Latest news with #SanjayKarol
Indian Express
11 hours ago
- General
- Indian Express
‘SC said declared foreigners should be deported, Assam govt has taken it to mean something very different and for push backs': Petitioner
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea challenging the Assam government's move to 'push back' alleged illegal immigrants and those declared foreigners by the state's Foreigners' Tribunals (FTs) into Bangladesh. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and S C Sharma instead asked the petitioner, the All BTC Minority Students' Union (ABMSU), a social organisation based in the Bodoland Territorial region, to approach the Gauhati High Court. The Indian Express spoke to ABMSU president Taison Hussain on their attempt to challenge the Assam government's steps. Excerpts: * Why did you approach the Supreme Court over the issue? The foreigners' matter has been going on in Assam for a very long time. The FTs function in an arbitrary manner and many of the people declared foreigners are done so ex-parte (proceedings conducted and orders passed in their absence). Then last month we started seeing people getting picked up by the police – these people have been out on bail on the Supreme Court's orders, many have approached higher courts to appeal against their FT orders and have stay orders on action against them — and since then, no one knows where they have been taken. When relatives go to the police, the police say they don't know (anything). That means the people are missing. Then two days after all this first started, we started seeing videos of people stuck in the no man's land between Bangladesh and India. When we found out, our organisation demonstrated against this and contacted officers concerned, but we didn't get any positive results. There was a Supreme Court order that declared foreigners in Matia (Assam's dedicated detention camp) should be deported, which the state government has taken to mean something completely different and is now doing 'push backs'. Because of this, we approached the Supreme Court. * In what way do you think the state is acting differently from the Court's directions? The Supreme Court had said that if these people are Bangladeshi citizens and the state knows this, they need to be deported. We have never objected to anyone being deported in a legal manner. But these people were born here. If there is a mistake in their name in some records, if there is some irregularity in age, they are declared foreigners by FTs. Many have approached higher courts and others still have the option to do that. They can't just be picked up. They have not violated their bail ground rules. But they were picked up suddenly at night. We think this is a misinterpretation and violation of what the Supreme Court said. There is a proper procedure for deportation. But here, nothing has been done formally and these people were just pushed into no man's land. No notice was given to them before it was done and, till date, the government has not given an official statement on what exactly is being done. * Is this a new turn in the state's long-standing citizenship issue? At a recent press conference, the CM (Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma) said the process of detecting foreigners by the border police had been stopped for a few years because of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) updation process. Now we think that because the Assembly elections are coming (in 2026), this decades-old issue is being raised again. He (Sarma) has taken steps to deport alleged foreigners to gain political mileage. We support the completion of the NRC exercise, which has been on hold for more than five years now. This is the only solution to the foreigners' issue – not the arbitrary border police and Foreigners' Tribunals – and the only way to put an end to it for good. * Now that the Supreme Court has declined to hear your plea, what will your next step be? The Supreme Court has not said that our case does not have merit. It has said that because there are some individual cases and that this is happening in the state, we should approach the Gauhati High Court. We will file a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court this week.
Indian Express
11 hours ago
- Business
- Indian Express
Why SC ordered West Bengal govt to pay Dearness Allowance arrears worth Rs 11,000 cr
The Supreme Court on May 16 directed the West Bengal government to release 25% of the outstanding Dearness Allowance (DA) arrears to its employees within six weeks. This would amount to Rs 11,000 crore and benefit nearly 10 lakh employees, sources said. The interim order offers partial relief in a long-standing dispute over pay parity with central government employees. However, it would also significantly burden the state government's finances. What is the issue, and why has the West Bengal government opposed increasing the DA in the past? We explain. Dearness Allowance is paid to government employees and pensioners in addition to their salary to manage the impact of inflation. It is calculated as a percentage of the basic pay or pension. Typically, the All India Consumer Price Index-based inflation rate is used for calculating increases in the cost of living. For greater effectiveness, the DA is revised twice a year. In West Bengal, state government employees receive 18% DA, following Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee announcing a 4% hike during her Budget speech this year. In comparison, central government employees receive 55% DA. The Supreme Court was hearing the state government's appeal against a 2022 Calcutta High Court ruling (The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs Confederation of State Government Employees, West Bengal & Ors.). The HC had directed West Bengal to bring its DA disbursal in line with central government rates. An apex court bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta has now said the interim relief would apply to DA arrears accumulated between 2009 and 2019. The next hearing in the case is in August. Among other things, the court will consider whether the right to receive Dearness Allowance is a fundamental right. What is the case? The legal battle between the state government and its employees began with two leaders of the West Bengal Confederation of State Government Employees, which is affiliated with the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC). In 2016, Malay Mukhopadhyay and Shyamal Kumar Mitra sent a notice to the Chief Secretary, demanding outstanding DA. They later filed a petition with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). 