Latest news with #SLP
Time of India
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
SC declines to interfere with HC order on compensation to OJS examinee
Cuttack: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to interfere with the Orissa high court's direction to Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation for procedural lapses that resulted in non-evaluation of an answer of a candidate who appeared for the Odisha Judicial Service (Main) Examination. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Jyotirmayee Dutta appeared for the OJS Main Exam 2022, results of which were declared Dec 4, 2023. She failed to qualify for the next stage by a narrow margin of five marks. Acting on Jyotirmayee's petition, the HC directed OPSC to pay the compensationto her within 60 days on Feb 13 this year. But OPSC had filed a special leave petition (SLP) in SC challenging the HC order. While dismissing the SLP, the bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Bijay Bishnoi said, "Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to interfere with the cost amount awarded by the high court in favour of the respondent — a young law graduate, who is aspiring to become a judicial officer." However, the bench added, "The observations made in the impugned judgment are only in the context of the mistake detected in evaluation of one of the answers written by the respondent and the same are not to be treated as a precedent to be applied in future cases." According to case records, Jyotirmayee filed a petition in HC on Aug 27, 2024 alleging that a question in the 'law of property' paper was left unevaluated, and its marks were not added to the total. She asserted that if her answers had been properly scrutinised, the outcome of the examination would have been different, and she would have qualified for the next stage. Acting on it, the HC arranged for her answer script to be independently assessed by experts from three reputed universities. Though non-evaluation of a question was confirmed and marks were awarded for it, the petitioner did not achieve the necessary marks to pass the exam. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Accordingly, the HC dismissed the petition on Feb 13, but ordered, "However, considering the mental trauma and financial burden the petitioner has endured in pursuing this case to highlight the said lapse, this court deems it appropriate to award compensation of Rs 1 lakh to the petitioner, which shall be paid by the OPSC within a period of 60 days from the date of this judgment."
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Supreme Court to hear man's plea against detention of his mother by police in Assam
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on June 2 a plea of a 26-year-old man claiming illegal detention of his mother by Assam Police amid widespread allegations of covert deportations to Bangladesh. A bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices A G Masih and AS Chandurkar took note of the submissions of senior advocate Shoeb Alam, representing petitioner Iunuch (Yunus) Ali, that his mother was detained by the state police. The CJI said the plea would be listed for hearing on Monday. Ali sought immediate release of his mother Monowara Bewa, who was reportedly detained on May 24 after being called to the Dhubri police station under the pretext of recording a statement. Alam raised serious concerns regarding what he described as an ongoing practice in Assam under which individuals are deported to Bangladesh even while their legal cases are pending. 'There is a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the lady in 2017. Notices have been issued, and yet people are being deported while proceedings are still ongoing before this court,' he said. 'There are several videos circulating that show individuals being picked up overnight and pushed back across the border.' Bewa was on bail since December 12, 2019, pursuant to the SC's order in a case, which allowed the conditional release of detenues who had spent more than three years in Assam's foreigner detention camps. The plea said when the petitioner approached the police station the next day and informed the officials that their case was still pending before the SC, he was denied access to his mother and her release was refused. The petition challenges the decision of the Gauhati HC, which upheld a Foreigners Tribunal ruling declaring Bewa a foreigner. The plea sought a direction to the authorities to immediately release Bewa from 'unlawful detention' at Dhubri police station. It also sought a direction restraining deportation of the detainee across any Indian border.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
SC adjourns ‘urgent' TCP case as Goa says counsel unavailable
Panaji: on Friday adjourned to July 21, state govt's special leave petition challenging the high court's verdict in the Section 17(2) matter after state informed SC that its counsel was not available. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now State govt filed the SLP challenging the HC's reading down of the Town and Country Planning Act's Section 17(2). When the appeal was called out on Friday before the SC's vacation bench, state informed the court that their counsel was not available, and the SC adjourned the case to July 21. State govt had specifically sought an urgent hearing before SC. The letter from the office of senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi on May 28 to the registrar seeking an urgent hearing said that the state would suffer irreparable harm and irreversible consequences if Section 17(2) is not implemented in accordance with the legislative framework, especially as the impugned decision directly affects the exercise of statutory powers and ongoing planning processes. 'Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that several cases pertaining to Section 17(2) are currently pending before the HC, and the impugned judgment will impact the outcome of those cases,' the letter said. State, in its petition before SC, said that the HC transgressed the power of the legislature by reading down Section 17(2) of the TCP Act, which restricts govt mechanisms to undo past errors in the regional plan efficiently. The petition filed in SC two months after the high court's order states that the constitutional validity of a provision cannot be decided on the basis of factual considerations. It said that the high court failed to appreciate that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the act and rules needed to be decided separately from the factual challenges contained in the PILs. The high court struck down the rules and guidelines of Section 17(2) on March 13 in 'public interest', but stayed the order for six weeks. The bench rejected the plea to declare Section 17(2) as unconstitutional, but made it clear that no applications for approvals under the section shall be considered.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC clarifies that Bombay HC to decide Gateway of India jetty case on merits
