Latest news with #ConstitutionofIndia
Time of India
an hour ago
- Business
- Time of India
Karnataka high court imposes cost on petitioners for misuse of legal process
Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court imposed a Rs 10 lakh cost on six petitioners for concealing crucial facts and misusing legal procedures in a land acquisition case. "The petition, replete with suppression and bereft of bona fides, must meet its dismissal, not dismissal simpliciter, but with an exemplary cost. If the petition is now entertained on any score, it would amount to putting a premium on the litigative persistence of the petitioners and rewarding abuse of the process and tacit fraud played on this court. This forms the ninth petition on the same cause of action, seeking the very same prayer, differently worded, after the dismissal of eight rounds of litigation, all of which are suppressed in the subject petition," Justice M Nagaprasanna observed in his order. The case involves legal representatives of Venkata Bhovi and Hanumantha Bhovi, who received 2 acres and 20 guntas of land in Nagadevanahalli, Bengaluru, through an official memorandum dated Jan 9, 1979. The land was previously under their unauthorised occupation, and the deputy commissioner subsequently granted them ownership, recording their names in revenue records. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru The land acquisition process began on July 31, 1986, with a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, followed by a final notification on Jan 22, 1987. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You To Read in 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The compensation was fixed at Rs 65,000 per acre plus Rs 15,000 per acre in solatium and interest on June 6, 1987. The divisional commissioner deposited the award amount on Oct 9, 1987. Following Venkata's death, his legal heirs sought to remove the property from acquisition through various representations. They cited a draft notification under Section 48(1) of the Act from April 23, 1993. The petitioners approached the authorities on Jan 24, 2025, requesting a no-objection certificate, claiming their lands were excluded from acquisition based on a Sept 3, 1993 notification. Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the petitioners' latest argument relied on a previously unmentioned 1993 notification. The court observed that this revelation came after eight rounds of litigation, characterising it as judicial manipulation rather than justice-seeking. "What I witness is not the pursuit of justice, but a game of judicial hide and seek, where one of the family members of the grantee seeks invocation of the writ jurisdiction, while the other member hides. Later, the other member seeks, and the former hides. Such cynical use of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must be arrested in its tracks," Justice Nagaprasanna observed while dismissing the petition by Gangamma and five others to prevent abuse of judicial process and ensure finality in judicial decisions. —— BOX 3-decade saga The first round of litigation started in 1993. In 1994, the high court dismissed the petition. The second challenge was made in 1997 and the same was also dismissed. The third one was a suit filed in the civil court in 1993 which also met the same fate. In 2003, another petition was filed in the high court and was dismissed. In 2004, a second civil suit was filed and the same was dismissed as not maintainable. In 2007, the children of Vektata filed a petition on the same cause of action and it was dismissed on the grounds of delay. The order was challenged before a division bench in 2012 and the order of the single bench was affirmed in Nov 2022. In between, during the pendency of the writ appeal, a petition was filed in 2016 which was eighth in the series. However, when the petition was pending, the latest petition was filed on March 4, 2025. The petition filed in 2016 was withdrawn.
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Economic Times
Allahabad HC adjourns hearing in ordinance on Mathura Bankey Bihari temple case
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing over creating a government trust to control and supervise the Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir at Mathura through an ordinance, and fixed August 6 for the next hearing. When the matter was taken up before Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, the state counsel informed that the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 has been challenged before the apex court and the matter is pending. Following this, the high court adjourned the hearing and told the government counsel that it would be proper to get the Ordinance amended as it relates to the inclusion of bureaucrats in the proposed Trust. The court was of the view that by way of the Ordinance, the government wants to put control over the temple which cannot be permitted and it is in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Earlier on July 21, high court-appointed amicus curiae Sanjay Goswami questioned the competence of the state to issue the Ordinance. "The temple in question is a private temple and the religious practice is being carried out by the heirs of late Swami Hari Das Ji," he said, alleging that by issuing the Ordinance, the government is trying to take control over the temple through the back door. "Section 5 of the Ordinance provides for Appointment Constitution and Terms of the Board and Trustees. Section 5 (1)(ii) provides that there would be two kinds of trustees of the Board, namely, nominated trustees and ex-officio trustees," he said. According to Goswami, the nominated trustees are saints, seers, gurus, scholars, mathadhish and mahants from the Vaishnav tradition as well as followers of Sanatan Dharm. He took strong objections to the inclusion of seven ex-officio trustees such as the Mathura district magistrate (DM), senior superintendent of police (SSP), municipal commissioner, chief executive officer of the Uttar Pradesh Braj Teerth Vikash Parishad, an officer of UP's Religious Affairs Department and chief executive officer of Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust. He contended that there is no need for the appointment of ex-officio trustees by the state government, as this would amount to a back door entry by the government in the private temple managed by the Goswamis. According to him, it is an encroachment on the rights of the Hindus by the state government entering through the back door and taking control of the Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple, as it is a private temple and followers and successors of Swami Hari Das Ji are managing the temple.
