress seeking recall of the judgment passed in July last year.
The Hindu
28-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
PIL opposes Friday prayers on public road outside mosque in Coimbatore
The Madras High Court on Wednesday ordered notice, returnable by June 11, to the Hidayathul Muslimin Sunnath Jamath at Thudiyalur in Coimbatore district on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed against the conduct of Friday prayers on a public road in front of the mosque. A summer vacation Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy and Justice T.V. Thamilselvi also recorded the submission of Additional Advocate General M.S. Suresh Kumar, representing Coimbatore Collector, that no obstruction was being caused on the road since April 18, 2025. The AAG told the court that revenue officials had conducted peace committee meetings and the situation was being monitored. Special Government Pleader (Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department) N.R.R. Arun Natarajan said, no disturbance was caused to nearby temples because of the mosque. The PIL petition had been filed by S. Vijesh, an employee of Lakshmi Mills Works at Nilambur. His counsel C.K. Chandrasekhar claimed that the residents of Thudiyalur locality were subjected to inconvenience due to the Friday congregation, at the mosque, performing prayers right on the public road. He said, a huge number of Muslims congregate for the afternoon prayers between 12 noon and 1 p.m. every Friday and since all of them could not be accommodated inside the mosque, they end up performing the prayers on the road itself thereby blocking public access to two temples nearby. The petitioner also complained of the motor vehicles of the congregants being parked on the road haphazardly thereby causing great inconvenience to the local residents. He said, blocking access to a public road causes threat to public safety by preventing access to vehicles in cases of emergency. During the course of hearing, Justice Ramamoorthy said: 'Ultimately, we are a multi-religious country. So, reasonable accommodation must be extended by people of every faith.' Nevertheless, since the Jamath had to be heard in the matter, he ordered notice to it returnable in two weeks.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Allahabad HC upholds survey of Sambhal Mosque amid temple claim dispute
The Allahabad High Court on Monday upheld a trial court's decision to appoint an advocate commissioner to survey the premises of a Mughal-era mosque in Uttar Pradesh's Sambhal district, following claims that the site was previously home to a Hindu temple. The Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal dismissed a plea by the mosque committee challenging the November 2024 survey order. Temple claim and legal backing The case originated from a petition filed by eight local residents in a Sambhal court, who claimed that the site once housed a Shri Harihar temple allegedly demolished by Mughal emperor Babur in 1529. They asked for the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to take charge of the site and cited the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, to support their right to access it as a public monument. Violence after trial court order On November 19, 2024, the Sambhal trial court directed the survey to be carried out by Advocate Commissioner Ramesh Raghav. It was conducted the same day in the presence of district officials, police, and the mosque committee. A second survey was scheduled for November 24, but tensions escalated as rumours of a possible demolition spread. A large crowd gathered at the site, and violence broke out. Stones were thrown, vehicles set ablaze, and police responded with tear gas and baton charges. Four people were killed and over 30 police officers were injured in the clashes. So far, at least 85 people have been arrested in connection with the violence, according to a Hindustan Times report. Among those arrested are Zafar Ali, president of the Sambhal Shahi Jama Masjid's managing committee; MP Ziab Ur Rehman Barq; and Suhail Iqbal, son of local MLA Iqbal Mehmood.
