Top court junks plea to bring political parties under PoSH
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
The Supreme Court Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking to bring political parties under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.A division bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai said the issue would fall "only in the domain of the parliament". The bench refused to entertain the plea. Eventually, the petitioner was given the liberty to withdraw his plea.The petitioner, Supreme Court advocate Yogamaya MG , had moved the court highlighting non-compliance with the PoSH Act by political parties, particularly when it comes to constitution of internal complaints committee (ICC) to deal with sexual harassment complaints.The petitioner sought that the definitions of "workplace" and "employer" under the PoSH Act be harmoniously interpreted to make the Act applicable to political parties. The petitioner had earlier also approached the apex court over the same issue. However, the court had then asked the petitioner to first approach the Election Commission of India (ECI).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
11 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Court closes CBI case against Satyendra Jain after no evidence of illegal gains found
A Delhi court on Monday (August 4, 2025) allowed the closure report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a case related to alleged irregularities in hiring in the Public Works Department (PWD) case against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain after neither corruption not criminal conspiracy was proved against him. Special Judge (PC Act) Dig Vinay Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts noted that the investigating agency has not found any incriminating evidence over such a long period to prove the commission of any offence, particularly under the POC (Prevention of Corruption) Act, 1988. The judge added that after having investigated the matter for about four years, CBI found no criminality or evidence of personal gain, bribery, or any criminal intent or violation of financial rules. 'When CBI could not find any evidence of criminal conspiracy, abuse of power, pecuniary gain, or wrongful loss to the Government Exchequer, and the alleged acts are at most administrative irregularities, no offence under section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act or criminal conspiracy is established,' the court said. It added that when the investigating agency has not found any incriminating evidence over such a long period to prove the commission of any offence, particularly under the POC Act, 1988, further proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Observing that not every decision made in an official capacity that does not strictly follow rules warrants invoking the POC Act, the court added that mere neglect of duty or improper exercise of duty alone may not constitute a violation under the POC Act. The case pertains to an FIR lodged on the complaint of the vigilance department in May 2019, in which it was alleged that Mr Jain, the then minister of Public Works Department (PWD) in the Delhi government, had approved the hiring of a 17-member team of consultants for the department through outsourcing thereby, bypassing standard government recruitment procedures. During over four years of investigation, the CBI found that the hiring of professionals was necessary due to urgent departmental needs and that the recruitment process was transparent and competitive. The agency, in its closure report, stated that a transparent recruitment process was followed through a competitive method, and no payments were made beyond prescribed norms and approved limits. Emoluments were neither excessive nor irregular. Therefore, no evidence of corruption, criminal conspiracy, undue favour, or personal gain was found, and a closure report is preferred.
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC proposes panel to manage Banke Bihari temple till HC decides on UP ordinance
. New Delhi: Supreme Court on Monday proposed an interim committee, headed by a retired high court judge and comprising the district collector and Goswamis (pujaris), for management of Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan till Allahabad HC decides the validity of UP govt's ordinance for all-round development of the temple area to provide facilities to pilgrims. A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked additional solicitor general K M Nataraj to seek state govt's response by Tuesday morning, when it will take up a batch of petitions that have questioned the manner in which state govt, prompted by an SC order, had come out with a temple development project proposed to be implemented at a cost of Rs 500 crore. The Goswamis, through senior advocate Shyam Divan, said taking over of the temple through an ordinance was extraordinary as the issue was not before constitutional courts, which were only dealing with alleged mismanagement of Guriraj temple. In the guise of better management of temples in the 'Braj area', the SC passed an order without even hearing temple Goswamis, which prompted the state to issue the ordinance, they said. The bench agreed that such an order without hearing the Goswamis could not have been passed. However, the Justice Kant-led bench said, "It is only for development of the temple and its surroundings. The state's intention does not appear to siphon out temple funds but to spend it on providing facilities to pilgrims." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Andrea Bergs Auto schockiert die ganze Welt, Beweis in Fotos! Weight Loss Groove Undo Divan said Banke Bihari temple was a private temple and any law brought about by govt or any order passed by courts could not have been without hearing the Goswamis, who have been managing it for centuries. The bench saw a point in Divan's argument and said, "The state cannot be seen coming to the court in a clandestine manner and getting an order set aside in a case which had nothing to do with Banke Bihari temple. We will set aside that part of the order, set up an interim committee to manage the temple and permit the HC to decide the legality of the ordinance." However, the bench was in favour of development around the temple to provide space for parking and places to stay for pilgrims with all facilities. "Religious tourism is assuming great importance. It can also be a big revenue earner and help in job creation. But there has to be adequate facilities to handle pilgrims," it said. The interim committee may also have to induct representatives of Archaeological Survey of India as well as independent architects proficient in ancient building restoration to protect the temple, the bench said.
Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC to Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel, son: Move HC to challenge ED chargesheet
Bhupesh Baghel NEW DELHI: Disappointing former Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel and his son, Supreme Court on Monday asked them to move high court to challenge Enforcement Directorate 's allegedly illegal practice of filing incomplete chargesheets in money laundering cases to keep the probe open-ended, and keep them apprehensive about their possible arrest at any time. Baghel said since 2019, there had been six ECIRs filed by ED under PMLA relating to Nagrik Apurti Nigam (PDS), income tax, District Mineral Fund, coal levy, Mahadev betting and Chhattisgarh liquor cases. In all these cases, there was a constant threat of his arrest, he said. Appearing for him and his son, senior advocates A M Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi told a bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi that filing of multiple incomplete chargesheets, on the specious ground that the probe was ongoing, was illegal since it was mandatory for ED to take permission of the magistrate to carry out further investigation. The bench said, "This abnormality of rushing directly to Supreme Court is becoming chronic, especially when cases involve affluent and influential people. If you are seeking quashing of the FIRs or chargesheets on grounds of irregularity on part of the agency, then you must move the HC." Singhvi and Rohatgi withdrew their petitions. In another petition by Baghel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the bench that the former CM was challenging the constitutional validity of PMLA sections 50 and 63. "The framework u/s 50(2) and 50(3) of PMLA infringes upon the fundamental rights against self incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3)... The aforesaid provisions permit ED to summon any person and compel answers and production of documents under a threat of penalty u/s 63 of the Act and arrest under Section 19 of the Act," Sibal said. Appearing for ED, additional solicitor general S V Raju said these petitions were not maintainable as the former CM had not been named in any of the ECIRs.
