Latest news with #HaryanaHighCourt
Hindustan Times
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC: Chief Justice withdraws case from judge after getting 'oral, written' complaints
Chandigarh, The Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court has withdrawn a case from its judge "in the interest of the institution" and to "protect the reputation" of the judge after receiving "oral and written" complaints, according to an order from the CJ. The court also asserted that the power of the Chief Justice to allocate a particular case to any particular bench or withdraw a particular case from any particular bench and allocate the same to any other judge is "untrammelled and immune from judicial scrutiny". The order came after eminent lawyer Mukul Rohtagi, the counsel for the petitioner Roop Bansal, who had sought the quashing of an FIR registered against him by the Haryana Anti-Corruption Bureau under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Panchkula on April 17, had objected to the withdrawal of the case. The petition was heard by Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu who reserved the judgement on May 2. However, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu withdrew the case from Justice Sindhu after receiving some "oral and written" complaints and constituted another bench comprising himself and listed the matter on May 12, to "draw curtains to the controversy and save the institution and the concerned judge from any further embarrassment". Rohtagi objected to the withdrawal of the case, arguing that the matter which is "heard and reserved" by a bench holding roster, cannot be withdrawn from that roster to be heard by any other single bench including that of the Chief Justice. "The reason for withdrawing this case from the Single Bench Criminal Roster of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, was the receipt of complaint, , which impelled the Chief Justice to requisition the record of this case from the said Single Bench and constitute another Single Bench comprising of Chief Justice on May 12 at 03.30 P.M. to give quietus to the complaint, draw curtains to the controversy and save the institution and the concerned Judge from any further embarrassment by deciding the case as expeditiously as possible," said the order which was passed on Friday. The Chief Justice received certain complaints and these complaints impelled the Chief Justice to take emergent steps in the interest of the institution and also to preserve and protect the reputation and dignity of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, stated the order of the Chief Justice. Since the matter had been heard and reserved by Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu on May 2 and the knowledge of the complaints was received by the Chief Justice as late as May 8-9, there was very little reaction time available, it said. The Chief Justice in the fitness of things took a drastic step on May 10 by passing an administrative order withdrawing the instant case from Justice Sindhu and listing it before the single bench comprising the Chief Justice alone to hear the matter on May 12, according to the order. On objection raised by the petitioner's counsel on withdrawal of the case, the order stated, "It is not disputed that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster, but once assignment of a case is made by Chief Justice to a particular Bench by way of roster or by administrative order, then that particular case falls within the exclusive domain of the assigned Bench till its decision except where the Roster is changed or the Chief Justice allots that particular case to some other Bench." From a close scrutiny of the ratio of various judgments relied upon and having gone through the rules and orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, "this court finds that there is no express or implied bar for the Chief Justice to withdraw any case, which is heard and reserved by any particular Bench", the order said. Powers of Chief Justice in his capacity as Master of the Roster are "wide, pervading and plenary", said the order. These powers are circumscribed by only one consideration that is to protect the interest of the institution from being tarnished and to uphold the public trust reposed in the judiciary by litigants, it said. If these considerations are kept in mind, then the power of the Chief Justice to allocate a particular case to any particular Bench or withdraw a particular case from any particular Bench and allocate the same to any other Judge is untrammelled and immune from judicial scrutiny, said the order. The order said the factual situation in the present case reveals that the Chief Justice with a view to preserve the dignity and honour of the institution and so also the public trust, took the emergent step by withdrawing the instant case, which was heard and reserved for pronouncement of judgment, and listed the same before a newly constituted single bench comprising the chief justice for rehearing. "In the attending factual scenario, if the Chief Justice had not taken preventive emergent steps, then the Chief Justice would be failing in his duty and belying the oath taken by him. "The only course available to the Chief Justice in the limited reaction time, was to withdraw the heard and reserved case from the single bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu to be listed before another Single Bench. The object sought to be achieved was to prevent possible damage to the reputation of the institution," said the order. The object is to ensure the administration of justice by allocating cases of different natures to available Benches to achieve the ultimate goal of fair and speedy justice for the litigants. To achieve this objective Chief Justice inter-alia performs the ancillary function of looking into written or oral complaints against any particular bench, the order said. This function is discharged by subjective assessment based on objective material in hand, which may be in the shape of oral or written complaint. Occasionally, such complaints are received at the 11th hour when the reaction time with the Chief Justice is limited, the order said. Thus, the Chief Justice has to decide within this limited available time, as to which course of action is to be taken. "In such situations, the reputation of the Bench which 'heard and reserved' the case to be withdrawn is at stake. On the other hand, is the overall reputation of the institution and public trust of people at large in the judicial system," said the order. In this piquant situation, if the Chief Justice chooses the latter, then in my humble and considered opinion the Chief Justice stands by his oath and public trust, said the order.
