Latest news with #BhushanRGavai
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC orders take down of YouTube clip for remarks against SC judge
The Supreme Court on Friday ordered YouTube to remove a video posted on a channel containing 'scandalous allegations' against a senior judge and initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the channel's editor Ajay Shukla, saying that freedom of speech cannot be used to damage the judiciary's reputation. A bench led by Chief Justice Bhushan R Gavai passed the order in suo motu contempt proceedings against a 150-second video uploaded by Shukla on May 24. The video, aired on his show 'The Principle', discussed a recent ruling by Justice Surya Kant in the case of Madhya Pradesh minister Kunwar Vijay Shah of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was asked to assist in the matter, told the court: 'This is something very serious. We are obliged that the court has taken suo motu cognisance of this.' The court said: 'The video clip has made scathing and scandalous allegations against one of the senior judges of this court. Such scandalous allegations widely published on YouTube is likely to bring disrepute to the august institution of the judiciary.' Attorney General R Venkatramani was also asked to assist the court in passing further orders. Mehta argued that the video was not only scandalous but also defamatory and contemptuous, stating that such statements cannot enjoy legal protection as the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) comes with reasonable restrictions, including defamation and contempt of court. 'No doubt, our Constitution guarantees right to freedom of speech. At the same time, this right is subjected by reasonable restrictions,' the bench said. 'A person cannot be permitted to make allegations that are defamatory and also contemptuous in nature, which attempts to bring disrepute to the judiciary.' Under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, criminal contempt is defined as any publication (by words, signs, visible representation or otherwise) that either 'scandalises or tends to scandalise, lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court, or prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding, or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.' The Supreme Court has previously initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings for posts against the judiciary. In a notable case, the court convicted advocate Prashant Bhushan in 2020 for tweets against then-Chief Justice SA Bobde, sentencing him to a fine of ₹1 or three months' simple imprisonment. That judgment was passed by a three-judge bench on August 31, 2020, which included the present CJI Gavai. The court had then said: 'Free speech is essential to democracy can also not be disputed, but it cannot denigrate one of the institutions of the democracy... the faith of the citizens of the country in the institution of justice is the foundation for rule of law which is an essential factor in the democratic set up.'
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Relief for L&T, SC okays scrapping of key tender
In relief to engineering and construction company Larsen & Toubro, which was challenging its disqualification in the tender process for the Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayandar tunnel and elevated road projects, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) told the Supreme Court that it has decided to scrap the entire tender process. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi told a bench headed by chief justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai that the process has been scrapped and the authority will await for further directions from the state government. Recording Rohatgi's submission, the bench in its order said, 'Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent (MMRDA), fairly submit that the state has decided to scrap the entire tender process in the larger public interest and will take such steps, as are advised.' The bench, also comprising justices AG Masih and Atul S Chandurkar, said, 'In that view of the matter, the present special leave petitions have been rendered infructuous and are disposed of as such.' L&T had approached the top court against an order of the Bombay high court passed on May 20, which allowed MMRDA to open the other financial bids.L&T said it came to know of its disqualification only in early May. The company submitted its techniocal bid in December. The top court earlier expressed surprise at how the company which constructed the Central Vista project was disqualified. On Friday, the court appreciated the MMRDA's stand and said, 'We are in an era of transparency,' pointing out that it was concerned about the 'larger public interest' as public money is involved. In July, MMRDA issued a notice inviting tenders for its public infrastructure projects involving the Road Tunnel project (Gaumukh to Fountain Hotel junction on Thane Ghodbunder Road). This projects envisaged 5-kilometre-long twin tunnels of finished diameter 14.6 metres estimated at ₹8,000 crore. The second project involving construction of a 9.8 kilometre long Elevated Road envisaged a bridge passing along the Vasai Creek. Both projects were meant to be an extension of the Mumbai Coastal Road project and a part of MMRDA's larger road expansion project involving construction of approximately 15 kilometre of road from Gaumukh (in Thane) to Bhayander. L&T submitted its technical bid in December 2024 and this was opened on January 1. In May, the company learnt that MMRDA sent letters to qualified technical bidders asking them to appear for the opening of the financial bids on May 13. L&T had approached the Bombay high court, which initially stayed the opening of the financial bids but then ruled against L&T in its May 20 order, prompting the appeal.
