SC directs Delhi government to reissue notification declaring Lodhi-era ‘Gumti of Shaikh Ali' a protected monument
The two-judge bench of the apex court, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, passed the direction while hearing an appeal filed by Defence Colony resident Rajeev Suri.
Suri had sought the court's intervention to declare the Gumti a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act), after the Delhi High Court dismissed his petition.
During the hearing, the bench examined a report submitted by the Delhi government, which included a previously issued notification. However, the court observed that the notification was not 'happily worded' and thus required reissuance.
'Let the notification (to declare the monument as a protected one under the law) be re-issued by the Delhi government,' the bench directed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
27 minutes ago
- News18
Union Minister Law: Govt Has No Role In Impeachment Motion Against Justice Verma
Justice Varma Case |Union Minister Law: Govt Has No Role In Impeachment Motion Against Justice Verma Last Updated: India Videos | Big Exclusive - Union Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal on Justice Verma-• The government has no role in the impeachment motion against Justice Verma. • The move has been initiated by Members of Parliament, exercising their constitutional privilege, in light of corruption allegations against the judge.• The opposition's support for the motion reflects a collective stand against corruption.• Supreme Court has made a committee and made some findings these findings were sent to PM and sent to president If justice Verma has some complaints he is free to act n18oc_indiaNews18 Mobile App -
The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Nimisha Priya execution: Supreme Court asks Centre to consider merits of group working to save nurse for travel to Yemen
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 18, 2025) asked the Centre to consider on its own merits any representation made by Nimisha Priya — International Action Council, a group fighting to save the life of the Malayali nurse awaiting execution in Yemen for murder, for permission to travel to the country and negotiate with the victim's family for pardon and payment of blood money. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was informed that the execution, earlier slated for July 16, was postponed owing to the efforts made by the government and Kanthapuram AP Aboobacker Musliyar, a revered scholar from Kerala. Attorney-General R. Venkataramani expressed the government's concern to bring Nimisha Priya back home safely. 'All the government can do is being done,' he said. Mr. Venkataramani urged the court to adjourn the case, saying 'efforts were on' and to await further developments. Senior advocate Ragenth Basant, appearing for the Council, said the nurse's mother was in Yemen and alone. She was a domestic worker, and unable to carry out any negotiations with the murder victim's family. Acknowledging the help given by the government and the scholar, Mr. Basant, assisted by advocate Subhash Chandran, suggested a team consisting representatives from the government, the Council and the cleric could travel to Yemen to reach out to the family of the murdered man. 'We have to get their pardon first. The family has to forgive us. After getting pardon, the blood money has to be decided,' Mr. Basant submitted. He said there was a travel ban to Yemen. The government has to relax the restriction for the proposed team to go there and put the wheels into motion. However, Mr. Venkataramani reacted skeptically about Mr. Basant's suggestion, remarking at one point that 'I don't think anything formally can happen at this time'. But Justice Mehta said Mr. Basant was not asking for a direction, he was merely making a suggestion. The top law officer said things were not simple as Mr. Basant made it out to be. In fact, the government did not want to risk doing anything which may turn counter-productive at this point of time. 'It is not like we will grant permission and it will be possible for them to travel. There are so many issues — diplomatic inter-country relations involved. It is not easy. The government does not mind giving permission. But if it does not happen, why get involved and create a problem by which the real issue is not solved… We will consider… We do not wish to be counterproductive,' Mr. Venkataramani reasoned. Mr. Basant said the government had given permission for the mother to travel to Yemen after approaching the Delhi High Court. The Attorney-General said the family should be the only entity involved in such a situation while terming the Council as a 'good Samaritan'. 'What can an organisation that a government cannot do? We are concerned about this woman coming out safely. We do not want something counterproductive to happen. The government is pushing in various circles,' he said. Putting the ball entirely in the government's court, the Bench listed the case on August 14. Ms. Nimisha Priya was sentenced to death in Yemen by a trial court in 2020 for the murder of a local man, who was her business partner. Her appeals were dismissed by the appellate courts of that country. 'Her only child, a 12-year-old girl, is living in a convent. Her mother is a domestic helper in Ernakulam and her husband is an autorickshaw driver,' the petition said.
