PIL filed in Madras HC to declare Rs 2k notes invalid

PIL filed in Madras HC to declare Rs 2k notes invalid
PIL filed in Madras HC to declare Rs 2k notes invalid

A PIL was filed in the Madras High Court today for declaring the new Rs 2,000 currency notes as “invalid” on the ground that the value was printed in “Devanagari form of numerals”, which is not authorised by the Constitution.

Petitioner K P T Ganesan, a local DMK functionary, submitted that the numerals on the note were printed in Devanagiri, which is against the Official Languages Act, 1963, under which there is no provision for use of Devanagiri numerals.

He contended that the Constitution allows the use of international form of Indian numerals for any official purpose of the Union.

Though there was a provision that Parliament may pass a law to use Devanagari form of numerals on currency notes, after 15 years of the commencement of the Constitution, such an act had not been passed, providing for the use of the Devanagari form of numerals, he contended.

Ganesan claimed under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, there was no provision to print bank notes of Rs 2,000 denomination without the recommendation of the Central Board.

Hence, it was just and necessary to declare the currency notes of denomination Rs 2000 as “not valid”, he said.

After hearing the arguments, the bench here posted the matter for hearing tomorrow.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi had on November 8 announced demonetisation of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 notes, making them invalid, in a major assault on black money, fake currency and corruption.

( Source – PTI )

Bombay HC junks PIL challenging section 56 of C.PC on arrest of women

Bombay HC junks PIL challenging section 56 of C.PC on arrest of women
Bombay HC junks PIL challenging section 56 of C.PC on arrest of women

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking scrapping of Section 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prohibits arrest or detention of women in execution of decree for payment of money, on the ground that it is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the country’s Constitution.

A division bench recently observed that the Supreme Court has laid down in a judgement that ordinarily the High Court should not entertain a writ petition by way of public interest litigation which questions the constitutional or validity of a statute or a statutory rule.

“Applying the aforesaid principle, we see no reason to entertain the petition instituted in public interest questioning the constitutional validity of section 56 of CPC,” said a bench of Chief Justice Dr Manjula Chellur and Justice M S Sonak.

The PIL, filed by Srikrishna Godbole, an 82-year-old practicing advocate of Solapur, had challenged section 56 of C.PC saying it was ultravires the Constitution.

“We have considered the contention of petitioner’s Counsel Ms Sanjukta Dey but we are unable to agree that section 56 of CPC which prohibits arrest or detention of women in the execution of the decree for the payment of money, violates the principle of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India,” said the judges.

“Taking into consideration the object of such provision, the classification between men and women is quite reasonable, and the classification has sufficient nexus with the object. Article 14 is of general application and must be read with other provisions which set out the ambit of fundamental rights,” said the bench.

The judges further said that sex is a sound classification and though there can be no discrimination in general on that ground, the Constitution itself provides for special provision in case of women and children.

“That apart, whilst Article 15(1) of the Constitution provides that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, Article 15(3), in terms provides that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children,” the bench observed.

“According to us, Section 56 of the CPC, which makes special provision for women, is clearly a provision relatable to Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, and therefore, there is no reason to declare the same as unconstitutional,” the Judges said while dismissing the petition.

( Source – PTI )

PIL in HC for setting up all India judicial service

retired-judgesA plea has been moved in the Delhi High Court alleging that the central government was “sleeping over” the issue of setting up an all India judicial service, similar to other all India services like IAS and IPS, and has sought directions for initiating the process.

The public interest litigation has sought directions to the Centre to establish the all India judicial service (AIJS) without any delay claiming that it will result in “uniformity and transparency in the selection process” and improve the quality of judges in high courts and district courts.

The petition has said that as much as 50 per cent of the judges can be recruited through AIJS and through this process, “only the judges of proven competence will preside over the benches and it will minimise the scope of aberration, arbitrariness and nepotism in judiciary”.

It has further said that the Law Commission of India has thrice called for AIJS, and setting up of such a body has been endorsed and recommended by the Parliamentary Standing Committee, first National Judicial Pay Commission and the National Advisory Council.

“However, government gives lame excuses and is sleeping over the matter. As of now, while most government department have ‘All India Service’ recruits, the judiciary is the only setup that does not have a national-level selection process,” the petition by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay claims.

The plea further said that the available number of judges are “unable to clear the huge backlog of over 30 million cases”.

“In the absence of AIJS, it is very difficult to maintain the required judge strength in district courts and high courts,” he claimed, adding it would lead to improving the “quality of justice dispensation right from the district courts to the apex court”.

In his plea he has also sought directions to the central government to “provide appropriate manpower and infrastructure to reduce the pendency of cases to three years”.

HC junks PIL seeking repeal of State Act

bhcThe Bombay High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) which sought to discontinue or repeal Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act of 1977 on the ground that a Central Act with same benefits for rural population has come into the effect from 2005.