Hans India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
SC diktat will have little bearing on other courts
First the spine-chilling facts about the state-of-affairs in India vis-à-vis the judicial delivery system. A startling reality is that presently there are over five crore cases pending disposal across all courts in the country. Even more bizarre is that many have been 'pending' for decades together. It is mindboggling to think that the bail applications pending in High Courts are approximately between 1.25 and 1.3 lakh, which is a substantial increase considering that it hovered around 60, 000 to 65,000 cases before 2020. There has been a considerable increase in the bail appeals filed annually, which stands around 4.3 lakh today as against the above 3.4 lakh a few years back. Given this precarious situation, many take potshots at the 'lethargic' legal delivery system in the country, which, many opine, remains the bane. This applies to all types of bail, including regular, anticipatory, default and interim bail. Lest one forgets, the Supreme Court has established clear guidelines for the expeditious disposal of bail applications, recognising the importance of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. As per its ruling, regular bail applications should be resolved within two weeks, and anticipatory bail applications within six weeks, unless situations dictate otherwise. However, despite such constitutional mandates and rulings by the apex court, there has been no relief for the people given that 'speedy disposal' seems like a term that is yet to see the light of the day, as regards Indian courts, where delays are becoming increasingly common. Of course, the legal fraternity has its own points of view. While on the one side there has been a steady increase in bail appeals across High Courts with each passing year, a dearth of judges and other judicial staff, on the other hand, are unable to handle the overload of pending cases as regards hearing and disposing of cases. In some instances, the pending bail applications are leading to prolonged detention of the applicants, which reflects poorly on the system. The general presumption is that such inordinate delays in disposing bail applications could eventually lead to a situation whereupon fairness and efficiency could take a backseat. This being the situation on the ground, one wonders if the Supreme Court's latest 'diktat' will have any bearing on the functioning of other courts. This is not the first time that High Courts have been given guidelines as regards handling bail applications. The earlier such 'firm' directions by the apex court have had little to zero impact as the figure of pending bail applications keeps mounting. Against this backdrop, one wonders the effect of the Supreme Court's reiteration that bail matters should not be delayed even by a day. 'We have time and again emphasised the importance of the liberty of citizens. There should not be a single day's delay in deciding liberty of citizens in bail matters,' said a bench of Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and Justice AG Masih, while hearing the bail plea of one Vedpal Singh Tanwar in a money laundering case. In the Srikant Upadhyay v State of Bihar (2024) case, Justice Ravikumar, heading a Division Bench, ruled that while bail is the general principle in criminal cases, this does not extend to anticipatory bail, which needs an exceptional power. It was likewise regarding the Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) case. Although all courts have been asked to follow the Supreme Court directions and expeditiously dispose of bail applications, the common man, caught in the 'justice delayed is justice denied' syndrome, remains doubtful.
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court to examine hike in fees by private schools
The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to examine [CHECK] whether private schools in Delhi that received land at concessional rates can bypass approval from the Directorate of Education (DoE) when increasing fees. The move came as the court issued notice on a plea by parents of three students from Delhi Public School (DPS), Dwarka, who were among 32 children expelled for refusing to pay a hiked fee. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and Justice AG Masih issued notice to the Action Committee for Unaided Recognised Private Schools, of which DPS Dwarka is a member. 'We are issuing notice. The policy of the state is that fee regulation will not apply to private schools. But if land is allotted free of cost, then you have to respond,' the bench said, seeking a reply within three weeks. The plea was filed by Divya Mattey, Praveen Madhavankutty, and Saurabh Agarwal, who pointed out that DPS Dwarka had violated a binding Supreme Court order dated January 23, 2017. That ruling had upheld a 2016 Delhi High Court decision requiring schools bound by land allotment clauses to seek DoE approval before raising fees. Appearing for the parents, advocates Manish Gupta and Sandeep Gupta told the court that the school expelled 32 students on May 9 for not paying the increased fees, even though the parents had deposited the amount approved by the DoE for the 2023-24 academic year. The children, they said, were barred from entering school as private bouncers at the gate denied them entry. The parents cited the 2016 Delhi HC judgment, which held that under Section 17(3) of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, DoE has the authority to regulate fees charged by unaided schools to prevent profiteering. The ruling also allowed such schools to create a Development Fund Account, which could collect