Economic Times
3 hours ago
- General
- Economic Times
Elderly parents facing 498A charges, win eviction case against daughter-in-law after 6-year fight; here's what happened
ET Online (Representative image) Elderly parents win eviction case against daughter-in-law after 6 years' fight under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act A husband faced a tough situation when both his wife and elderly parents filed legal cases against him in court, for different reasons. The wife filed cases under Section 498A (criminal), domestic violence (criminal) and matrimonial law against the husband and his parents. His parents, aged 66 and 67, filed a case to evict him and his wife from their house property. The husband's elderly parents alleged that they had allowed their son and daughter- in-law to reside in their house due to their immediate needs after their love marriage. However, after the daughter-in-law initiated criminal litigation(s) against them, they approached the Senior Citizens' Tribunal seeking the eviction of the son and daughter-in-law from their house. In 2019, the Tribunal ordered both the husband and wife to vacate the property within 30 days. In 2020, the wife filed an appeal against the order of the tribunal and ultimately won, resulting in the cancellation of the tribunal's eviction order. That is when the husband's elderly parents approached the Bombay High Court. In a judgment that will have a strong and positive impact on the rights of senior citizens going forward, the Bombay High Court on June 18, 2025, rejected the wife's claim to reside in her in-laws' house property after filing criminal cases against them and ordered the son and wife to vacate the house within 30 days of the order and directed them to pay rent in arrears to the elderly June 18, 2025, the Bombay High Court said: 'This petition, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by senior citizens depicts the plight of the senior citizens who are required to contest litigations against their own son and daughter-in law to enable them to enjoy their own house property.'Regarding the eviction order, wife's lawyers argued in court that she has a right to reside in the said property owned by her in-laws mainly because of pendency of matrimonial proceedings under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and proceedings under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the husband and also the criminal proceedings for offence under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the legal argument put forth by the wife's lawyers. The Bombay High Court stated: '...Only because the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (husband and wife) were allowed by his parents to reside in their house, the same cannot be construed to have conferred any right in favour of the daughter-in-law particularly when her relations with the son have turned hostile. In any case, the son and daughter-in-law cannot compel their parents to allow them to reside in their property against their desire…'Parallel to this eviction case, the son (husband) had kept on fighting his own separate legal battle, namely the Section 498A, Domestic Violence, and other cases, in court and was ultimately acquitted i.e. freed from the criminal and matrimonial charges in reading to know the details and the legal reasonings used in this case and the reason the wife lost the case. How did this tenant eviction case start? Here we are talking about the tenant eviction case filed by the husband's senior citizen parents. The criminal and matrimonial cases filed by the wife are a separate legal case. According to the order of the Bombay High Court dated June 18, 2025, here is the timeline of events as they happened: 2008: Husband's parents buy a Bungalow using their own funds. Husband's parents buy a Bungalow using their own funds. 2016: Wife files criminal and matrimonial case against the husband and his parents (in-laws). Wife files criminal and matrimonial case against the husband and his parents (in-laws). 2019: The husband's parents who became senior citizens at that time, filed a case for eviction under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Sub Divisional Officer of the Senior Citizen tribunal allowed the application and directed the husband and wife to vacate the property within 30 days. The husband's parents who became senior citizens at that time, filed a case for eviction under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Sub Divisional Officer of the Senior Citizen tribunal allowed the application and directed the husband and wife to vacate the property within 30 days. August 7, 2020: The wife filed an appeal against the Sub Divisional Officer's order in the Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal. The appellate tribunal accepted the appeal and cancelled the eviction order against the husband and wife. The tribunal said this matter is in the nature of a civil dispute and so the appropriate court should be approached for this. The senior citizen parents soon filed an appeal against this order in the Bombay High Court. What did the senior citizen parents of the husband say before Bombay High Court? According to the order of the Bombay High Court dated June 18, 2025, here's a summary of what the parents said. They were represented by the Assistant Government Pleader: (The arguments are exactly as