Latest news with #SanjayHegde
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
SC refuses to stay demolition drive in Okhla encroachments
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected pleas of some residents of Muradi Road, Batla House, Jamia Nagar in Delhi to stop the impending demolition drive against encroachments and illegal constructions on land which were acquired by Delhi Development Authority more than 43 years ago. As many as 40 residents of the unauthorised colony through senior advocate Sanjay Hegde pleaded before a partial working day bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and A G Masih for a stay on the impending demolition drive citing the notices pasted in public places and unauthorised constructions asking the residents to vacate the place in 15 days. Senior advocates Guru Krishna Kumar and A D N Rao pointed out that the demolition drive is being carried out based on the SC's May 7 order, which noticed that part of the unauthorised colony falls under Pm-UDAY Scheme under NCT Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights to Residents in Unauthorised Colonies) Regulations, 2019. The bench had directed the DDA 'to take action of demolition in accordance with law in respect of the unauthorised structures of area of 2 bigha 10 biswas. The DDA shall file a compliance affidavit within a period of three months from today. We make it clear that when we say due process of law before demolishing any structure at least 15 days' notice shall be served upon the concerned persons.' Justices Karol and Masih, who in principle do not want to dismiss any petition during the partial working day period, said the petition by residents of unauthorised colonies in Batla House area will be heard in July. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trading CFD dengan Teknologi dan Kecepatan Lebih Baik IC Markets Mendaftar Undo Hegde said he apprehended that the authorities would act in full swing during the interregnum and pleaded for stay. But the bench refused. The petitioner said the colony comprises a diverse group of individuals, including retired police personnel, govt employees serving in various departments and public offices as well as women, children and senior citizens. Any banket order for demolition would affect their fundamental right to live and right to shelter. The DDA had issued notices on May 26 and 27 to many residents of unauthorised colonies in the Batla House area to vacate the land in question. 'Several affected properties, including those situated at Muradi Road, Batla House, are presently inhabited by families who have resided in the locality for decades, and who possess documentary proof of possession, such as electricity bills, house tax receipts, water bills, General Power of Attorney (GPA) documents, and sanctioned building plans. Yet, in spite of their legitimate claims, these residents have been denied an opportunity to be heard, and are now at imminent risk of displacement,' the petitioners claimed.
The Print
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Print
SC refuses to entertain plea over deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to approach HC
'Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?' the bench asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter. New Delhi, Jun 2 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which alleged that the Assam government has reportedly launched a 'sweeping' drive to detain and deport persons suspected to be foreigners without nationality verification or exhaustion of legal remedies. Hegde said the plea was based on an order passed by the apex court earlier. 'Please go to the Gauhati High Court,' the bench observed. Hegde said the petitioner would withdraw the plea to take appropriate recourse before the high court. The bench allowed him to withdraw the plea. The plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, referred to a February 4 order of the top court which, while dealing with a separate petition, had directed Assam to initiate the process of deportation of 63 declared foreign nationals, whose nationality was known, within two weeks. 'Pursuant to the said order (of February 4)… the state of Assam has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of foreigners tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies,' the plea claimed. It referred to news reports, including one about a retired school teacher who was allegedly 'pushed back' into Bangladesh. 'These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court,' it claimed. 'The 'push back' policy, as implemented, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by deporting individuals without due process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contest their deportation and infringing upon their right to life and personal liberty,' the plea claimed. It alleged that the indiscriminate application of deportation directives, coupled with absence of proper identification, verification and notice mechanisms, has resulted in a situation where Indian citizens were being wrongfully incarcerated and threatened with removal to foreign territories without lawful basis. The plea sought a direction that no person shall be deported pursuant to the February 4 order without a prior reasoned declaration by the foreigners tribunal, without adequate opportunity of appeal or review and verification of nationality by the Ministry of External Affairs. It also sought a declaration that the 'push back' policy adopted by Assam was violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and contrary to binding judicial precedents. PTI ABA ABA DV DV This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Indian Express
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Delhi Confidential: ‘Amchi' vs ‘Tyanchi'
Amchi (our) Mumbai or Tyanchi (their) Mumbai? The debate unfolded in the Supreme Court on Tuesday as it heard a plea challenging the proposed jetty and passenger terminal near the Gateway of India. While petitioners, some residents of Colaba, argued it will cater exclusively to VIPs to operate luxury yachts, the state defended it as a public infrastructure project. As arguments progressed, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde for petitioners said, 'to put it shortly, it is between 'amchi' Mumbai and 'tyanchi' Mumbai. Sometimes that is where the difference is' — an apparent allusion to the rich-poor divide. The message was not lost on CJI B R Gavai who was quick to respond: 'Amchi Mumbai doesn't live in Colaba… only tyanchi Mumbai lives in Colaba. Amchi Mumbai lives in Girgaon, Malad, Thane, Ghatkopar.' Andhra Pradesh will champion the Yoga Day celebrations this year with Prime Minister Narendra Modi expected to lead the event in Visakhapatnam on June 21. The state government has already launched a month-long programme to make the event a big hit. With an eye to make every section of society part of the celebrations, the government is planning a slew of events and competitions themed around yoga across the state. Separate events have been charted out for different age groups. The government has also launched an awareness campaign about the benefits of yoga. State Health minister and the lone BJP representative in the Chandrababu Naidu government, Y Satya Kumar, was in Delhi to finalise the PM's programmes.
New Indian Express
28-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
'Justice Yashwant Varma to be impeached?' Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde explains
The NDA-led government at the Centre is reportedly preparing to introduce an impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma. This could be the first time a judge is impeached from the Indian judiciary from a motion passed in both the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. We will be talking to Sanjay Hegde, a senior advocate and a leading voice for civil rights, about this case.
United News of India
27-05-2025
- Business
- United News of India
SC declines to intervene in plea against Colaba Jetty Project near Gateway of India
New Delhi, May 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court's decision allowing the continuation of construction work on a passenger jetty project near the Gateway of India in Mumbai's Colaba area. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, while hearing the special leave petition filed by residents, questioned the opposition to the infrastructure development. 'Why this 'not in my backyard' behaviour? Everyone wants a sewage treatment plant, but not behind their home,' remarked the CJI. 'There is also a proposal to connect Vashi and Dombivli on the sea route,' he added, highlighting the broader public benefit of such initiatives. Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the project was intended to create a private docking facility primarily for those travelling by ferry to Alibaug. However, additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati refuted the claim, asserting that the jetty is meant for daily commuters. 'It is incorrect... the attorney general has clarified that the project is for daily commuters. It was all over the media reports,' she said. The Bombay High Court, in its order dated May 7, had allowed the work at the site, finding that the project served public interest and declined to grant interim relief to the petitioners. Located approximately 280 metres from the historic Gateway of India, the project involves the development of passenger amenities including lounges, ticket counters, retail shops, office spaces, and parking facilities for up to 150 vehicles. The petitioners have raised concerns over the legality of various clearances granted for the project, including the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) approval and No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from heritage and traffic authorities. They also cited the lack of mandatory public consultation as a significant procedural lapse. Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court bench declined to intervene, allowing the Bombay High Court's order permitting the project's continuation to stand. UNI SNG PRS