up to 15% of annual tuition fees. That decision was unsuccessfully challenged by private school associations. A review petition was dismissed by the high court in July 2016, and the Supreme Court upheld the ruling in 2017, making it final and binding. The present application was filed in connection with an appeal by the Naya Samaj Parents Association, which is contesting two Delhi High Court orders that had stayed the DoE's fee regulation directives concerning schools with land allotment clauses. These orders were passed on April 29, 2024, and April 8, 2025. Advocate Kamal Gupta, appearing for the Action Committee, told the bench that the parents of the 32 students had already filed a case before the Delhi High Court and were now approaching the Supreme Court while that case was still pending. In a parallel development, the Delhi high court on Wednesday directed the expelled students to pay 50% of the increased fees for the 2024–25 academic session, pending the DoE's decision on their representation. The parents had also filed a separate petition seeking administrative takeover of the school by the DoE and the Delhi Lieutenant Governor, alleging non-compliance with official orders. The latest application by the three parents highlighted that the DoE, in an order dated May 15, directed DPS Dwarka to reinstate the expelled students. The plea also referred to a Delhi High Court observation from April 16, where the court criticised the school for confining the students in a library and denying them access to washrooms over unpaid fees. 'It is extremely shocking that despite the Delhi High Court's April 16 order, the school struck off the names of 32 children on May 9, even though they had paid the DoE-approved fees,' the application said. The case will now be examined further after the Action Committee and DPS Dwarka respond to the Supreme Court's notice.
Hindustan Times
7 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
‘Last opportunity': SC warns govt on Aravalli definition
The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed serious concern over continuing illegal mining in the Aravalli hills and gave the Centre a final two-month deadline to arrive at a common definition of the ecologically crucial mountain ranges. A bench headed by chief justice Bhushan R Gavai told a Centre-led committee that it had already missed its original deadline of July 2024 and gave it a 'last opportunity' to complete the task, with no further extensions. The matter has been listed for hearing in July. 'The order is of May 9, 2024. Meanwhile, the states must tell us what action you are taking to ensure illegal mining does not take place,' said the bench, which also comprised justice AG Masih. Senior advocate K Parmeshwar, assisting the court as amicus curiae, painted a grim picture of the situation. 'There is rampant illegal mining going on in Aravalli hills. The regulatory mechanism is messed up. If the states had any interest to protect the Aravalli hills, they should have come out with the report by now.' The committee, comprising the Union environment ministry secretary, forest department secretaries from Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat, and representatives of the Forest Survey of India, Geological Survey of India and Central Empowered Committee, has sought extensions three times since the original two-month deadline laid down through the May 9, 2024 order. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, said the committee had held joint meetings and the report was in its 'last leg of preparations.' The need for a uniform definition arose after the Central Empowered Committee submitted a report showing how the Aravalli hills are either undefined or defined in ways that facilitate illegal mining. A glaring example is Rajasthan's definition that includes only hills above 100 metres as part of the Aravallis, enabling mining activities between 0-99 metres. The court had earlier criticised this '100-metre rule' as very problematic, remarking: 'If the area does not have the support of slopes, the land will become barren. What is the purpose of having some structure as Aravalli with other slopes all ruined.' A 2018 Forest Survey of India report revealed that 31 hillocks had disappeared due to rampant illegal mining, while over 3,000 illegal mining sites were discovered across the Aravallis in Rajasthan and Haryana. The court also addressed applications from miners seeking lease renewals. Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing marble producers in Rajasthan, said their leases had expired in March and the state had refused renewals citing the May 9 order. 'We are in favour of the report being produced at the earliest. But till then, our livelihoods have stopped,' Singh said. The court clarified that restrictions applied only to new licences, not renewals, and directed states to respond to the miners' applications. Parmeshwar suggested that once the definition is finalised, individual mining applications should consider the carrying capacity of the entire Aravalli range for the next 50-100 years. He also recommended enforcing a ban across the entire range and ensuring no new mining leases are granted. The Aravalli range serves as a crucial climate barrier, blocking eastward winds from the Thar desert and preventing Delhi from experiencing dry, arid conditions. The Supreme Court had banned mining activities across the entire Aravalli region in Haryana and Rajasthan in 2002 after Central Empowered Committee reports indicated that illegal mining had consumed 25% of the range. The court has previously indicated that a balance must be struck between sustainable development and environmental protection.