per the judgement, however some repetitive portions have been omitted) It is the case of the petitioners' (parents) that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the son and daughter-in-law of the petitioners who have performed love marriage and requested for allowing them to stay in their house and accordingly the petitioners allowed them to reside in the said property. The petitioners had alleged that they allowed their son and daughter- in-law to reside in their home considering their immediate needs after their marriage. However, after the daughter in law started frivolous litigations against them, they approached the Tribunal seeking eviction from their house. On account of disputes in between respondent Nos.3 and 4, the respondent No.4 (wife) started harassing the petitioners and she even filed criminal cases against the petitioners, apart from matrimonial proceedings against her husband. The petitioners' case is that they have obtained a loan to purchase the said property which they are repaying but are now deprived from enjoying their own property and therefore they were constrained to approach the Tribunal under Section 5 r/w 20 of the Act. Also read: Mental cruelty: Know how a husband won a divorce battle in High Court as wife mocked his physical infirmity; Permanent alimony amount to be decided The Bombay High Court says that the wife's primary contention does not stand The Bombay High Court said: The primary contention of respondent No.4 (wife) as deduced from her memorandum of Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is her right to claim maintenance and to reside in the property and her contentions about pendency of the matrimonial proceedings and criminal case against her husband and petitioners. However, it is crucial to note that there is nothing on record in the nature of any order or decree directing grant of maintenance or right to reside in favour of respondent No.4. Neither there is any specific order under the provisions of the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in favour of respondent No.4 to claim residence in the property of the petitioners. Thus, apart from her bare contentions in the appeal before the Appellate Authority, there is no document on record establishing any right in favour of respondent No.4 to reside in the suit property. It has to be noted that the petitioners have filed on record a copy of judgment in Regular Criminal Case No.106 of 2016 dated 13.09.2023, by which the petitioners and their son are acquitted from the criminal case. Also read: Matrimonial Dispute: Husband loses job after wife wins case; Know how this impacts private and government employees Bombay HC aks why does the wife who has a 3-bedroom house in her name need to reside in the husband's parents' house? The Bombay High Court said: Pertinent to note, the petitioners (parents) have filed on record an affidavit dated 19.06.2024 categorically stating therein that during the pendency of the present petition, the respondent No.4 (wife) has purchased a house property by way of registered sale deed dated 27.08.2021, consisting of three bedrooms and presently she is residing in the said house. It is stated that despite her own independent house property, the respondent No.4 is also occupying a portion of the suit property belonging to the petitioners. Along with this affidavit the petitioners have also filed on record copy of sale deed in favour of respondent No.4. It is important to note, respondent No.4 (wife) has not filed any counter affidavit disputing this categorical assertion by the petitioners. In the wake of these factual aspects, it has to be inferred that the respondent No.4 (wife) has failed to establish any right to occupy or reside in the suit property. Bombay High Court says elderly parents cannot be compelled to let son & his wife stay in their house against their wishes The Bombay High Court said: It is crucial to note that the suit property is self-acquired property of the petitioners and the son and daughter-in-law had failed to establish any legal right to reside in that house. As stated earlier, only because respondent Nos.3 and 4 (husband and wife) were allowed by the petitioners to reside in their house, the same cannot be construed to have conferred any right in favour of the daughter-in-law particularly when her relations with the son have turned hostile. In any case, the son and daughter-in-law cannot compel their parents to allow them to reside in their property against their desire. As such there is no legal basis for the claim of the respondent no.4 to reside in the petitioners' house and on the contrary the petitioners are entitled to invoke provisions of the Act to seek eviction of the respondents no.3 and 4. Bombay HC: Wife can independently pursue her right to claim maintenance or right to reside in the property of her husband The Bombay High Court said: As regards, the contentions of respondent No.4 (wife) based on her right to claim maintenance or right to reside in the property of her husband, the same can be independently enforced by her, if a situation arises. However, under the pretext of enforcing her rights arising out of any matrimonial proceedings as against her husband, she cannot be allowed to defeat the rights of her parents-in-law which are independently protected under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. As