SC asks BMC engr facing contempt over toilet construction to explain delay to HC
New Delhi: The importance of toilets can be best assessed by the fact that a few months delay in construction of a toilet block led to Bombay High Court initiating contempt proceedings against a Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation engineer and in turn the matter ended up with the Supreme Court on Friday.
The Bombay HC on Oct 4 had directed the BMC to construct within three months toilets at a slum cluster in Kalina, Santacruz E, invoking right to life guaranteed under Article 21 which included dignified living and the provisions under Swachh Bharat Abhiyan. Four months later, on Feb 2, the HC found that the toilet blocks remained incomplete and had slammed the BMC threatening to take contempt action.
BMC executive engineer Maheshkumar Sampat Jare, who had been bearing the brunt of the HC's displeasure, attempted to explain that the survey took some time and since it is a toilet block having 32 units - 15 for women, 16 for men and one for handicapped persons, it would require nine months for completion, as was estimated by his superiors in the corporation.
You Can Also Check:
Mumbai AQI
|
Weather in Mumbai
|
Bank Holidays in Mumbai
|
Public Holidays in Mumbai
The HC on May 6 again found that despite its Feb 2 order, the toilet blocks had not been completed and initiated contempt proceedings against Jare. A week later, the toilet complex was inaugurated. With the contempt sword hanging, Jare rushed to the SC.
Senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal told a bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh that Jare had an unblemished service record of 35 years, that he would retire 18 months later and that it would be unfortunate to undergo the rigours of contempt of court proceedings when he had done everything possible under his control to finish the project as expeditiously as possible.
The bench said, "When the High Courts issue contempt notices, as a matter of principle, the Supreme Court should not interfere with it except in exceptional circumstances." However, it noted that the toilet block has since been inaugurated and told Jare to appear before HC and explain the circumstances which led to the delay.
Agrawal said that strong remarks have been made by the HC in its order and that the alleged contemnor is apprehensive about his fate. The bench requested HC to decide the issue involved in the contempt proceedings without being influenced by its observations in the earlier orders. "HC is seeking an explanation only. So go before the HC and explain everything," the bench told Jare.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
32 minutes ago
- First Post
Supreme Court ruling sparks confusion over US birthright citizenship
On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship read more The U.S. Supreme Court's decision related to birthright citizenship led to confusion and calls to attorneys as individuals potentially impacted worked to understand a complex legal ruling with significant humanitarian consequences. On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. This outcome has created more uncertainty than clarity around a right long interpreted as protected by the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. 'There are not many specifics,' said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. 'I don't understand it well.' She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. 'I don't know if I can give her mine,' she said. 'I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality.' Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating 'an extremely confusing patchwork' across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. 'Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?' she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. Worried calls Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. 'He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,' she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. 'It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights,' said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. 'That is really chaotic.' Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. 'I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born,' she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. 'She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen,' she said. 'If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?'
India Today
39 minutes ago
- India Today
Telangana to form committee to review fee structure of engineering colleges
The Telangana State Government is set to revise the fee structure for engineering colleges across the state, with an emphasis on enhancing educational standards and aligning with national and global benchmarks. A comprehensive review process is underway and the final decision will take into account infrastructure, faculty quality, laboratory facilities and adherence to regulatory Chief Minister Revanth Reddy has ordered officials to formulate a fair and future-ready fee structure that promotes academic excellence, particularly in high-demand fields like Artificial Intelligence (AI).advertisementThe government aims to ensure that Telangana's engineering institutions can compete at the international level by mandating improved facilities and compliance with AICTE guidelines. A committee will be formed to study various parameters of educational quality and infrastructure in engineering colleges. Additionally, the state will adopt a data-driven and equitable approach, ensuring that no institution gains undue advantage. The government has also affirmed that the engineering admission counseling process will be completed within the stipulated timeline to avoid delays in the academic government will also factor in key Supreme Court judgments, including the Islamic Academy of Education vs. Karnataka and P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra, which emphasise the need for transparency and objectivity in fee Vigilance and Enforcement Department's earlier inspection reports, ignored by the previous administration, will now be reviewed. The current government accuses the earlier regime of selectively allowing fee hikes and ignoring quality issues in several institutions.- EndsMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Telangana
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
'At odds with Constitution': US Supreme Court judge Barrett on colleague's dissenting order in birthright citizenship case
US Supreme Court The dissenting argument by US Supreme Court's justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in the birthright citizenship case is "at odds" with the United States Constitution, according to justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority ruling in favour of curtailing the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against Donald Trump's executive order, in what was a major win for the president. "We will not dwell on justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself," Barrett wrote in her order, according to Fox News. The conservative judge, a Trump appointee, was referring to Jackson's order in which the latter, who was appointed under the previous Joe Biden administration, wrote that nationwide injunctions against the birthright executive order should be permissible or else the courts would be allowing the president to "violate the Constitution." This argument, Barrett noted, was not based on any existing legal doctrine. "Such a vision of the judicial role would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush," she stated. The Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 majority to restrict the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, clearing the way for the controversial order to be enforced in the 28 states which had not challenged it, while keeping it temporarily blocked in 22 Democratic-led states. Lower courts will now have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the ruling. Enforcement of the policy can't take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote.