'We realised then that the government is not in the mood to pay our outstanding DA, and the courts are the only way to get it. So, we went to the SAT, which gave an order against us. We challenged the order and went to the Calcutta High Court. After that, our journey began, and the West Bengal government has lost every case against us,' said Mukhopadhyay. On May 20, 2022, the HC directed the West Bengal government to release the DA and corresponding arrears to its employees. A bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Rabindranath Samanta said the allowance should be released within three months. The order said the arrears were to be calculated based on the All India Consumer Price Index, commensurate with their pay according to the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 2009. The rules provide for DA, medical allowance, house rent allowance and non-practising allowances. They were formulated based on the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission in 2008. 'Owing to unabated pressure of inflation, the real value of salary fixed periodically by the Pay Commission gets continuously eroded with the passage of time. The cost of price living index is the basic factor for consideration of the Pay Commission for determination of Pay and Dearness Allowances to be paid to the employees. The State Government followed the same principles for computation and payment of D.A on basic pay fixed under 5th Pay Commission as has been done by the Central Government under 6th Central Pay Commission,' the order said. The Advocate General (arguing for the government) said that the effects of inflation vary from one place to another, and it is not imperative on the part of the state government to adopt the central government rates. However, the court held that compared to the DA paid to the central government employees, state government employees were lagging far behind. It pointed out that the state government had accepted the pay commission's revisions, and even paid DA twice in a year. This was discontinued after 2010, and the government has since 'delayed payments of DA to its employees in most arbitrary manner'. The court also said that receiving DA is a legally enforceable right, and the government's argument of 'financial inability' was not acceptable. 'Such right of the employees to sustain their livelihood with dignity has been fructified or elevated as a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution,' the ruling noted. Challenging the order, the state government appealed to the Supreme Court on November 28, 2022, but it saw multiple delays. From December 1, 2024, the hearing was postponed 18 times. What will be the financial burden on the state government? A senior finance department official said, 'We already have some rough calculations, indicating the government will have to give Rs 11,000 crore to pay the arrears as ordered by the Supreme Court.' Existing schemes also add to the government's bill. The Lakshmir Bhandar scheme for financial assistance to women from economically weaker sections costs Rs 25,000 crore. The Banglar Bari housing scheme stands at Rs 40,000 crore. Women-focused schemes, Kanyasree and Lakshmisree, aid for puja committees, and other social security schemes' spending totals more than Rs 10,000 crores. The 2025-26 state Budget was for Rs 3.89 lakh crore. The revenue deficit estimated for the period is Rs 35,314.95 crore, the fiscal deficit is more than Rs 73,000 crore, and outstanding debt stands at around Rs 7.71 lakh crore. A government official also pointed out that the debt will likely touch Rs 8 lakh crore this year. 'Last year, we increased the Lakshmir Bhandar monthly payment from Rs 500 to Rs 1000, which increased total expenditure.' What have the state's political leaders said? The ruling Trinamool Congress has so far not reacted to the issue. CM Mamata Banerjee said, 'I don't speak about the court cases. I proceed legally.' Leaders of employees' organisations expressed hope for the order to be implemented. Convenor of Sangrami Joutha Mancha, Bhaskar Ghosh said, 'We want that the Chief Minister should act legally and give us the due DA.' General Secretary of State Steering Committee Sanket Chakraborty said, 'We expect the Chief Minister will obey the order of the apex court and will give us our dues.' The opposition parties, the BJP, Congress and CPI(M), all said the order had to be implemented and that it came after several attempts by the government to block similar directives. Atri Mitra is a Special Correspondent of The Indian Express with more than 20 years of experience in reporting from West Bengal, Bihar and the North-East. He has been covering administration and political news for more than ten years and has a keen interest in political development in West Bengal. Atri holds a Master degree in Economics from Rabindrabharati University and Bachelor's degree from Calcutta University. He is also an alumnus of St. Xavier's, Kolkata and Ramakrishna Mission Asrama, Narendrapur. He started his career with leading vernacular daily the Anandabazar Patrika, and worked there for more than fifteen years. He worked as Bihar correspondent for more than three years for Anandabazar Patrika. He covered the 2009 Lok Sabha election and 2010 assembly elections. He also worked with News18-Bangla and covered the Bihar Lok Sabha election in 2019. ... Read More
Time of India
19 hours 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.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court defers Batla House plea, declines stay on demolition
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay the impending demolition of homes and shops in Delhi's Batla House area, observing that its earlier order of May 7 – directing action against unauthorised construction, did not warrant any interference at this stage. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma, hearing a plea filed by over 40 residents, declined interim protection against the demolition drive being undertaken by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department, but agreed to list the matter in July, once the court resumes full functioning after the summer vacation. 'It is our order and we have seen it… You take instructions if you would want us to simply adjourn this,' the bench told senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the residents, while referring to the earlier direction of the apex court from May 7. 