Latest news with #GNarender
Indian Express
28-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Their info leaked online, Dehradun interfaith couple say marriage application on hold amid threats and pressure
After being in a relationship for over a decade, a couple from Dehradun decided to get married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. However, on Saturday, their application was put on hold after two witnesses pulled out, citing threats from right-wing groups and objections from the woman's father, who was threatened with a boycott by his community. According to the couple, their wedding plans unravelled because the man is a Muslim and the woman a Hindu. The details of the couple — both 28 years old — along with their photographs, were uploaded online by a Facebook user, leading to a flurry of threats, abuses, and visits to the family of the woman. The woman, who works at a clinic, said her relatives and others turned up at their door on Saturday, disparaging the family for 'letting her marry' the Muslim man. 'My parents are neither happy nor upset about my decision. They respect my choice. However, after the entire system came against us, my father was forced to raise objections with the SDM (Sub-Divisional Magistrate). The page that has gone viral on social media is not the notice put up on the board of the office of the SDM, but from our file with the officer,' she said. She alleges that some lawyers who work with the man she is set to marry, as well as some government officials, 'are facilitating this hounding and delaying our second motion'. The SDM has denied allegations that the documents were leaked from his office. The man who sought to marry her works as an advocate in Dehradun, but has not gone to work since their details went up online. Threats, allegedly from the Hindu Raksha Dal, Bajrang Dal, and other outfits, have been pouring in ever since, he claimed. 'We have known each other since class 6 and attended the same college. We are exercising our fundamental rights and getting married under the Special Marriage Act. How can their law prevail over the Constitution?' he said. The woman said she fears her job is on the line after her employer came across the social media posts. 'Though I have not been terminated, the doctor called to tell me to stay put until things blow over. I'm not sure if they will lay me off if this persists,' she said. The couple had sought protection from the High Court on Friday. The division bench of Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Alok Mahra had directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) to comply with the Supreme Court verdict in the Lata Singh vs State of UP and Another (2006) case. The apex court had directed the administration and police across the country to ensure that when any man or woman, who is a major, undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is also a major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence. They were also directed to ensure that anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence, either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons, and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law. The woman claimed that police did not lodge an FIR on her complaint and told her they can only protect her in case of a 'real threat'. The couple's lawyer said that she has been ostracised for helping them get married. Meanwhile, SDM, Sadar, Har Giri, said that he was looking into the objections raised by the woman's family. Asked about the delay, he said, 'We have to look into the cause for the withdrawal by the witnesses. My responsibility is to enquire about the matter; threats to the couple do not figure in my responsibilities.' He denied allegations that the documents with details of the couple were leaked from his office. Earlier this year, another couple from Udham Singh Nagar faced a similar ordeal after their details were made public by right-wing outfits despite a High Court order directing protection from threats.
Indian Express
26-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Can officer with no knowledge of English… effectively control executive post: Uttarakhand HC after ADM's response in Hindi
While hearing a matter regarding the validity of the family register for panchayat electoral roll entries, the Uttarakhand High Court recently questioned whether an Additional District Magistrate can 'effectively control' an executive position after he admitted he wasn't proficient in English. As per an order dated July 18, the division bench of Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Alok Mahra questioned the ADM, Vivek Rai, when he responded in Hindi. He was asked if he knew English, and Rai said that though he can comprehend the language while being spoken to, he cannot speak it. Taking a note of this, the order says the court directed the State Election Commissioner and the Chief Secretary to examine if an officer of the cadre of Additional District Magistrate, 'who claims to have no knowledge of English or in his own words inability to convey in English, would be in a position to effectively control an Executive post'. Rai is a senior Provincial Civil Service officer who has served as SDM of various areas before taking on the post of the ADM Nainital earlier this year. The court was hearing the matter regarding electoral roll preparations. It asked the assistant electoral registration officer whether an exercise had been carried out to authenticate the veracity of the entries of the family register, or whether any documents had been collected to ascertain the veracity of the claims made with the booth level officer during the enumeration programme. The officers stated that, apart from relying on the family register, there is no other material. The court said that the legislature has not considered the family register as a document that can be relied upon by the Electoral Registration Officer to finalise the electoral roll of each constituency. 'Despite this, the glaring fact which stares at us is the consistent submission of the learned counsel for the State Election Commission and the officers, i.e. the ERO and the AERO, that the only document that has been relied upon to include names of voters is the Family Register maintained under the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970,' it said, adding that if the sanctity of the family register as a valid document was of such a high degree, the legislature would have referred to it in the Uttar Pradesh (Registration of Electors) Rules, 1994, which came about after the 1970 rules. The court said that if this is being adopted for the preparation of the electoral rolls across the state, the legality of the exercise becomes 'questionable'. The court directed the State Election Commissioner and the Chief Secretary to appear virtually on July 28 to look into the issue. Aiswarya Raj is a correspondent with The Indian Express who covers South Haryana. An alumna of Asian College of Journalism and the University of Kerala, she started her career at The Indian Express as a sub-editor in the Delhi city team. In her current position, she reports from Gurgaon and covers the neighbouring districts. She likes to tell stories of people and hopes to find moorings in narrative journalism. ... Read More
Indian Express
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Uttarakhand High Court vacates stay on panchayat elections
