HC reserves orders in pleas over local bodies' elections
While reserving the orders, the judge reminded Additional Advocate General Mohd. Imran Khan that the State government had earlier assured the HC that it would convene elections to local bodies by February 2025.
Responding to the query from the bench, the AAG said the State government would require a month to declare reservations for backward classes in local bodies. The authorities were ensuring that the reservations to be announced for BCCs would strictly be in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court.
Senior counsel Vidyasagar, appearing for the State Election Commission, informed the bench that the Commission would hold elections to local bodies within 60 days of the government announcing reservations.
The six petitioners, who were sarpanches and whose terms expired by January 1, 2024, requested the bench to extend their terms or conduct elections to the village panchayats immediately. They contended that the government appointed special officers in their places following the expiry of their terms. Appointing special officers was against Articles 243E and 243K of the Constitution, they argued. The rule of special officers was also in contravention of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act-2018.
They told the bench that they had spent money from their pockets for different developmental and infrastructural works in their respective villages. The government was obligated to reimburse the money they had spent, the petitioners said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
27 minutes ago
- NDTV
Kerala Nuns Get Bail In Human Trafficking, Religious Conversion Case In Chhattisgarh
A special NIA court in Chhattisgarh has granted conditional bail to two Kerala nuns and a male companion who were arrested last week on charges of human trafficking and forced religious conversion. Principal District and Sessions Judge Sirajuddin Qureshi granted bail to Sisters Preethi Merry and Vandana Francis of the Assisi Sisters of Mary Immaculate (ASMI), and Sukaman Mandavi, a tribal youth from the state. CPM leader Brinda Karat told NDTV this is a big victory for tribals and adivasi groups that had countered the allegations. She demanded action against Bajrang Dal and Hindu Vahini for filing false complaints. CPIM MP John Brittas said, "It is a victory of the Constitution. It was a false case against two nuns. Our fight will continue to get the FIR quashed." The three of them were arrested on July 25 at the Durg railway station after a complaint by a local Bajrang Dal functionary alleged they were attempting to traffic and convert three tribal girls. The defense lawyer for the nuns, Amrito Das, had argued that the FIR was "absolutely baseless," and noted that the parents of the girls had given statements affirming that their daughters had been practicing Christianity for several years. So there was no question of forced conversion and also that they were adults being taken for work to Agra and they had said they were going voluntarily, so there was no human trafficking. The bail was granted under several conditions. The accused must surrender their passports and furnish a bond of Rs 50,000 each, with two persons acting as sureties. This development comes after a sessions court in Durg had earlier disposed of their bail applications, citing a lack of jurisdiction under the human trafficking section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and directing them to approach the designated NIA court in Bilaspur. The arrest had triggered widespread protests in Kerala and drew sharp criticism from Church leaders and political parties, including the ruling LDF and the Opposition. The case had also created a rift between the BJP units in Kerala and Chhattisgarh, with Kerala BJP chief Rajeev Chandrasekhar stating that the arrests were a "misunderstanding" and that the Chhattisgarh government would not oppose their bail. The defense lawyer for the nuns, Amrito Das, had argued that the FIR was "absolutely baseless," and noted that the parents of the girls had given statements affirming that their daughters had been practicing Christianity for several years.
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Mai Raja Nahi Hoon': Rahul Gandhi Responds To Congress Workers' Slogans At Legal Conclave
/ Aug 02, 2025, 02:06PM IST At the Congress party's Annual Legal Conclave 2025 in Delhi, Leader of Opposition and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi firmly distanced himself from 'hero worship,' rejecting chants from supporters calling him 'Desh ka Raja.' When the slogan 'Desh ka Raja kaisa ho? Rahul Gandhi jaisa ho' echoed during his speech, Gandhi responded that he opposes the very concept of kingship and sees himself as a representative, not a ruler. The conclave focused on constitutional challenges facing India, with Congress reiterating its stance that the BJP is undermining democratic institutions and the Constitution.#rahulgandhi #congresslegalconclave2025 #constitutionalchallenges #indianpolitics #bjp #congress #deshkaraja #democracyinindia #congressparty #vigyanbhawan #elections2025 #toi #toibharat
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Karnataka HC quashes gag order on online media channel over Dharmasthala case reports
The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed a gag order on Mangaluru-based online media channel Kudla Rampage related to its reports on the Dharmasthala 'secret burials' case. 'The concerned court, at the threshold and without the benefit of adversarial hearing, has ventured to grant a sweeping mandatory injunction, a relief which ordinarily ought to await the culmination of the trial,' Justice M Nagaprasanna said, remanding the matter to the lower court to be heard afresh. The court also came down strongly on some of the reasoning in the gag order. 'The impugned order though spanning multiple pages, conspicuously lacks the foundational reason……the order may span pages, but spanning pages has not depicted application of mind. It is application of mind that is required, in a reasoned order, and not application of ink,' Justice Nagaprasanna added. The Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru had on July 18 granted an ex parte injunction to delete 8,812 links related to the Dharmasthala burials case. The injunction was based on a petition filed by Harshendra Kumar D, brother of BJP MP D Veerendra Heggade and secretary of the Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Educational Society. The channel's counsel, A Velan, had argued that an injunction, which was doubtful at the closing stages of the case, had been granted in the interlocutory stage itself, and said that this was violative of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Arguing that it was a case of restraint on freedom of speech, he further pointed out that there was no reasoning behind passing a 'John Doe' order in this case. John Doe orders are orders where a defendant is unknown. Velan also asserted that the order, in a matter of public importance, was creating a perpetual gag order on future speakers. Representing Harshendra Kumar, senior advocate Udaya Holla argued that the petition by Kudla Rampage was not permissible under Article 227 of the Constitution, as the petitioner had not availed the remedy under the CPC to vacate the order. He also stated that the high court had twice directed the channel to be banned, stating that in a case which was being investigated, it was producing defamatory content projecting Kumar to be guilty and creating defamatory content. The bench stated that the injunction at this stage had the character of a final order, explaining, 'The impugned order…while ostensibly couched as an interim measure, in truth and effect, partakes the character of a final determination.' The bench also pointed out multiple Supreme Court precedents with regard to the type of reasoning required for passing an ex parte order or interim injunction in such cases. The court also clarified that 'John Doe' or 'Ashok Kumar orders', as they are known in India, ought to be granted only with great caution, observing that the current order was wide enough that any voice against Kumar, his family or the location of the incident would be caught in it. The court added, 'The order speaks of prohibition of defamatory statements. Not one word of what kind of statements are defamatory for the Court to pass the aforequoted order is found in the order.' The court then quashed the ex parte order as far as it pertains to Kudla Rampage.