'We are telling you that we have seen the papers. We can adjourn it. That is all we can do,' said the bench, making it clear that the court was not inclined to examine the issue substantively during the summer vacation. Hegde urged the bench to at least clarify that no demolitions should be carried out in the interim. 'Let nothing happen in the meantime,' he said. But the court stood firm. 'You will be taking a risk if you want to argue this,' the bench warned, reiterating that it would not hear the matter during the vacation and asking Hegde to 'take instructions.' After consulting his clients, Hegde asked that the matter be listed in the week after the summer recess. The court agreed. The partial working schedule of the Supreme Court ends on July 13, after which regular hearings resume. Hegde informed the bench that the petitioners would approach the appropriate appellate authority to challenge the demolition notices. The dispute stems from a May 7 ruling by another bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, which directed that unauthorised constructions outside the boundaries of colonies regularised under the 2019 Pradhan Mantri-Unauthorized Colonies in Delhi Awas Adhikar Yojana (PM-UDAY) be demolished. The order said residents should be given 'at least 15 days' notice' and allowed to 'adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.' Acting on the order, DDA issued eviction notices dated May 26, which were pasted on several buildings in Batla House. The notices, marked by large red Xs, stated: 'This building/structure has been found to be an illegal/unauthorised structure falling in khasra number 279, village Okhla, outside PMA-UDAY colony boundary… occupants are hereby directed to vacate the premises within 15 days… the demolition programme shall be carried out from 11-06-2025 without any further notice.' With the demolition set to begin just days before Eid-ul-Adha, anxiety has spread through the predominantly Muslim neighbourhood. Many residents, in their plea, said they have lived in the area for decades and view the notices as arbitrary and unjust. In their plea before the top court, residents argue that the 15-day notice was not meaningfully served. Instead of individual communication or clear deadlines, the notices were simply pasted on buildings, offering no scope for redress. They claim the demolition drive is arbitrary, illegal, and in breach of the protections under the PM-UDAY scheme. While DDA and the UP Irrigation Department claim the affected area lies outside the scheme's boundary, residents insist they qualify for regularisation or at the very least deserve a chance to be heard. The petitioners say they are legitimate homeowners with long-standing possession, and that no individualised assessment of legality was made before marking homes for demolition. The residents had first approached the Supreme Court on May 29. At the time, the court advised them to move Delhi High Court. But the petitioners pointed out that the authorities were relying on the Supreme Court's May 7 order to justify the imminent demolitions, leaving them with no choice but to return to the top court. The bench then directed the registry to list the matter this week. Batla House, part of the Jamia Nagar locality, has long been a densely populated working-class enclave. It first drew national attention in 2008 after a controversial police encounter resulted in the deaths of two alleged terrorists and a Delhi Police inspector. Now, the looming demolition has brought it back into the spotlight. With Monday's development, the matter now rests in limbo until July. Meanwhile, the 15-day notice period, expiring on June 10, leaves affected families facing an uncertain and anxious wait, coinciding with one of the year's biggest religious festivals.
India Gazette
a day ago
- Politics
- India Gazette
SC refuses to interfere with demolition notices to properties in Batla House
New Delhi [India], June 2 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the demolition notices issued to the property owners at Batla House in Jamia Nagar and asked the petitioners to approach the appropriate authorities. A vacation bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma denied any interim stay on the demolition notices and posted the matter for hearing in July. The residents sought a stay on the eviction and demolition. The petition was filed by Sultana Shaheen and 39 others who own properties in Batla House, saying that a 15-day eviction/demolition notice was pasted on their properties on May 27. 'This was done after the Supreme Court's order of May 7, directing the Delhi government and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to demolish illegal properties in the Batla House area,' said the petition filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed. The petition said that the action was wrong because they were never made a party to that case and were denied the opportunity to present their case. 'They are genuine residents and property owners of Khasra Nos. 271 and 279, Batla House, who have now received 15-day eviction/demolition notices on May 27, 2025, according to the Court's order on May 7, 2025, without being made parties to the writ petition or being granted an opportunity of being heard,' the plea added. The petition said that any blanket demolition drive initiated without affording affected residents an adequate and meaningful opportunity of being heard would amount to a gross infraction of the principles of natural justice and a direct violation of fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 19(1)(e), and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petition further stated that 'the group of affected residents whose homes fall within the area now sought to be demolished on the purported ground of being outside the PM-UDAY Scheme coverage, despite having valid title documents, proof of continuous possession before 2014, and eligibility under the Recognition of Property Rights Act, 2019.' PM-UDAY is a scheme aimed at conferring or recognising property rights to residents of notified unauthorised colonies in Delhi. Seeking a stay on the demolition order, the petitioners challenged the assertion that these properties are encroachments on public land. 'The authorities have failed to distinguish between unregularised encroachments and bona fide allottees, GPA holders, or regularisation applicants, thus resulting in gross arbitrariness,' submitted the petition. The petitioners further sought direction to restrain the authorities from taking any coercive steps, including sealing, demolition or disconnection of utilities, against their properties without verifying their eligibility under PM-UDAY or without complying with principles of natural justice. (ANI)
