Latest news with #SuryaKant
New Indian Express
6 hours ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
OPSC's plea against HC order to pay Rs 10 lakh to OJS aspirant rejected by SC
CUTTACK: The Supreme Court has dismissed the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC)'s special leave petition (SLP) seeking intervention against the Orissa High Court order to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation for procedural lapses that resulted in non-evaluation of an answer to a question in the case of a candidate who appeared for the Odisha Judicial Service (Main) examination. In the order on Friday, a SC bench comprising 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.' According to the case records, Jyotirmayee Dutta had appeared for the OJS Main Exam 2022. The results were declared on December 4, 2023, but she could not qualify for the next stage by a narrow margin of five marks. On August 27, 2024, she filed a petition in high court alleging that a question in the Law of Property paper was left unevaluated, and its marks were not added to the total. If her answers had been properly scrutinised, she would have qualified for the next stage. The high court then ordered 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 the question, the petitioner did not achieve the necessary marks to pass the examination. Accordingly, the high court dismissed the petition on February 13 this year, 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.' However, the high court clarified, 'It is made clear that the compensation is awarded to acknowledge the procedural flaw brought to light and to serve as a reminder for OPSC to maintain stricter scrutiny in its evaluation processes.'
United News of India
a day ago
- Business
- United News of India
SC upholds UPSIDC's land cancellation to Kamala Nehru Memorial Trust
New Delhi, May 30 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the decision of the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) to cancel a 125-acre land allotment to the Kamala Nehru Memorial Trust (KNMT), citing payment defaults and systemic flaws in the process of land allocation. A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh rejected the Trust's appeal against the 2017 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had affirmed the cancellation of the allotment originally made in September 2003 and annulled in December 2006. While dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court delivered a sharp rebuke to UPSIDC, observing that the land was allotted 'within just two months' and 'without any proper evaluation of public benefit". The Court held that such allocation practices violated the Public Trust Doctrine, which mandates that state-held resources be allocated transparently, with due diligence, and solely for the benefit of the public. 'The Doctrine requires that allocation decisions be preceded by a thorough assessment of public benefits, beneficiary credentials, and safeguards ensuring continued compliance with stated purposes,' the Court said. The Bench criticised UPSIDC for failing to adopt a transparent and competitive process in allocating such a large tract of industrial land. 'This betrays the fiduciary relationship between the State and its citizens,' the Court remarked, stressing that state authorities must ensure accountability in managing public assets. The judgment noted that no verifiable evidence was considered by UPSIDC regarding the economic benefits, employment potential, environmental impact, or alignment with regional development objectives before making the allotment to the Trust. 'Such lapses not only deprived the public exchequer of potential revenue due to the appreciated value of the land but also created a system where privileged access supersedes equal opportunity,' the Court observed. The Supreme Court further flagged concerns over UPSIDC's eagerness to re-allocate the land to another entity during the pendency of the litigation. 'We, therefore, consider it necessary to examine whether UPSIDC's procedure for industrial land allotment meets standards of administrative propriety, particularly in light of the Public Trust Doctrine mandating that public resources be managed with due diligence, fairness, and in conformity with public interest,' the Court said. In a judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant, the Court laid down binding directions to reform the process of industrial land allotment in Uttar Pradesh. It directed, 'The State Government of Uttar Pradesh and UPSIDC are directed to ensure that any such allotment in the future be made in a transparent, non-discriminatory and fair manner by ensuring that such allotment process fetches maximum revenue and also achieves the larger public interest like industrial development priorities, environmental sustainability, and regional economic objectives.' Also, the Court asked that the subject land be re-allotted strictly in accordance with the procedure above. The Court directed UPSIDC for transparent, non-discriminatory Industrial Land Allocation in Uttar Pradesh. UNI SNG RN
United News of India
a day ago
- Politics
- United News of India
SC slams Orissa Public Service Commission for evaluation error in judicial exam
