Latest news with #JusticeM.Nagaprasanna
The Hindu
5 days ago
- General
- The Hindu
‘Instruct all local bodies not to permit constructions around protected monuments sans ASI's nod'
The High Court of Karnataka has directed the State government to issue circular to all local bodies not to grant permission for new constructions in and around protected monuments in the absence of no objection certificate (NoC) from the Archaeology Survey of India (ASI) as per the statutory requirements. Also, the court directed the government to make it clear to the officials empowered to grant permission for construction of buildings that disciplinary enquiry would be initiated if it was found that such permissions were granted contrary to law. Petition rejected Justice M. Nagaprasanna issued the directions while rejecting a petition filed by Denis Crasta of Mangaluru, who had questioned the ASI's notice issued in 2024 asking him to stop construction of a house. The Mangaluru City Corporation (MCC) in December 2023 approved the petitioner's plan for constructing a residential building on the landing owned by the petitioner. However, the ASI in May 2024 issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to stop construction as it was commenced sans obtaining a NoC from it as the petitioner's land comes within 150 metres from the Mangaladevi temple in Mangaluru, which is declared as a protected monument under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeology Sites and Remains Act, 1958. While the petitioner, citing Google Earth images, claimed that his land was situated 151.1 metres from the temple, the ASI after an inspection of the construction site pointed out that it was situated 64 metres from the prohibited area of the protected monument, and hence no new construction can be permitted on this land as per the provisions of the 1958 Act. Interestingly, the government had told the court that permission granted for construction sans NoC from ASI was illegal while pointing out that the petitioner's act of obtaining permission and putting up construction to a certain level is an act of 'fraud played by the MCC in connivance with the petitioner.' Indifference to rules Observing that it is not understandable how the MCC granted permission without keeping the ASI in the loop, the court said the permission was granted in blithe ignorance or indifference to the statutory embargo. Stating that officials of the MCC had wantonly ignored the mandate of the law permitting the construction, the court directed the government to initiate a disciplinary enquiry against the erring officials of the MCC as per law, and take appropriate action on identifying the role of each erring officials in grant of permission contrary to the law.
India Today
29-04-2025
- Business
- India Today
Proton Mail faces ban in India after Karnataka HC order
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Central Government to take legal steps and block access to Proton Mail in India. This decision came after a Bengaluru-based company, M Moser Design Associates India Pvt Ltd, approached the court with a complaint. The company said that unknown people were using Proton Mail to send vulgar and abusive emails about one of its female employees. These emails included AI-generated deepfake images and explicit content, and were sent to other employees and even petitioner told the court that despite filing a police complaint in November 2024, the investigation had made little progress. This, according to the company, was because Proton Mail refuses to share user data and does not cooperate with Indian law enforcement. Proton Mail, which is operated by a Swiss company called Proton AG, is known for its strong privacy features and anonymity. The court was informed that the service allows users to create an account in 30 seconds without any ID court was also told that Proton Mail had removed its servers from India, making it even harder for Indian authorities to take action. The petitioner argued that although the company claims it does not operate in India, it allows users to choose India as a server location on its platform — giving the impression that it operates within the Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who heard the case, directed the Centre to act under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, along with Rule 10 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, to block access to Proton Mail.'A mandamus is issued to Respondents 2, 4, and 5 (Central government authorities) to issue proceedings in terms of Section 69A of IT Act 2008 read with rule 10 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access Of Information By Public) Rules, 2009 to block Proton Mail bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order,' the court the Centre completes the process of blocking Proton Mail, the High Court has also ordered that all offending URLs mentioned in the petition be blocked petitioner's lawyer, Jatin Sehgal, claimed that Proton Mail has become a threat not just to individuals but to national safety. He also pointed out that in recent months, bomb threats sent through Proton Mail had caused concern in Indian schools. He said, 'It's not only I that have suffered, it's a national threat.'Responding to the plea, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG), Aravind Kamath, told the court that while the Centre can begin blocking action, any request for data from Switzerland must be routed through proper legal channels under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT). He clarified that it is up to the investigating officer and the trial court to start that court has reserved the full judgement, which will be released later.