Mint
27 minutes ago
- Mint
Europeans are becoming less free to say what they think
Should the Finnish Lutheran church sponsor the Pride parade, a festival of rainbow flags and sexual inclusivity? Many might argue that a staid institution would do well to show prospective parishioners that it has kept up with the times. Paivi Rasanen is not among them. A staunch conservative, mother of five and member of parliament since 1995, she questioned on social media whether the church endorsing Pride was compatible with the Bible's teachings on sin and shame. An accompanying picture of some of the book's less tolerant passages made clear her own conclusions. That was in 2019. The temerity of her questioning has resulted in six years of police investigations, prosecution, trials and the threat of a hefty fine. As Finland's interior minister in the early 2010s Mrs Rasanen had overseen the police. Soon she was sitting in their interrogation rooms, for 13 hours in all, she says. Ultimately a court in 2022 found that her views, offensive as some may have found them, were no crime under Finnish law. An appeal also went her way. But the ordeal is not over. The Supreme Court will soon announce whether prosecutors' wish for a judicial rematch will be granted. Europe regards itself as a liberal kind of place, complete with laws and institutions to ensure its citizens enjoy fundamental rights, including the freedom to say what they please. Most of the time for most of the people, that is true. Yet the case of Mrs Rasanen is not so rare. From Spain to Germany, critics of kings and lesser figures of authority have found themselves in the dock for their opinions. On incendiary issues like migration, covid-19 or Gaza, the free exchange of opinions has given way to a more buttoned-up type of discourse. New European Union rules that regulate online platforms—the natural home of cranks, contrarians and conspiracy theorists—further threaten to inhibit debate. What happened? On paper, Europeans from Ireland to Greece enjoy free-speech rights similar to the First Amendment protections afforded to their American cousins. The European Convention on Human Rights that applies across the continent states that 'everyone has the right to freedom of expression". With a nuance: exercising that freedom comes with 'duties and responsibilities", the convention adds. Competing rights, such as rights to privacy, to living free from discrimination or to live in a well-functioning polity in effect frame the limits of free speech far more tightly than in America. Your right to offend is limited, in some instances, by my right not to be offended. Many European polities start—perhaps unsurprisingly—by protecting the public figures who craft the laws. Countries that have monarchies typically have lèse-majesté provisions, too. Plenty of countries, including France, Italy and Poland, extend the courtesy to leading politicians. A French pensioner who had beseeched Emmanuel Macron to 'piss off" on a banner hung from his house was sent on a 'civic-awareness course" as part of a plea deal to evade further prosecution. Also in France a broadcaster whose rabble-rousing talk-show host trenchantly criticised the mayor of Paris in 2022 was ultimately fined €150,000 ($167,000). Politicians defend such laws on the grounds that if elected officials face endless abuse the pool of people willing to enter civic life will shrink. Germany offers the highest-profile example of what the restrictions mean in practice. It has long been an offence to make critical remarks about politicians that cannot be substantiated. The law, tightened in 2021, has been used with abandon by some thin-skinned ministers. Robert Habeck, vice-chancellor until last week, filed no fewer than 800 complaints, for example for being called 'a professional idiot". A right-wing journalist who published a satirical meme involving an interior minister got a seven-month suspended prison sentence. In 1990 around 80% of Germans felt they could express their opinions freely; now it is less than half. The authorities have been accused of trying to silence pro-Palestinian voices on the grounds of antisemitism. More controversially, the hard-right Alternative for Germany party has been branded as 'extremist" by intelligence services; many politicians want to see it banned outright. Romania annulled its presidential election in December over concerns that the hard-right candidate had won only with the help of dodgy social media, in breach of electoral laws. It is not just politicians who are protected from harassment. 'Hate-speech" rules also shield minorities—whether gays or Muslims, migrants or the disabled—from others' opinions. What Americans dismiss as tasteless, European prosecutors sometimes treat as criminal. Most notably, the right to offend religious groups is no longer assured everywhere. Once upon a time Denmark lived with the political consequences of racist agitators burning the Koran (which sparked terrorism threats). Since 2023 it has deemed 'improper treatment of a religious text" to be a criminal offence. To liberal critics, that seems a lot like an unwelcome return to once-abolished blasphemy laws. In practice most of the stuff over-eager censors might focus on is expressed these days online. The Digital Services Act (DSA), a new set of EU rules, introduced guidelines for purveyors of internet content. Mostly the rules ensure that what is said online, in a blog post or in a comment below a YouTube video, say, is treated on a par with what is said offline. But the DSA also imposes further obligations on the largest platforms, such as Facebook or X, in line with Europe's rights-come-with-responsibilities approach to speech. In particular the EU now wants the tech giants to take into account 'any actual or foreseeable negative effects on civic discourse" as they design their services, for example what content they tolerate. Critics think this is a vague and potentially chilling notion. Beyond regulating 'hate speech", entreaties to ban 'disinformation" from online forums invite questions as to who decides what is real. In the case of the DSA, quasi-judicial codes of practice policed by opaque out-of-court dispute-settlement bodies muddy the waters, often by encouraging platforms to take down more than they might otherwise. Getting it wrong carries a hefty price: fines can reach 6% of global turnover. Americans worry that Europeans' more restrictive approach to speech will seep into their own public sphere, as tech firms apply a single set of rules globally. Much of the speech that ends up in the digital censors' dustbin, perhaps wrongly, involves views that even liberals might take issue with (racist bilge is often posted anonymously for a reason). It is also stuff people believe. Using the law to settle debate is convenient for those in the majority. It also tends to exacerbate disagreement rather than settle it. 'I understand these issues are controversial," says Mrs Rasanen. 'But we must be able to disagree." To stay on top of the biggest European stories, sign up to Café Europa, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.