such, the competing rights of the daughter-in-law cannot be compromised at the cost of the rights of the senior citizens to enjoy their own property independently. Thus, in the peculiar facts of this case, particularly, considering the legal position, directing the petitioners to initiate fresh civil proceedings for eviction of their daughter-in-law would be detrimental and would defeat the purpose of the enactment. In the light of the factual and legal opinion I am of the firm view that the Appellate Tribunal has grossly erred in allowing the appeal and directing the parties to approach civil court for seeking eviction. Bombay High Court final judgement Judgement: 'On consideration of the overall factual and legal aspects of the matter, the instant petition needs to be allowed. The impugned order dated 07.08.2020 passed by respondent No.1-Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal/District Collector, Nandurbar, in case No.2020/home/Division2/Appeal/4/2020 is quashed and set aside and the order dated 18.02.2019 passed by respondent No.2-Sub Divisional Officer in Case No. 2019/Senior Citizen/Kavi/02 is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the respondents no.3 and 4 are directed to vacate the house property of the petitioners within a period of 30 days from the date of this judgment.' Bombay High Court directs husband and wife to pay rent in arrears to the elderly parents While announcing this judgement, the Bombay High Court said: In the instant case, the conduct of respondent No.4 daughter-in-law which has constrained the petitioners to initiate legal proceedings, warrants serious and thoughtful consideration. The appeal u/s 16 (1) was filed only by the respondent no.4. Although respondent No.4 has contested the proceedings before the Tribunal and Appellate Authority, however, she has blatantly ignored the mandate of the order passed by this court. It has to be noted that despite a specific order passed by this Court on 21.12.2022, directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 (husband and wife) to deposit an amount of Rs 20,000 per month towards occupation of the suit property from the date of order passed by the Tribunal, the same is not at all compiled by them. It is apparent that during the pendency of the petition, the respondent No.4 has continued to occupy the petitioners' home in absence of any right in her favour thereby compelling the petitioners to indulge in litigations up to this court. This conduct on the part of respondent No.4 (wife) is deprecated. Since respondent No. 3 and 4 have failed to comply with the mandate of the order passed by this Court directing to pay Rs 20,000 per month from the date of order of the Tribunal i.e. 18 February 2019, it is necessary in the interest of justice to direct the respondent No.3 and 4 to comply with the said order. Accordingly, the respondent no. 3 and 4 (husband and wife) are directed to comply and pay to the petitioners the entire amount of arrears at the earliest and also to bear with the costs of the instant petition. What is the significance of this case for senior citizens and husbands? ET Wealth Online has asked various lawyers about what might be the significance of this judgement, here's what they said: Rahul Hingmire, Managing Partner, Vis Legis Law Practice says: This judgment is a landmark for senior citizens asserting their legal right to exclusive residence and protection of self-acquired property. It affirms that ownership and peaceful possession cannot be overridden by vague claims from children or in-laws. The court strongly upheld a husband's right to safeguard his parents' property from wrongful occupation by a daughter-in-law, making it clear that pending matrimonial disputes or domestic violence proceedings do not grant her any independent residency rights in her in-laws' home. It clarified that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is not limited to maintenance but also ensures statutory protection of property rights for elders, which cannot be overridden by personal law claims. Abhinay Sharma, Managing Partner, ASL Partners, says: This Bombay High Court's ruling is a landmark for two reasons: It strengthens the legal position of senior citizens who seek protection from within their own homes, and it draws necessary limits on the misuse of matrimonial litigation to interfere with the independent rights of the elderly. It will serve as a guiding precedent for Tribunals and courts across the country dealing with similar inter-generational disputes. A. Impact on Senior Citizens This judgment will have a strong and positive impact on the rights of senior citizens going forward. It clarifies and reinforces that senior citizens need not approach civil courts to reclaim peaceful possession of their self-acquired homes when facing harassment or interference from their own children or in-laws. The ruling makes it clear that Tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 have the power to order eviction where required to protect the dignity and property rights of the Hon'ble Court has taken a firm stand that the Act is not limited to maintenance but must be interpreted to include the protection of property and safety of senior citizens. In its own words:This judgment will empower senior citizens in future to assert their rights under the Act with greater confidence. It sets a precedent