The Hindu
21-05-2025
- Health
- The Hindu
Going beyond the blame game: understanding sterilisation and its limits
The story so far Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court examined a case of a child born after a vasectomy and held, with striking clarity, that conception after sterilisation alone could not be held to brand a surgeon negligent. In Chennai, meanwhile, two separate 'failed' tubectomy cases were fought in the Madras High Court recently where, in one case, a post-sterilisation baby was regrettably called an 'unwanted child', and the court imposed heavy penalties on the State and doctor. And in the other case, the court imposed upon the operating doctor, a fine of ₹60,000. These divergent tones remind us that failure of sterilisation can flow either from human error or from biology—and that the law sometimes struggles to tell the two apart. Hence, there is a need to understand the process behind the procedures. India's contraceptive landscape India pioneered the National Family Welfare Programme in 1952 as the first country to do so, yet today, it houses the planet's largest recently however falling fertility levels, at least in the southern States, has indicated that we are in the throes of a demographic shift. Contraception is divided into temporary and permanent methods. Temporary methods include combined oral contraceptives, progestin-only pills, the Copper-T intrauterine device (IUD), the quarterly DMPA injection, and condoms (male and female). Except for condoms, every other form of contraception is made for women. Yet, that lone male option, the condom, carries a priceless bonus by fending off sexually transmitted diseases (HIV, Hepatitis B, Human Papilloma Virus), a protection its female counterpart cannot provide. Between the 1970s and the present, they helped millions of women prevent unwanted pregnancies and septic abortions, pursue higher education after marriage, allowed women to enter paid work, and, by shrinking household sizes, nudged families towards spending on nutrition and education rather than sheer survival. Permanent contraception is surgical. There are two routes: tubectomy for women and vasectomy for men. Tubectomy accounts for 98% of permanent sterilisations and contributes to 62% of all contraceptive use among Indian couples. Around 85% of women undergoing tubectomy in India have the procedure performed at a government health facility. Tubectomy and vasectomy The fallopian tube—an undulating tunnel of ciliated columnar epithelium and smooth muscle—ferries the ovum toward the womb for embryo formation after intercourse. A tubectomy, done through a mini laparotomy or laparoscopy under spinal or general anaesthesia, severs or seals that conduit. Because the cut is definitive, a woman walks out immediately sterile, yet she continues to menstruate. Usually, it is done during the time of menstruation or immediately within 6 weeks of childbirth. Though it needs an operating theatre, sterile instruments, a skilled surgeon, and an anaesthesiologist, it is still preferred over the far simpler male alternative. The vas deferens—a cord lined by pseudostratified columnar epithelium with stereocilia and girdled by thick muscle—transports sperm from the testis to the urethra in the penis. A non-scalpel vasectomy, usually under local anaesthesia, takes barely forty minutes, rarely needs a hospital bed and lets the patient resume work the next day and resume sexual activity within a week. The testes keep churning out sperm, but the cells are quietly re-absorbed; erections, libido, and testosterone remain untouched. Two main disadvantages exist in comparison to tubectomy: the man must use condoms for roughly three months while residual sperm clear, and he must return for a semen test—an appointment often sabotaged by stigma, forgetfulness or sheer inertia. However, failures are rare (about 1 in 1,200) compared with tubectomy, which is 1 in 200–300. Whether the scalpel meets the tube or duct, in all hospital facilities performing the procedure, the following routine happens: due counselling is provided and informed consent is verified; the segment is excised; the labelled specimen travels to histopathology, where ciliated folds confirm fallopian tube or thick muscular wall confirms vas deferens under a microscope. Only after this stamp does the patient receive an incentive—Central funds under the National Family Planning Welfare Programme plus a state 'top-up' because family planning sits on the Concurrent List. Where does failure occur? Contraceptive failure, though statistically rare in surgical sterilisation, must be understood through two distinct lenses: medical negligence and medical mal-occurrence. A failure is termed medical negligence when there is a demonstrable breach in the standard of care—such as improper surgical technique, incorrect identification of ligaments over fallopian tubes or ligation of incorrect anatomical structures, non-adherence to aseptic protocols, or lack of adequate postoperative instructions. In such instances, liability may rest with the healthcare provider. In contrast, a failure arising from medical mal-occurrence is one where all protocols were meticulously followed, yet nature intervenes—such as spontaneous recanalisation of the fallopian tubes or vas deferens. These are recognised biological phenomena and cannot be ascribed to incompetence or error. Importantly, under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, contraceptive failure is considered a valid legal indication for terminating an unwanted pregnancy. The histopathological examination done after surgery to check the surgically removed parts and identify the tissues acts as a safety