The PIL prayed that the Central law i.e Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act of 2005 be allowed to continue in place of the State law i.e Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977.

The petitioner — Aam Aadmi Lokmanch — also prayed that collection of funds under the State law — Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act — be discontinued till the petition is disposed of.

However, the court refused to entertain the PIL saying the allegations were general in nature and not specific.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dr Manjula Chellur and Justice M S Sonak, dismissed the petition while observing that both the enactments, State as well as Central, are welfare legislation in the light of Directive Principles of the State Policy enshrined in the Constitution.

“Instead of getting benefit under one statute if citizens of this country are entitled to get two benefits, both under the State enactment and the Central Act, we fail to understand in the absence of any repugnancy between the two enactments how we could grant prayers sought in the petition by deleting such a provision or repealing Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act?,” asked the court.

“If there is any violation of utilisation of funds or misappropriation or diversion of funds by any authority or individual person having the charge of the funds, it is always open to the public to bring to the notice of the authorities concerned the malfunctioning of the system or mechanism meant for achieving social justice through these two enactments,” the bench further observed.

“By general allegations (in the PIL) without ascribing any particular inaction of an authority, we are afraid that none of prayers could be entertained. Accordingly, the PIL is dismissed,” the bench held in a recent judgement.

SC to hear PIL for making ‘Yoga’ compulsory for students

yogaThe Supreme Court would next week hear a plea seeking framing of a ‘National Yoga Policy’ and making ‘Yoga’ compulsory for students of Class I-VIII across the country.

A bench comprising Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justices D Y Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao has agreed to hear on November 7 the PIL that seeks inclusion of Yoga as a compulsory subject in the curriculum on grounds including that its “secular” and right to health was an integral part of right to life.

The plea, filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, a lawyer and Delhi BJP spokesperson, has sought a direction to the Ministry of Human Resources Development, NCERT, NCTE and the CBSE to “provide standard textbooks of ‘Yoga and Health Education’ for students of Class I-VIII keeping in spirit various fundamental rights such as right to life, education and equality.

“‘Right to Health’ is an integral part of Right to Life under the Article 21. It includes protection, prevention and cure of the health and is a minimum requirement to enable a person to live with human dignity.

“State has a obligation to provide health facilities to all the citizens, especially to children and adolescents. In a Welfare State, it is obligation of the State to ensure the creation and sustaining of conditions congenial to good health,” the plea said.

It said that right to health cannot be secured without providing ‘Yoga and Health Education’ to all children or framing a ‘National Yoga Policy’ to promote and propagate it.

“There are about 20 crore children, throughout the country, studying in primary and junior classes at the cost of public exchequer. Yoga should be taught to them as a compulsory subject as per National Curriculum Framework 2005, notified under Section 7(6) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009…”, it said.

It also sought a direction to the Ministries of Women and Child Development and Social Justice and Empowerment to declare ‘First Sunday’ of every month as ‘Health Day’ on the lines of ‘Polio Day’ to make the people aware about health- hazards and health-hygiene.”

The plea also said that a court at California had held that “yoga is secular”.

Source : PTI

Delhi HC seeks Delhi govt reply on PIL to remove BRT corridor debris

Delhi HC seeks Delhi govt reply on PIL to remove BRT corridor debris
Delhi HC seeks Delhi govt reply on PIL to remove BRT corridor debris

Delhi High Court today sought Delhi government’s response on a plea seeking direction to remove all metal structures, dismantled from the BRT corridor here, and allegedly blocking the footpath on the stretch.

A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal also issued notice to the office of Lieutenant Governor (LG) on the plea seeking a direction to the authorities to grant requisite approval for construction of six half sub-merged subways along 5.8 km stretch between Moolchand and Ambedkar Nagar in South Delhi.

The bench has asked the AAP government and the office of the LG to file their responses by January 16, the next date of hearing.

The PIL, filed by NGO Fights for Human Rights, has alleged that metal structure of the dismantled BRT corridor lying there were blocking the footpath, due to which free movement of pedestrians vehicular traffic was affected.

“Large stretch of the footpath is blocked because of the metal structure and tiles which were dismantled and have been stored along the road,” the plea claimed, adding “as a result, motor vehicles are not able to move freely and there is acute blockage of the road”.

“Motorists and pedestrians are continously facing imminent danger to their precious lives. There are no boards to caution public and motorists to travel with care to avoid accidents,” it claimed.

It alleged that the BRT corridor stretch, which came up in 2008, was decided to be dismantled because of its “defective design” and public works department (PWD) of Delhi government had begun the work in January this year.

The plea claimed that the dismantling work “was supposed to be completed by February end” and road was to be re-laid.

It alleged that “whole work was planned to be completed before monsoon but the whole project as planned has not achieved its purpose”.