MUMBAI: The Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that the Bombay High Court is free to proceed uninfluenced by its earlier observations in the ongoing case against the ₹299-crore passenger jetty project near the Gateway of India, a heritage monument. Declining to intervene, the apex court directed the High Court to hear the matter expeditiously and adjudicate all issues raised, including the legality of piling work into the seabed. The clarification comes two days after the top court declined to stay the contentious project, observing on Tuesday that the jetty served a larger public interest. Instead of passing interim orders, the court urged the High Court to swiftly conclude hearings on pending petitions challenging the development. The latest Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA) through advocates Ayush Anand and Prerak Choudhary. The association challenged the High Court's May 7 interim order allowing the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) to continue concrete piling work near the Radio Club area. CHCRA contended that the construction poses a serious risk to the historic seaside heritage wall adjacent to the Gateway of India. The petition questioned whether the High Court had erred in failing to weigh the balance of convenience and the potential for irreversible damage to the site. Earlier, on May 2, the High Court had recorded an assurance from the Advocate General of Maharashtra that the heritage wall would not be disturbed until June 20. The court scheduled the next hearing for June 16. However, piling activity reportedly began the very next day, on May 3, prompting CHCRA to seek an urgent stay, which the High Court declined on May 7. Accusing the authorities of attempting to bypass the court's interim protections, CHCRA approached the Supreme Court, seeking an ex parte interim stay and a direction restraining the state government from initiating any coercive action against petitioners. The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih rejected the challenge without commenting on the merits of the case. It noted that the observations made in a related petition filed earlier by Dr Laura D'Souza would apply equally in this matter. Dr D'Souza's petition—filed through advocate Anagha S Desai of Desai Legal LLP—had similarly contested the High Court's refusal to stay the preparatory works, arguing that the project commenced without adequate public consultation and would adversely affect over 2.1 lakh residents in the Colaba area.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
SC refuses to stall ₹299 crore jetty project near Gateway of India
MUMBAI: The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday declined to intervene in the ₹299 crore passenger jetty project near the Gateway of India, observing that the project serves the public interest. Instead, the apex court urged the Bombay High Court to expedite hearings on the pending petitions challenging the development. 'Something good is happening in Mumbai. Now you can reach Versova from South Mumbai in 40 minutes, which used to take three hours,' said Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, citing the Coastal Road as a successful example of contentious yet transformative infrastructure. The bench remarked that opposition to such projects often stemmed from a 'Not In My Backyard (NIMBY)' mindset. 'Everyone opposed the Coastal Road earlier, but now they are happy. This kind of opposition is typical,' the court noted during a hearing on a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Dr Laura D'Souza, president of the Cuffe Parade Residents' Association. The SLP, filed through advocate Anagha S Desai of Desai Legal LLP, challenged the Bombay High Court's May 7 and 8 orders refusing to stay preparatory works on the jetty and terminal. The petition contended that the project would affect over 210,000 residents of the Colaba area and had commenced without adequate public consultation or stakeholder engagement. 'The project was launched without prior public notification or transparency, and poses irreversible damage to one of the city's most historic precincts,' Dr D'Souza argued. Several residents' groups and institutions have raised objections, including the Bombay Presidency Radio Club, business owners, frequent visitors, and elected representatives from both Houses of Parliament. The objectors have called for the jetty to be shifted to Princess Dock—cited in a feasibility report as a less intrusive alternative. Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing Dr D'Souza, alleged that the proposed jetty caters largely to private users taking leisure ferries to Alibaug, framing it as a project designed for elite convenience rather than public necessity. Countering the claim, additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati said the jetty is a crucial piece of commuter infrastructure, aimed at easing the city's transport burden and improving connectivity. Dismissing the petition, the court reiterated its view that infrastructure progress often meets resistance from affluent localities. 'Everyone wants a sewage treatment plant, but not behind their house. This is NIMBY syndrome. Colaba is a neighbourhood of elitist people. It's tyanchi (their) Mumbai, not amchi (our) Mumbai,' the bench remarked. Reacting to the verdict, Dr D'Souza said she was disheartened. 'It is distressing to see that the iconic Gateway of India, which is a Grade-I heritage structure (of exceptional historical importance) is being sidelined. We urge the authorities to reconsider the long-term implications and prioritise the preservation of Mumbai's heritage.' She also expressed concern over the 'blatant disregard' for due process. 'The government seems to have bypassed critical steps of public engagement and environmental accountability,' she added. The matter now returns to the Bombay High Court, which has been asked to deliver a verdict on the petitions without further delay.