barrier for the surgeons and a tipping point for the beneficiaries to rectify. Paying damages Since 2013, the National Family Planning Indemnity Scheme has offered a financial net of ₹2 lakh for a death within seven days, ₹50,000 for one in the next three weeks, ₹30,000 for a proven failure, and up to ₹25,000 for major complications. States often stack extra amounts atop these slabs. Doctors, too, are insured up to ₹2 lakh per claim—recognition that good faith cannot always outwit bad luck. Every year, India performs roughly 5-6 million tubectomies and fewer than 30,000 vasectomies—each stitched under hard fluorescent lights by obstetricians, surgeons and nurses who rarely see the limelight. Their labour has averted an estimated 350-400 million births since 1980, silently enlarging per capita GDP and futures. A few deliveries slip past the scalpel, and courts sometimes use wounding words. But judging by the long arc, the family planning wall still stands tall—solid and pragmatic. (Dr. C. Aravinda is an academic and public health physician. The views expressed are personal. aravindaaiimsjr10@
Indian Express
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Punjab gets one day from High Court to respond to Centre, Haryana, BBMB on water release
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday gave the Punjab government one last opportunity to respond to the replies filed by the Central Government, the state of Haryana, and the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) opposing its plea to recall a key direction in the court's May 6 order. The order had directed Punjab to release additional water to Haryana amid the latter's ongoing water crisis. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel granted Punjab a day after senior advocate Gurminder Singh, appearing for the state, sought more time to file a rejoinder. The matter will now be heard on May 22. The latest stand-off began on April 23, when Haryana sought 8,500 cusecs of water from the Bhakra-Nangal project, which is an additional share of 4,500 cusecs of water. The proposal was vehemently opposed by the Punjab government. The hearing pertains to Punjab's application seeking recall or modification of direction number three of the High Court's May 6 order in a pending Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning BBMB operations and water allocations. When the matter was taken up on Tuesday, Singh contended there were 'misstatements' in the affidavits filed by Haryana, the Centre, and the BBMB. While the Bench initially asked Punjab to file its reply by the evening, it relented after the counsel sought more time, calling it the 'last chance'. Haryana terms Punjab's plea an abuse of process In a strongly worded affidavit filed through M L Rana, Chief Engineer of Haryana's Irrigation and Water Resources Department, the state accused Punjab of attempting to evade contempt proceedings and obstructing BBMB's lawful operations. Calling the move an 'abuse of the judicial process', Haryana said Punjab's May 1 police deployment at the Bhakra-Nangal Dam to block water release was 'unconstitutional' and risked setting a dangerous precedent. Haryana emphasised its acute water crisis, especially during May when the Kharif sowing season begins, and said the BBMB's decision to allocate 8,500 cusecs of water was a technical determination, not a political or inter-state water dispute. It accused Punjab of habitual defiance — citing its historic failure to construct the Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal despite repeated court orders — and claimed Punjab had overdrawn its water share by 22.45 per cent over the past two decades, while Haryana's excess use stood at 7.68 per cent. The affidavit also detailed how BBMB's decisions, upheld in multiple meetings between April 23 and May 3, were blocked by Punjab, including through the use of force. Despite a May 2 meeting chaired by the Union Home Secretary where Punjab reportedly did not object to releasing 4,500 cusecs to Haryana, the state later prevented implementation, Haryana claimed. BBMB questions maintainability of Punjab's plea In its response, BBMB termed Punjab's application a delaying tactic. It argued that Punjab's challenge came only after the court issued contempt directions on May 9, and not immediately after the May 6 ruling. The Board denied Punjab's claim that the court had adjudicated a water-sharing issue, clarifying that the case pertained to non-interference in BBMB's functioning. The BBMB defended its decision to release 8,500 cusecs of water to Haryana as a technical call made through proper channels, and not subject to Punjab's veto. BBMB highlighted Punjab's deployment of police at the Nangal Headworks as a deliberate obstruction of court-mandated water release, and said Punjab had not availed the legal route of making a representation to the Centre under Rule 7 of the BBMB Rules. Centre backs BBMB, blames Punjab for non-compliance An affidavit filed by Anil Kumar Gautam, Deputy Director at the BBMB desk in the Ministry of Power, also criticised Punjab's non-cooperation. It traced the chain of events from the technical committee's April 23 decision to release water, the BBMB's April 30 resolution confirming it, and the subsequent meetings where the release was re-affirmed — even amid national security concerns due to India's tensions with Pakistan. The Centre said Punjab failed to submit any formal representation under Rule 7 to challenge BBMB's decision and instead obstructed operations on the ground. It pointed to the rising water levels in Bhakra Dam to argue that there was no shortage of supply, and sought dismissal of Punjab's application with costs.