that they cannot be forced to tolerate continued occupation of their home by children or in-laws who misuse the family relationship or resort to litigation to delay eviction. It ensures that the very purpose of the Act is to provide quick, effective, and compassionate remedies will not be defeated by technical objections or delays. B. Impact on Husbands in Matrimonial Disputes For husbands facing matrimonial litigation, this judgment brings clarity and balance, particularly in situations where disputes between spouses spill over into conflicts involving the husband's parents and their property. The Hon'ble High Court has drawn a clear legal boundary: a wife cannot claim a right to reside in her in-laws' house unless she has a specific legal order granting her that right, especially where the property is self-acquired by the parents and not part of any shared matrimonial ruling is likely to reduce the misuse of pending matrimonial or criminal cases as a means to occupy or take control of property belonging to elderly in-laws. The Hon'ble Court noted that the daughter-in-law in the case had neither any judicial order granting her residence rights nor any legal interest in the property. Despite this, she continued to occupy the house and ignored court directions. The Court made it clear that going forward, this judgment will serve as a precedent that husbands cannot be used as a conduit to interfere with or deny the statutory rights of their parents. It reinforces that while a wife may have enforceable rights against her husband under matrimonial law, those rights do not extend to taking over property owned solely by her in-laws, unless backed by a specific legal entitlement. This will help reduce prolonged and unjustified occupation of elderly parents' homes during family disputes. Shashank Agarwal, Founder, Legum Solis, says: This judgment reinforces the principles and objectives behind The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which are clearly aimed at protecting the life and liberty of the Senior Citizens, particularly, from their own children and their spouses. This judgment should act as a deterrent to those people and spouses who mistreat their elderly parents and attempt to oust them out of their own homes. Sneha Bhogle Kale, Senior Partner, Accord Juris LLP, says: This case merely reiterated previous rulings in 2018 in Dattatrey Shivaji Mane and affirms that the Senior Citizens Act is a welfare statute to protect elderly rights and ensure their safety and well being. The children have got no legal rights to reside in the house of their parents and mere permission doesn't confer a legal right. The tribunals for this specific purpose are meant to ensure speedy and affordable remedies. Several courts have held consistently that senior citizens can evict children from their self acquired property if ill treated. This judgment passed by the Bombay High Court gives the senior citizens an awareness about their rights and affirms that their rights have to be safeguarded and they do have a right to live with dignity and self also assures them that their hard earned money is not left in the hands of greedy children who fail to take care of them in their old age. It puts a sense of fear among the children that they cannot ill treat their ageing parents as they can be evicted from their parents house if they don't treat them with dignity and respect. N.R. Narayana Murthy Founder, Infosys Watch Now Harsh Mariwala Chairman & Founder, Marico Watch Now Adar Poonawalla CEO, Serum Institute of India Watch Now Ronnie Screwvala Chairperson & Co-founder, upGrad Watch Now Puneet Dalmia Managing Director, Dalmia Bharat group Watch Now Martin Schwenk Former President & CEO, Mercedes-Benz, Thailand Watch Now Nadir Godrej Managing Director, of Godrej Industries Watch Now Manu Jain Former- Global Vice President, Xiaomi Watch Now Nithin Kamath Founder, CEO, Zerodha Watch Now Anil Agarwal Executive Chairman, Vedanta Resources Watch Now Dr. Prathap C. Reddy Founder Chairman, Apollo Hospitals Watch Now Vikram Kirloskar Former Vice Chairman, Toyota Kirloskar Motor Watch Now Kiran Mazumdar Shaw Executive Chairperson, Biocon Limited Watch Now Shashi Kiran Shetty Chairman of Allcargo Logistics, ECU Worldwide and Gati Ltd Watch Now Samir K Modi Managing Director, Modi Enterprises Watch Now R Gopalakrishnan Former Director Tata Sons, Former Vice Chairman, HUL Watch Now Sanjiv Mehta Former Chairman / CEO, Hindustan Unilever Watch Now Dr Ajai Chowdhry Co-Founder, HCL, Chairman EPIC Foundation, Author, Just Aspire Watch Now Shiv Khera Author, Business Consultant, Motivational Speaker Watch Now Nakul Anand Executive Director, ITC Limited Watch Now RS Sodhi Former MD, Amul & President, Indian Dairy Association Watch Now Anil Rai Gupta Managing Director & Chairman, Havells Watch Now Zia Mody Co-Founder & Managing Partner, AZB & Partners Watch Now Arundhati Bhattacharya Chairperson & CEO, Salesforce India Watch Now
News18
3 hours ago
- Politics
- News18
Allahabad HC adjourns hearing in ordinance on Mathura Bankey Bihari temple case
