Centre seeks more time to decide on Wayanad loan waiver
The bench of Justices A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian accordingly adjourned the suo motu petition concerning the rehabilitation of the landslide victims to Aug 13. Earlier, HC had directed the Centre to take a decision on the issue, after the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) stated that it could not decide on loan waivers, as the relevant provision empowering it to do so had been omitted from the National Disaster Management Act.
On Friday, assistant solicitor general A R L Sundaresan informed HC that the files relating to the loan waiver are currently under consideration by the Union ministry of finance and that additional time was required for a decision to be taken.
The court orally questioned the delay, noting that a year had already passed since the tragic incident. Sundaresan sought one more week to obtain instructions, and accordingly, HC adjourned the matter to Aug 13.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
Kochi airport: Cial comes under RTI Act purview, rules Kerala HC
Kochi: A high court bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and V M Syam Kumar has upheld a single bench order that declared that Cochin International Airport Ltd (Cial) is a public authority and is therefore amenable to Right to Information (RTI) Act. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now HC delivered the verdict while dismissing a set of appeals filed by Cial against the single bench order of 2022. The court also imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on Cial, to be paid to the Kerala high court advocates' association within 10 days. The cost was imposed in view of the court's findings that the writ petitions and appeals were filed by Cial managing director without the approval of the board of directors, apparently with the intent of concealing important decisions and actions from public shareholders. HC observed that even the CM, Cial's chairman, was not consulted before initiating the litigation. It held that the MD had no authority to file the cases without the board's approval. Strongly deprecating this practice, HC directed the chief secretary, who is a Cial director, to take appropriate action and ensure that such incidents are not repeated. The case arose after a series of RTI applications seeking various details, including the minutes of board meetings, were rejected by Cial. This prompted appeals to the state chief information commissioner, who ruled that Cial is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and is bound to provide the requested information. The Cial MD then moved HC against the commissioner's order. However, a single bench dismissed the petitions in 2022 and directed the public information officer of Cial to provide the requested information in accordance with law. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The MD's appeals contended that Cial does not fall under the definition of public authority under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of RTI Act, arguing that it is neither owned, controlled, nor substantially financed by the govt. However, HC held that both Kochi International Airport Society, Cial's predecessor, and Cial itself had been substantially financed by the Kerala and central govts from their inception, and that all conditions for being a public authority were duly satisfied. Upholding the state CIC's 2019 order, HC reaffirmed that Cial is obligated to provide information under the RTI Act. HC directed Cial to take all necessary steps within 15 days to become fully compliant with the provisions of the RTI Act and file a compliance report. The chief secretary has also been directed to file an action taken report before HC registry within 15 days.
Mint
29 minutes ago
- Mint
Big boost for Indian Armed Forces: DAC clears ₹67,000 crore proposals to enhance operational capability
The Defence Acquisition Council under the chairmanship of Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Tuesday cleared proposals worth nearly ₹ 67,000 crore to enhance operational capability of armed forces, the Centre said. The proposals include several defence equipment requirements for the Indian Army, Navy and the Air Force. The DAC gave an Acceptance of Necessity (AoN) to the Indian Army to procure Thermal Imager-based Driver Night Sight for BMP. 'This would enhance night driving capability of BMP and provide higher mobility and operational advantage to the Mechanised Infantry,' the defence ministry said in a press release. The council, headed by Rajnath Singh, also accorded an AoN to the Indian Navy whereby it can procure the Compact Autonomous Surface Craft, and BrahMos Fire Control System and Launchers. A proposal to upgrade the BARAK-1 Point Defence Missile System was also cleared. The procurement of Compact Autonomous Surface Craft will provide the capability to the Indian Navy for detection, classification and neutralisation of threats in anti-submarine warfare missions, the Centre said. For the Indian Air Force, AoN for procurement of Mountain Radars and Upgradation of SAKSHAM/SPYDER Weapon System was accorded. The procurement of mountain radars will enhance the air surveillance capability along and across the borders in the mountainous region. The upgradation of the SAKSHAM/SPYDER System for integration with the Integrated Air Command and Control System will enhance the Air Defence capability, the ministry said. An AoN was accorded for procuring Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPAs) for the three Services. The proposed MALE RPAs can carry multiple payloads & weapons and operate at longer ranges for long endurance missions. They will significantly enhance the round-the-clock surveillance and combat capability of the Armed Forces. In addition, DAC has also accorded AoN for the sustenance of C-17 and C-130J fleets and a comprehensive annual maintenance contract of the S-400 Long Range Air Defence Missile System.
United News of India
32 minutes ago
- United News of India
SC refers plea seeking lifetime ban on convicted MPs/MLAs to CJI
New Delhi, Aug 5 (UNI) The Supreme Court today took note of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking permanent disqualification of Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) upon conviction in criminal cases, and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai for listing before an appropriate larger Bench. The PIL, filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, challenges the constitutional validity of provisions under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which currently bar convicted legislators from contesting elections only for six years after completing their sentence. Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria mentioned the matter before a Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, urging for an early hearing. 'This is a matter of grave concern. Orders have been passed from time to time. The February 10 order requires that it be listed before a three-judge bench,' Hansaria submitted. The Bench acknowledged the urgency and referred to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the February 10, 2025 order passed by a Bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta, directing that the matter be placed before the CJI for further directions. The plea is now expected to be heard finally on October 20, subject to the CJI's listing. In February 2025, the Union government opposed the plea, arguing that a lifetime disqualification of elected representatives was a matter purely within the domain of Parliament and not for the judiciary to decide. The Centre, through the Legislative Department, maintained that while the court may declare a provision unconstitutional under its power of judicial review, it cannot rewrite legislation to substitute "lifetime" for "six years" as suggested by the petitioner. 'The relief sought effectively asks the Court to read 'lifetime' instead of 'six years' in all sub-sections of Section 8. This is unknown to judicial review and constitutional law,' the Centre submitted. The government emphasized that Parliament has the discretion to decide what duration of disqualification is appropriate, keeping in view principles of proportionality and reasonableness. 'It is one thing to say that Parliament has the power to impose a lifetime ban, and another to say that it must necessarily exercise that power in all cases,' it said. The Centre further argued that the PIL failed to distinguish between the basis for disqualification (i.e., conviction) and the effect of disqualification (i.e., its duration). It noted that Indian penal statutes often impose time-bound restrictions on rights and freedoms post-conviction, and that extending these indefinitely would be unduly harsh and disproportionate. 'At the end of the prescribed time, penalties cease to operate automatically. Deterrence is ensured, while undue harshness is avoided,' the government stated. It also reiterated that any direction to Parliament on how to draft or amend laws would be beyond the constitutional powers of the judiciary. The PIL raises a larger question regarding the criminalisation of politics, an issue repeatedly flagged by the Supreme Court in the past. The Court has, over the years, issued directions for the expeditious trial of criminal cases against lawmakers and for greater transparency in candidate disclosures. As the matter now heads to a larger Bench, the decision could have far-reaching implications for electoral reforms, legislative accountability, and the scope of judicial intervention in matters of legislative policy. UNI SNG AAB
