12 UP RERA employees sacked over doubtful conduct in a year
According to UP RERA chairman Sanjay Bhoosreddy, an affidavit of integrity is also taken from every officer and employee in RERA. The number of officers and other staff in UP RERA is very less, although the nature of work is sensitive. The regulatory authority also provides training to all employees to improve their skills.
According to the officials, CCTV cameras have been installed at all rooms in the RERA office and the movement of employees and visitors is also monitored by senior officers.
Following the policy of zero tolerance towards indiscipline and misconduct, RERA has also sent a reference to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in one case for action under the Advocates Act, 1961
The RERA headquarters is in Lucknow since 2017 and the NCR regional office in Greater Noida since 2018.
RERA was established to fix the accountability of developers of real estate projects and to protect the interests of consumers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Vishaka still matters: The Bombay HC judgement
On July 7, 2025, the Bombay High Court delivered its judgment in UNS Women Legal Association (Regd.) vs. Bar Council of India. The petitioners had sought directions for the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa to consider forming the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). While dealing with the issue, the Court held that the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH) do not apply to the advocates. The Court had reasoned that there exists no employer-employee relationship between the Bar Councils and the advocates, whereas, actions if any intended can be dealt by disciplinary committee of Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961. Law (Pexel) The High Court's ruling has created uncertainty. The legal profession today faces critical questions. If not the PoSH Act, then what? How can the legal field be made a safe space for women advocates? And when grievances inevitably arise, where do they find recourse? The answer of the issue posed in UNS Women Legal Association was not all that easy to arrive at. The High Court has applied a narrow interpretation of the PoSH Act. To understand its far reaching impact, it is imperative to understand the history of PoSH Act. Unlike most laws, the law relating to prevention of sexual harassment did not originate in Parliament. It was born out of judicial intervention, following the brutal gang rape of a social worker in a village in Rajasthan, which shook the collective conscience of the nation. It led to the filing of a writ petition in the Supreme Court as a class action seeking enforcement of the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. For the first time, the Supreme Court was confronted with the critical task of addressing the pervasive issue of sexual harassment at the workplace. In its judgement in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Court declared its intention i.e., to protect all working women regardless of their workplace. Essentially, the Vishaka guidelines were never confined to traditional employer-employee relationships. The Supreme Court took an expansive view of the term 'working women,' extending protection to all women engaged in any form of work, irrespective of the nature or structure of their workplace. The guidelines carried a sunset clause. They were meant to lapse once appropriate legislation was enacted. However, the guidelines were meant to be continued till the Vishaka guidelines replaced with suitable legislation. Nearly 15 years later, in Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2012), the Supreme Court again emphasised that the implementation of Vishaka should be true to its substance. The Court observed with concern that women lawyers still lacked a proper grievance redressal mechanism. It directed the Bar Council of India to ensure that all persons registered with State Bar Councils followed the Vishaka guidelines. Further, in Binu Tamta v. Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court further advanced this jurisprudence by formulating the Gender Sensitisation and Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2013, with the aim of making the Supreme Court premises a safer place for women advocates. In this backdrop, the Bombay High Court's recent judgment is concerning. While it acknowledges both Vishaka and Medha Kotwal Lele, it falters to reckon with the directions contained in those judgements. The High Court's reasoning is premised on the belief that the enactment of the PoSH Act rendered Vishaka obsolete due to its sunset clause. However, the Vishaka guidelines still continues to hold good for all working women, who are otherwise not protected by the PoSH Act. The sunset clause did not extinguish Vishaka; it still shines; it merely defers to a legislative framework that meets or exceeds its standards. Where such a framework is found wanting or inapplicable, Vishaka continues. Compounding this, it has been suggested in the judgement that women advocates can pursue disciplinary remedies under the Advocates Act, 1961. A similar issue was dealt with in Medha Kotwal Lele. It led the Supreme Court to direct the government to amend service rules and incorporate the Vishaka guidelines since service rules were observed to be incapable of dealing with complaints of sexual harassment. In sum, the judgment raises serious and far-reaching concerns for all working women, beyond the legal profession. It affects all working women who may not be working in the realm of traditional employer-employee model. Consider gig workers for example. India has 7.7 million of them, yet legal recourse in instances of sexual harassment remains unclear. Companies call them 'partners' instead of employees to avoid social security benefits, which also ends up taking away their rights under the PoSH Act. As work patterns continue to evolve, it must follow with an expansive interpretation of the PoSH Act in line with the Vishaka guidelines. Without which, it risks becoming irrelevant to the majority of women entering the modern workforce. Therefore, even though as per the High Court's Judgement, women advocates do not have recourse to PoSH Act, any working women who is not covered under PoSH can still resort to the Vishaka guidelines and the employer or other responsible person is duty bound to abide by the constitutional mandate of providing a safe workplace. This article is authored by Anindita Pujari, senior advocate and Shaileshwar Yadav, advocate, Supreme Court.