“Respondent number one (Delhi government) planned to construct six half sub-merged subways along the stretch for pedestrians. The project is now in the design state and it will take about two years to complete,” the plea said.

( Source – PTI )

Fresh PIL in HC against film on Indira Gandhi’s assassination

Fresh PIL in HC against film on Indira Gandhi's assassination
Fresh PIL in HC against film on Indira Gandhi’s assassination

The release of Bollywood movie ’31st October’, based on the aftermath of the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi including the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, has been opposed again in Delhi High Court.

A petition has been filed afresh against its release after the High Court on October 5 refused to entertain the plea, saying it was “badly drafted” and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) was neither approached before, nor made a party.

The petitioner now has impleaded the CBFC as a party in his petition which claims that going by the trailers, posters and banners of the film, starring Soha Ali Khan and Vir Das in the lead, it is against the ideology of the “oldest political party of the country”.

Indira Gandhi was assassinated on October 31, 1984.

The movie, which is scheduled to be released on October 21, contains various scenes “aimed and targeted against a political figure of the country”, the petition has claimed.

The petitioner, Ajay Katara, has not named the politician in the petition.

The PIL claims that the film’s producer, Magical Dreams Production Pvt Ltd, has used a look-alike of the unnamed political figure who has been “painted in a bad light”.

Apart from seeking blocking of its release, the plea also seeks deletion of some “offensive scenes” in the film.

( Source – PTI )

PIL seeking report on Jaya’s health condition filed

PIL seeking report on Jaya's health condition filed
PIL seeking report on Jaya’s health condition filed

A PIL was filed in the Madras High Court today seeking a detailed report from the government on the health condition of Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa and releasing of photographs of the meeting she is said to have had with her cabinet colleagues and officials in the hospital, where she is admitted.

The petitioner “Traffic” Ramaswamy, a social activist, submitted that the people of Tamil Nadu were eager to know about the health condition of Jayalalithaa.

Holding that Governor C Vidyasagar Rao and Union Minister Pon Radhakrishnan had reportedly visited the hospital, the petitioner said they have not given details about her health condition.

The petition is expected to be taken up tomorrow for hearing.

He also submitted that the police had blocked the roads leading to the corporate hospital where Jayalalithaa was undergoing treatment by erecting barricades preventing others to go to the hospital for treatment.

( Source – PTI )

Delhi HC seeks govt reply on PIL to implement Food Security Act

Delhi HC seeks govt reply on PIL to implement Food Security Act
Delhi HC seeks govt reply on PIL to implement Food Security Act

The Delhi High Court has sought the response of the AAP government on a PIL seeking a direction to it to implement the National Food Security Act to ensure good health to children attending Anganwadi centres and schools here.

A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal issued notice to the Delhi government on the plea by a charitable trust which has alleged that the quality of food being supplied under the Anganwadi and Mid-day Meals schemes here are of low standards.

The court has fixed the matter for further consideration on October 19.

According to Matri Sudha, there is a lack of monitoring and coordinated working on the issues of nutritional and food security in Delhi as mandated under the National Food Security Act, 2013.

It has alleged that the Delhi government has “failed to create and maintain scientific storage facilities at state, district and block levels sufficient to accommodate foodgrains required under the Targeted Public Distribution System and other food-based welfare schemes”.

The PIL, filed through advocate Vikram Srivastava, also alleged that the food supplied could be “harmful to the health of both pregnant and lactating mothers as well as children and hence, there was a complete violation of fundamental right to health of women and children in India”.

It said, “There is a collapse of monitoring mechanism in management of food manufacturing and supply in Delhi under the Anganwadi and Mid-day Meals programme with no monitoring and regulation in place.”

The petition has sought that necessary directions be issued to bring on record the actual status of malnourished children within the age group of 0 18 years in Delhi and the state plan to combat the situation.

It also urged the court to bring on record the measures taken by the departments concerned “to manage malnutrition and monitor the contractors who supply substandard food”.

( Source – PTI )

SC refuses urgent hearing on PIL Indus Water Treaty

SC refuses urgent hearing on PIL Indus Water Treaty
SC refuses urgent hearing on PIL Indus Water Treaty

The Supreme Court today refused to grant an urgent hearing on a PIL seeking declaration of the India-Pakistan Indus Water Treaty as unconstitutional.

“There is no urgency in the matter. It will come up for hearing in due course,” a bench comprising Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice A M Khanwilkar said.

Advocate M L Sharma, who filed the PIL in his personal capacity on the issue, sought urgent hearing of the matter saying the treaty was unconstitutional as it was not signed as per the constitutional scheme and hence should be declared “void ab initio”.

“Keep politics aside. The matter will come in due course,” the bench said when the lawyer insisted on an urgent hearing.

( Source – PTI )