Observing that the repetition of reservation in seats is minuscule and in compliance with Article 243D of the Constitution, the Uttarakhand High Court vacated the stay on panchayat elections and ordered that the process be resumed. The pleas, which prompted the stay on June 23, were by a clutch of petitioners arguing that the government's decision to nullify the existing reservation rotation for the panchayat polls and bring about a new rotation has prevented them from being able to contest. Under the reservation rotation system, constituencies are reserved for various categories for three terms, after which the quota goes to other seats. With a new rotation starting this year, the petitioner had said a seat that had been reserved for the last three terms would again be reserved this year, preventing him from contesting the election. The division bench of Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Alok Mahra heard the counsel for the government who argued that the repetition was conducted on the recommendations of a report by a committee and was in compliance with the provisions of Article 234 D of the Constitution (pertaining to the reservation of seat in Panchayati Raj system). While arguing, the counsel for the state had relied on the Supreme Court's verdicts on withholding elections. 'The apex court has held that withholding election is a breach of constitutional mandate, for any reason, and even the SC cannot do it, even under article 142. This constitutional mandate that elections should proceed at any cost is inviolable,' the Advocate General had said. On Friday, the HC said that the rulings of the Supreme Court that the counsel relied on elucidated one invariable rule that the constitutional courts may stall the election process where there is no compliance with the constitutional mandate regarding reservation under Article 243-D of the Constitution of India. Aiswarya Raj is a correspondent with The Indian Express who covers South Haryana. An alumna of Asian College of Journalism and the University of Kerala, she started her career at The Indian Express as a sub-editor in the Delhi city team. In her current position, she reports from Gurgaon and covers the neighbouring districts. She likes to tell stories of people and hopes to find moorings in narrative journalism. ... Read More
Indian Express
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Plea in Uttarakhand HC challenges 2025 amendment to Doon Valley Notification: ‘Destroys very essence'
A petition in the Uttarakhand High Court challenges the 2025 amendment to the Doon Valley Notification, 1989. According to the petition, the amendment undermines its objective and ignores the ecological sensitivity of the valley by allowing industries in the red category to operate. A Division Bench of Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Alok Mahra Friday sought the government counsel to secure instructions on the same. The petition, amended to incorporate a prayer to quash the gazette notification, filed by Congress leader Abhinav Thapar, claimed that the new amendment to the Doon Valley notification, 1989, which was notified on May 13, fails the original motive of the notification. The 1989 Doon Valley Notification, a significant instrument which classified industries based on pollution levels under green, red, and orange categories, and prohibited mining, change in land use, and grazing without the MoEF&CC nod in Doon valley. The May amendment has given the state government the authority to approve tourism plan, grazing plan, master plan of development, land use plan, and any other plan, including zonal master plans. It also makes the orange category industries not covered under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, to be considered by the Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board. The amendment also makes orange category industries, which are now in the red category, continue, and expansion of such orange category industries falling in the schedule of the EIA notification to be allowed under conditions. According to the petition, the amendment does not take into account the ecological sensitivity of the Doon Valley. 'It allows all the industries to work in the area whether it was originally there in the notification of 1989 or not, destroying the very essence of the notification…by this notification, all the industries which now fall under red category are allowed to operate, which fails the original motive of the notification of 1989,' it says.
Scroll.in
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Uttarakhand HC blocks demolition notice issued to man accused in Nainital rape case
The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday ordered the Nainital municipal authorities to withdraw a demolition notice issued to a man arrested for allegedly raping a 12-year-old girl, The Indian Express reported. The court also directed the authorities to issue an unconditional apology to the 65-year-old man, The New Indian Express reported. The person accused of the crime, identified as Usman, worked as a contractor and allegedly raped the minor on April 12 after luring her with money, according to reports. A first information report was registered in the matter on Wednesday night under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and he was arrested. Communal clashes broke out in the resort town on Wednesday night. A group of men from the Hindu community vandalised shops and eateries belonging to Muslims in the area where Usman's office is located. The mob also threw stones at a mosque, shouted anti-Pakistan slogans and damaged several vehicles, PTI had quoted unidentified police officers as saying. In the demolition notice, the authorities had asked the man to remove allegedly illegal structures from his home within three days or face action, according to India Today. Several other persons in the area where the house is located also received the notice. On Friday, the division bench of Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Ravindra Maithani said that it was 'issuing contempt' and taking up the matter seriously. The bench was hearing a petition filed by the wife of the man challenging the demolition notice. 'You [municipal council] cannot violate a Supreme Court order; it was not passed aeons ago,' The Indian Express quoted the bench as having said. 'Whoever it is, whatever it is, the Supreme Court has been very clear: if you want to demolish a house, what is the procedure?' There are no provisions in Indian law that allow for the demolition of property as a punitive measure. However, the practice has become commonplace in Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled states. In November, the Supreme Court held as illegal the practice of demolishing properties of persons accused of crimes as a punitive measure. It said that processes must be followed before removing allegedly illegal encroachments. The advocate representing Usman argued that the notice had been served in violation of the Supreme Court's guidelines, which mandate a 15-day wait before encroachments can be removed. The counsel for the municipal authority accepted that issuing a three-day notice was an error and that it would be withdrawn. On Friday, another bench of the High Court took suo motu cognizance of the communal tensions in Nainital and directed the police to prevent gatherings and maintain law and order. The police should issue appeals to people and carry out more patrols to ensure that no violence occurs, the bench said.