New Delhi, May 30 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on the Orissa Public Service Commission (OPSC) for its refusal to admit a mistake in evaluating a judicial service aspirant's answer sheet in the 2022 Odisha Judicial Service Examination. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Vijay Bishnoi was hearing an appeal filed by the OPSC challenging an Orissa High Court order directing it to pay Rs 1 lakh in compensation to the affected candidate. Expressing serious concern over the Commission's conduct, the Supreme Court stated that such blunders in examination evaluation cannot be taken lightly and that public bodies must be held accountable. 'You, as an examination body, commit these kinds of blunders, you should be taken to task. How will the young generation have faith and trust in you? This Commission is adamant. Some arrogant elements are sitting there. You are still insisting there is no mistake. The Commission thinks too highly of itself. Case dismissed,' Justice Kant remarked sharply during the hearing. The counsel for OPSC urged the Court to at least expunge the adverse observations made against the Commission by the High Court. To this, Justice Dipankar Datta observed, 'Had you at the first instance accepted that 'there is something wrong on our part and we would examine it,' the matter would have ended.' While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court clarified that the adverse comments made by the High Court in its judgment should not be treated as precedent. 'The observations made in the impugned judgment are in the context of the mistake detected in the evaluation of one of the question papers and are not to be treated as precedent for future cases,' the bench stated. The case arose after a candidate who took the 2022 Odisha Judicial Service Examination approached the Orissa High Court, claiming she had narrowly missed the cut-off for the interview stage because one of her answers was left unevaluated. Independent expert assessment ordered by the High Court confirmed the error. Although the re-evaluated marks did not qualify her for the interview round, the High Court strongly criticised the OPSC for the lapse. It emphasised that such errors are unacceptable in competitive examinations, which are career-defining and involve significant personal and financial sacrifices by candidates. It further stressed that the evaluation process must meet the highest standards of diligence and fairness. The High Court ordered OPSC to pay Rs1 lakh as compensation for the negligence, a directive that has now been upheld by the Supreme Court with its dismissal of the OPSC's appeal. UNI SNG RN
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
In dispute over Bangalore Palace grounds, SC grants relief to Karnataka government from depositing Rs 3,000 crore worth of TDR with former royals
In a short-term relief for the Karnataka government in its long-standing dispute with the former royals of Mysore over the 472-acre Bangalore Palace grounds, the Supreme Court Thursday allowed an application filed by the state government against depositing transferable development rights (TDRs) worth over Rs 3,000 crore with the royals. The Supreme Court (SC) allowed the Karnataka government's plea for keeping the TDRs in the court registry until the settlement of review petitions filed by the state against an SC order of December 10, 2024, in a contempt plea to pay TDR to the royals. The SC has also directed that the original dispute over the Bangalore Palace grounds – located in the heart of Bengaluru – be placed before a three-judge bench for commencement of hearings from August 18. The SC bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice N K Singh heard the interlocutory application filed by the Karnataka government on Thursday after it was initially referred to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on May 27 for orders on the administrative side. 'As an interim measure, all the TDRs issued pursuant to the interim/contempt orders passed by this Court, shall be kept in the Registry of this Court during the pendency of the present appeal. If the TDRs have been handed over to the appellants (non-applicants), they are directed not to utilize or sell the TDR/DRCs (Development Rights Certificates) till further orders,' the SC bench ruled Thursday. 'It is made clear that no third-party interest or personal benefits shall be created/drawn out of TDRs/DRCs released by the Registry of this Court,' the SC said. The SC further said that all the civil appeals filed by the former royals in 1997 against the acquisition of the palace land by the Karnataka government in 1996 must be placed before a three-judge bench for final hearings on the dispute to start in August this year. The top court also said that the hearing of review petitions of the state government against the December 10, 2024, order of the SC to deposit TDRs – for portions of the Bangalore Palace land sought to be acquired by the state for road development – should commence from the week of July 21. The interim directions 'are subject to the outcome of the Review Petitions. However, if the Review Petitions are declined, in that event, the interim direction shall remain in force for a period of four weeks from the date of passing of such order and/or the matter is heard by a three-Judge Bench, whichever is later,' the court said. The apex court added that orders issued earlier on 21.11.2014, 17.05.2023, 19.03.2024, and 22.05.2025 to the state to pay the TDR to the royals 'shall be kept in abeyance' in order to avoid complications. The Karnataka government moved the new interlocutory application in the original Bangalore palace civil dispute cases of 