Prayagraj (UP), Jul 30 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing over creating a government trust to control and supervise the Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir at Mathura through an ordinance, and fixed August 6 for the next hearing. When the matter was taken up before Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, the state counsel informed that the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 has been challenged before the apex court and the matter is pending. Following this, the high court adjourned the hearing and told the government counsel that it would be proper to get the Ordinance amended as it relates to the inclusion of bureaucrats in the proposed Trust. The court was of the view that by way of the Ordinance, the government wants to put control over the temple which cannot be permitted and it is in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Earlier on July 21, high court-appointed amicus curiae Sanjay Goswami questioned the competence of the state to issue the Ordinance. 'The temple in question is a private temple and the religious practice is being carried out by the heirs of late Swami Hari Das Ji," he said, alleging that by issuing the Ordinance, the government is trying to take control over the temple through the back door. 'Section 5 of the Ordinance provides for Appointment Constitution and Terms of the Board and Trustees. Section 5 (1)(ii) provides that there would be two kinds of trustees of the Board, namely, nominated trustees and ex-officio trustees," he said. According to Goswami, the nominated trustees are saints, seers, gurus, scholars, mathadhish and mahants from the Vaishnav tradition as well as followers of Sanatan Dharm. He took strong objections to the inclusion of seven ex-officio trustees such as the Mathura district magistrate (DM), senior superintendent of police (SSP), municipal commissioner, chief executive officer of the Uttar Pradesh Braj Teerth Vikash Parishad, an officer of UP's Religious Affairs Department and chief executive officer of Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust. He contended that there is no need for the appointment of ex-officio trustees by the state government, as this would amount to a back door entry by the government in the private temple managed by the Goswamis. According to him, it is an encroachment on the rights of the Hindus by the state government entering through the back door and taking control of the Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple, as it is a private temple and followers and successors of Swami Hari Das Ji are managing the temple. PTI COR RAJ KSS KSS view comments First Published: July 30, 2025, 18:30 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hindustan Times
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Haryana Human Rights Commission seeks report on Hisar wall collapse that left 4 children dead
Chandigarh, The Haryana Human Rights Commission has taken cognisance of the death of four children in a wall collapse incident in Hisar last year and directed the concerned authorities to submit detailed reports before the next hearing scheduled for October. Haryana Human Rights Commission seeks report on Hisar wall collapse that left 4 children dead The incident took place on December 22, 2024, at a brick kiln in Budana village. Three children were injured in the wall collapse. The matter was brought to the commission's attention through a complaint filed by a human rights activist. The deceased minors' parents were migrant labourers from Uttar Pradesh working at the brick kiln, observed the bench of the commission comprising chairperson Justice Lalit Batra and Members Kuldip Jain and Deep Bhatia. Many families of labourers from Uttar Pradesh worked at the kiln in Budana. The children and some labourers were sleeping near one of the walls of the brick kiln when it collapsed on them. The commission remarked that the workers and their families were living in extremely inhumane and unsafe conditions. According to the commission, this was a preventable tragedy that occurred due to a lack of legal enforcement and failure to provide basic human necessities, Dr Puneet Arora, Information and Public Relations Officer of the Commission, said. On preliminary examination, the commission termed the incident a gross violation of human rights and a clear case of administrative failure. It also observed that the circumstances reflected indicators of bonded labour, which is prohibited under the Bonded Labour System Act, 1976. The commission, under the leadership of Justice Batra, stated that the brick kiln owner had both a moral and statutory duty to provide secure housing, clean drinking water, sanitation facilities, and workplace safety to labourers and their families. The commission found this to be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In its order dated July 24, the commission has directed the authorities concerned to submit detailed reports within eight weeks. The deputy commissioner of the district will be confirming whether any compensation has been granted to the affected families, while the assistant labour commissioner will investigate the existence of bonded labour at the site and initiate appropriate remedial action, the commission noted. Explanation from the owner of the brick kiln is required regarding the lack of safety and residential arrangements for labourers at the site, the commission said. The next hearing in the matter has been scheduled for October 14, by which date all concerned officials are required to submit their respective reports before the commission, it said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
