Latest news with #SLP
Hindustan Times
18 minutes 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
15 hours 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.
United News of India
a day ago
- Politics
- United News of India
SC declines to entertain intervention plea on FIR against BJP Madhya Pradesh Minister Shah
New Delhi, May 28 (UNI) The Supreme Court has refused to entertain an Intervention Application (IA) filed by Congress leader Dr. Jaya Thakur in support of the Madhya Pradesh High Court's suo motu direction for registering an FIR against BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah. The case pertains to allegedly communal and derogatory remarks made by Shah against Colonel Sofiya Quraishi, a decorated Army officer. The IA was filed in response to Kunwar Shah's Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the High Court's May 14, 2025 order. Dr. Thakur, through the application, argued that Shah's comments violated constitutional morality, the ministerial oath, and amounted to hate speech. A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta, however, declined to entertain the plea, with Justice Kant remarking, 'No, please don't. Don't file the application. Mr. Chaudhary, on that day also we told, please don't politicise any matter. We will stick to the problem.' Senior Advocate Anoop George Chaudhary, appearing for Dr. Thakur, urged the court to consider the broader implications, stating, 'There are so many questions. The question is also about the violation of the oath.' To this, Justice Kant responded, 'We will not say anything. You will file whatever petition you want to file. IA seeking intervention is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to avail appropriate independent remedy.' The Bench clarified that the IA involved a separate cause of action, and added, 'You know your remedy. We need not even point it out. You avail your remedy. We will welcome that.' Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, informed the Court that a report by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) had been submitted, but given the ongoing nature of the investigation, it would not be made public. The Court recorded the status report filed by DIG Police, Bhopal, dated May 27, 2025, in compliance with its earlier directions. The Bench observed, 'Status report dated May 27, 2025, has been filed by DIG Police, Bhopal, inter alia pointing out that in compliance with order dated May 19, 2025, SIT comprising three IPS officers has been constituted. The SIT visited the site, conducted an investigation, prepared a Hindi transcript of the speech, seized mobile phones, and recorded statements of seven witnesses. The investigation is still at a preliminary stage. More time has been sought. Interim directions shall continue.' Further, the Supreme Court directed that the proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court be closed, as the apex court had taken cognisance of the matter: 'In view of the fact that this Court has taken cognisance of the matter, we request the High Court to close the proceedings on the date fixed.' Dr. Jaya Thakur, a medical professional and women's rights advocate, had described the High Court's suo motu FIR direction as necessary to protect constitutional values and public order. Her application detailed how the Minister's remarks allegedly communalised a national security issue and targeted Col. Quraishi based on her religion. The application referred to Shah's comments calling the officer 'the sister of terrorists who carried out the killings of 26 innocent Indians at Pahalgam' and claimed the Prime Minister 'sent the sister of the terrorists to sort them out.' A second controversial comment cited in the application involved inappropriate remarks made by the Minister during a public distribution event for girls' clothing, where he allegedly said, 'I didn't know what they wear underneath.' The application argued that such statements violated the Constitution and the oath of office under Schedule III, Form V, which mandates impartial service to all people. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018), asserting that Shah's remarks amounted to hate speech. On May 15, 2025, when the matter first came before the Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, the Court had stressed that ministers must speak with a sense of responsibility, especially during sensitive times. On May 19, the Court had expressed skepticism over the apology offered by Shah. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had strongly condemned the remarks in its May 14 order, calling them 'scurrilous and unwarranted,' and stating that Shah had 'used the language of the gutters' against a serving Army officer. The Court emphasised that such comments not only harmed the dignity of the armed forces but could also amount to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. With the Supreme Court now seized of the matter, and having declined intervention by Dr. Thakur, the onus of further legal recourse rests with her before an appropriate forum. UNI SNG SSP
Ottawa Citizen
a day ago
- Business
- Ottawa Citizen
OCDSB 'almost didn't make payroll' as it struggles with budget deficits
Article content The chief financial officer at Ottawa's largest school board has warned trustees that its financial situation is so dire, the board almost didn't make payroll. Article content 'We're overspending over $14 million on special education, and we have a lot of programs where we're overspending,' Randy Gerrior warned trustees at the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board on May 27. Article content Article content Trustees have suggested cutting more from administration, and the board has been doing that, said Gerrior. Article content Article content While he didn't provide details, Gerrior's comments came as trustees debated a motion from Trustee Donna Blackburn to rescind a 2016 motion to continue the 17-day Summer Learning Program (SLP) for about 200 students with developmental delays 'until such a time as a community partner can be found' to provide the program at no cost to parents or guardians. Such a partner has not come forward. The program costs $610,000 to run, with money coming from other programs offered during the rest of the school year, said Kate Stoudt, the superintendent who oversees special education. Article content Blackburn said she didn't want to bring the motion forward, but it's not sustainable to run some programs. Article content Article content 'I don't know about what conversations my colleagues have with their constituents, but it breaks my heart every time I have to tell a parent, 'I'm very sorry your child can't go to school all day, every day,' which is their right from September to June, because we simply don't have enough supports,' said Blackburn. 'If we keep running this program, those conversations will continue to happen.' Article content Article content Some trustees defended the SLP, arguing that it is a crucial support for vulnerable students. Article content 'If it were the will of the board, I would suggest that we could, as a group, pen a letter to the Minister of Education asserting that this is something that should be funded, just as we provide summer school funding for other students.'