1997 after a bench of the SC on May 22 rejected the state government's plea not to allow release of TDRs worth over Rs 3,000 crore to the former royals until the main dispute over the Bangalore Palace grounds is settled by the SC. The state was directed by the SC on December 10, 2024, to pay compensation in the form of TDRs at the prevailing market value to the erstwhile royal family as agreed by the state and ordered by the SC in November 2014 for acquisition of a 15.36 acre portion – out of the 472 acres of the disputed Bangalore palace property – for a road widening project. The SC order came in the wake of contempt of court petitions filed by the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore, the now deceased Srikantadatta Wadiyar, his wife Pramoda Devi Wadiyar, and others, over the delay in the payment of compensation by the state. With the market value of the land sought to be acquired for road work assessed to be in the range of Rs 3,014 crore at present, the Congress government in Karnataka introduced an ordinance on January 29 to withdraw the TDR offer for the Bangalore Palace land. The SC, however, rejected the Karnataka government's effort to counter the compensation payment with the ordinance and indicated on February 13 that the December 10, 2024, order by a three-judge bench in the contempt pleas is not negotiable. The Bangalore Palace grounds spread over 472 acres of land were acquired by the Karnataka government through the passage of the Mysore Palace Transfer and Acquisition Act of 1996, which received the assent of the President and came into force on November 18, 1996. In 1996, the state was to pay Rs 11 crore as compensation for the entire land at the rate of Rs 2.30 lakh per acre. However, the acquisition by the state has remained in limbo since the royal family challenged the validity of the acquisition law in the Supreme Court after the Karnataka HC upheld the law on March 31, 1997. Subsequently, the Karnataka government tried to acquire 15.36 acres of the palace land for widening of the Jayamahal Road and the Palace Road in central Bengaluru – over a stretch of two km – and a TDR compensation provision was provided for the acquisition. The TDR that is to be paid to the royal family for the acquisition of 15.36 acres of land or 13,91,742 sq ft of land at the prevailing guidance value of Rs 2.70 lakh per sq metre would amount to Rs 200 crore for every acre and a total of Rs 3,014 crore, the state has argued. 'Once TDR is paid it cannot be regained. It would affect the state's economy. We have decided not to pay the TDR. Since it is under litigation, there are a lot of complications. The ordinance will empower us to keep control over the land. The appropriate decision on compensation will be taken at the right time,' Karnataka Law Minister H K Patil has stated.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Supreme Court calls crypto laws obsolete, urges govt to act on regulation
The Supreme Court on Friday observed that India's current laws are 'completely obsolete' when it comes to dealing with cryptocurrencies, like Bitcoin. The top court noted that there is a 'grey area' in how these digital assets are regulated and asked the government to take steps to address the issue. A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Vijay Bishnoi was hearing a case involving Gujarat-based businessman Shailesh Babulal Bhatt, who is accused of Bitcoin-related fraud in multiple states, Live Law reported. Senior advocates Siddharth Dave and Mukul Rohatgi, representing Bhatt, reminded the court that it had earlier asked the Attorney General of India about a proper regulatory system for cryptocurrencies. 'When we were asking them that have some regulatory mechanism, a very, very sweeping statement was made – 'no, no, we are watching, we are looking at the international economic conditions'...' Justice Kant observed, as quoted by Live Law. This is not the first time the Supreme Court has highlighted the need for clear cryptocurrency laws. In earlier hearings, it compared unregulated Bitcoin trade to hawala transactions and warned that the lack of rules makes it easy for people to misuse the system. In November 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition asking for guidelines on trading and mining cryptocurrency. The SC bench had said, 'Parliament will do it, we will not issue any directions.' In January 2024, the top court gave the Union Government time to state its position on cryptocurrency issues, especially in cases happening across various states. In April 2025, another bench said that the matter falls under policy and not judicial decision-making, advising the petitioner to approach the proper authority. Govt to release discussion paper on crypto policy Meanwhile the Central government may release a discussion paper next month to explore policy options for crypto assets, according to a report by The Economic Times. This comes amid rising global acceptance of digital currencies, especially after former US President Donald Trump publicly voiced his support for them. According to the report, the paper will draw on insights from a study by the International Monetary Fund and the Financial Stability Board, and will also gather perspectives on how various countries are regulating cryptocurrencies. 'The discussion paper on crypto assets is being given finishing touches,' an official told The Economic Times. The paper could be posted for public comments as early as next month.