Indian Express
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
BBMB goes to court, terms Punjab's dam takeover illegal; state accuses Haryana of mismanagement
Opposing a plea filed by the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) seeking intervention against Punjab's alleged obstruction of water release to Haryana, the state Monday informed the Punjab and Haryana High Court that Haryana had overdrawn its quota, and was now demanding irrigation water under the guise of drinking needs. The matter was partly heard by a division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel and will continue on Tuesday. The court also received two public interest petitions on this issue, one from a Haryana gram sabha. BBMB, in its petition argued by Senior Advocate Rajesh Garg, and advocates Neha Matharoo and Mandeep Singh claimed that on May 1, Punjab deployed police personnel to take control of the Nangal Dam and Lohand Control Room Water Regulation Offices, thereby obstructing the release of 8,500 cusecs of water to Haryana as decided in board meetings. Garg termed Punjab's action 'unconstitutional and illegal,' and said it infringed on BBMB's statutory authority under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. Garg said when confronted, Punjab tried to gloss over its takeover by sending a letter to BBMB Monday morning, saying that they had increased security at BBMB in view of the tensions with Pakistan following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack. BBMB said the decision to increase water allocation was taken in its Technical Committee meeting on April 23 to address reported drinking water shortages in Haryana, Rajasthan, and Delhi. The reallocation included 500 cusecs for Rajasthan and 496 cusecs for Delhi. Punjab, however, refused to comply beyond its voluntary offer of 4,000 cusecs, citing Haryana's overuse and mismanagement of its share. Appearing for Punjab, Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh 'Garry' submitted that BBMB records dated April 20 confirmed that both Haryana and Rajasthan had already drawn more water than allocated. 'Not only has Haryana drawn beyond its share, it now wants the court to issue a mandamus for the release of Punjab's water to them. That too, on the pretext of a crisis which no longer exists,' said the former advocate general. Garry informed the court that despite Haryana's overdraws, Punjab had, on humanitarian grounds, agreed to release 4,000 cusecs — more than double the 1,700 cusecs Haryana needs to meet its drinking water needs. 'This was an act of generosity, but they now want 8,500 cusecs, which is clearly for irrigation —particularly for paddy — and not for survival,' he argued. He added that the original request from Haryana was due to temporary repairs on the Western Yamuna Canal (WYC), which had since been completed. 'That was the emergency they had cited. Now the repair work is over. The water supply has resumed. Their own record before the BBMB shows that the additional water was only needed till May 1. That date has passed,' he said. Garry also criticised BBMB for procedural violations, accusing it of calling emergency meetings with only 24-hour notice instead of the mandatory seven days under Rule 4 of the BBMB Transaction of Business Regulations. 'Punjab raised objections as early as January 2025, warning of Haryana's consistent overdrawals. Yet, BBMB failed to act,' he submitted. BBMB underlined that under the Bhakra Beas Management Board Rules, 1974, disputes should have been escalated to the Central Government, not resolved through force. It further warned of potential disaster due to the police's lack of expertise in dam operations. The board sought a writ of mandamus to compel Punjab to withdraw its police force and vacate the premises, alongside an interim order restraining further interference. Additional prayers included summoning case records, dispensing with advance notice and certified annexures, and covering legal costs. Reiterating that Punjab was committed to its voluntary allocation, Garry maintained that the state could not allow further diversion of its resources. 'We are not backing out of our commitment. But there is no question of agreeing to 8,500 cusecs now. The alleged emergency is over. What they are asking for is irrigation water disguised as a crisis,' he said.
Time of India
29-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Raveena Tandon, Farah Khan and others get relief in the case registered against them five years ago for allegedly hurting religious sentiments
Around five years ago, a case was registered against Raveena Tandon and choreographer, director Farah Khan for allegedly hurting religious sentiments . This controversy apparently started during an episode on Khan's show ' Backbenchers ' where celebs were asked to spell and explain words. during this time, apparently, comedian Bharti Singh mispelled a word which led to petitioners argue and they portrayed her to make fun of a religion. Thus, FIRs were filed against Bharti Singh, screenwriter Abbas Ajij Dalal, Farah and Raveena at the Ajnala police station in December 2019. This was reported as per Hindustan Times, as they quoted lawyer Abhinav Sood who explained the whole controversy. Now the latest update on this matter is that the court has given Raveena, Farah and other relief in this matter. The Punjab and Haryana High Court said that they won't be called anymore in this matter for investigation, at least till the next hearing which is on July 14. This secision has come after Justice Manisha Batra-led bench was told that that Punjab and other respondents had begun to issue notices under Section 35 of the BNS , calling them for further investigation in the case. Thus, as quoted by The Tribune, this decision was made and the court has said, "Till the next date of hearing, no such step shall be taken by the respondent." The legal team maintained that the claims made in these complaints were exaggerated and unfounded and there was no intention to hurt anyone's religious beliefs. Earlier, the High Court had previously paused any arrest with regards to these FIRs. The next hearing will take place on July 14 as per this report.