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
HC transgressed power of legislature inreading down Sec 17(2): State SLP in SC
Panaji: The high court of Bombay at Goa transgressed the power of the legislature by reading down Section 17(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, said state govt in its special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. State govt, which sought an interim stay on the judgment, also said that the high court's reading down of the provision restricts govt mechanisms to undo past errors in the regional plan efficiently. The petition in the top court, filed around two months after the high court's order, also states that the constitutional validity of a provision can't 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. In its edition dated March 14, TOI reported that the high court struck down the rules and guidelines of Section 17 (2) in 'public interest', but stayed the operation of its order for six weeks. The bench, however, 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. In the SLP, state govt said, 'The manner in which a piece of legislation is implemented or applied cannot be a ground to challenge the vires of the legislation. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like People Born 1940-1975 With No Life Insurance Could Be Eligible For This Reassured Get Quote Undo Enactment of legislation is a legislative function; implementation of the legislation is an executive function, which the impugned order fails to recognise'. The SLP further states that 'the high court transgressed into the power of the other pillar of democracy, the legislature'. 'Every state legislative body has the power and authority to define the extent of public participation and the stage at which public comments may be invited. The TCP Act recognises that prior notification of changes and inviting public comments is not mandatory in all cases of change of plan. It is legislatively permissible to provide for post-change notification in a limited category of cases. ' State govt also said in its petition that the high court 'misinterpreted Section 17(2) to the extent that it read down the provision, thereby curtailing the functionality of the provision and actually narrowed down and complicated a valid and effective provision which harmonised and balanced the public interest and ecosystem sensitivity of the state of Goa with private interest'. 'The high court erred in relying on material pertaining to the processing of individual applications while testing the validity of Section 17(2), that too without actually considering the individual cases on their own merits and providing an opportunity of hearing to such parties. The impugned order, thus, is violative of the principles of natural justice,' the SLP said. The state also said that the high court, without any basis and without considering any of the individual cases, observed that almost all conversions under Section 17(2) are from paddy fields, natural cover, no development zone, and orchard to settlement zones, which has the effect of mutilating the regional plan. The PIL in the high court had challenged the constitutional validity of Section 17(2) and told the court that arbitrary conversions are leading to rampant and unbalanced development in Goa in favour of big builders as they uniformly involve permanent destruction of hill slopes, fields and natural cover (forest), are contrary to the interest of citizens, and incompatible with ecological requirements and resources of the state. The high court, in its 152-page order, said, 'We are satisfied that the manner in which the rules are framed and the circular issued is not in furtherance of a development in public interest by maintaining a balance between sustainable development viz-a-viz the environmental issues, but is concerned with the interest of private landowners.' However, in the SLP before the SC, state govt said that it is 'focused on driving sustainable development by integrating green initiatives such as the green lung concept into urban planning and implementation of eco cottages with a view to integrate thoughtfully-designed open spaces that support ecological balance'. It further stated that the high court completedly failed to appreciate that the guidelines which provided guidance as to the terms 'inadvertent error' and 'inconsistent and incoherent zoning proposals' in fact outlined the narrow scope within which Section 17(2) was to operate. '