Economic Times
a day ago
- Economic Times
Angel One Founder's son sells luxury apartment in Mumbai suburb for Rs 52 cr
Vinay Thakkar, a member of the family of Dinesh Thakkar, founder of listed stockbroking and wealth management firm Angel One, has sold a luxury apartment in Mumbai's western suburb of Andheri West for Rs 52.48 transaction for the 25th floor apartment with RERA carpet area of 3,891 sq ft, along with 409 sq ft of balcony space, is valued at effective carpet area rate of Rs 1.4 lakh per sq ft, ranking among the costliest deal for a residential property on per sq ft deal registered on June 20 provides the buyer exclusive four car parking slots in the residential tower, showed registration documents accessed through email query to Angel One remained unanswered until the time of going to deal is part of the increasing number of luxury transactions being recorded in the suburban localities in addition to South and Central Mumbai. High-value deals in Mumbai's residential market have remained resilient despite elevated interest rates and pricing levels, with demand sustained in specific premium the country's largest and costliest property market, held steady in July as sustained end-user demand and a rising preference for larger, premium homes continued to drive buying interest levels and ongoing infrastructure upgrades across the city have helped maintain market momentum even after price growth and a rise in ready reckoner rates that kicked in from April 1. The Maximum City registered 12,510 property deals in July, maintaining the momentum witnessed a year ago, while stamp duty collections rose 5.4% to Rs 1,121 crore, showed data from the Inspector General of Registration (IGR), Maharashtra.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Punjab and Haryana Bar Council warns advocates against promoting legal services online
The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana (BCPH) has issued a strict warning to advocates and Bar Associations across Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh against promoting legal services through social media, influencer collaborations, or any form of online advertisement. Despite earlier advisories, the council noted a rise in instances where advocates have publicised favourable court orders, shared client photographs in newspapers, or indirectly solicited work through digital platforms. (HT File Photo) The council has clarified that such conduct constitutes a serious violation of professional ethics under Rule 36 of Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules. The council also declared that any breach of Rule 36 would be treated as professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which may result in suspension or cancellation of an advocate's licence. In a detailed communication addressed to the presidents and secretaries of all Bar Associations —including tribunal, tax, and consumer forums —BCPH chairman Rakesh Gupta expressed concern over the growing trend of lawyers using promotional videos, social media content, and even client testimonials to solicit legal work despite previous directives. 'The legal profession is not a trade or commercial venture. It is a noble service rooted in public trust, and commercialisation of legal services severely undermines that trust,' it said. The council cited several judicial pronouncements reinforcing this stance, including a recent July 3, 2024, ruling by the Madras high court, which strongly condemned the advertisement of legal services as contrary to the dignity of the profession. Despite earlier advisories, the council noted a rise in instances where advocates have publicised favourable court orders, shared client photographs in newspapers, or indirectly solicited work through digital platforms. Such practices, the Bar Council said, are in direct violation of Rule 36, which explicitly bars lawyers from engaging in any form of advertisement or self-promotion — including online endorsements. It also forbids personal publicity or associating oneself with any particular cause, organisation, or past designation to gain legal work. The Bar Council further highlighted recent concerns over 'legal influencers' spreading misleading information online, regardless of their credentials. It has also made it clear that office bearers of Bar Associations will be held accountable if such practices continue under their watch. The Bar Council has directed all presidents and secretaries of Bar Associations to immediately disseminate the circular among their members and ensure strict compliance.
