Would you let your kids sleep on floor?: Andhra HC raps officials over poor conditions in hostels
The court, hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Kakinada resident Keethineedi Akhil Sriguru Teja in 2023, criticised the lack of regular inspections by district-level officials and the deplorable conditions in these hostels.
The court questioned how officials could remain unaware of the dire situation in hostels and demanded accountability for the crores of rupees allocated annually for their maintenance. 'Are works being carried out solely for the benefit of contractors?' it enquired.
The bench expressed dismay over the absence of basic facilities like beds, forcing students to sleep on the floor, and rhetorically asked if officials would allow their children to endure such conditions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
Bombay High Court clears MIAL to replace Celebi at Mumbai airport
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday lifted the stay imposed on Adani-backed Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) to replace its ground handling service provider Celebi, a Turkish aviation firm. The court had in May restrained MIAL from finalising tenders to appoint a new ground handling service provider amid Celebi's legal challenge to the revocation of its security clearance by the central government. However, with the Delhi High Court dismissing Celebi's plea on July 7 and upholding the revocation, the Bombay High Court found no further grounds to continue the stay. The decision now paves the way for MIAL to proceed with the appointment of a new operator for ground and bridge handling services at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, where Celebi has handled nearly 70 per cent of operations. The dispute began after the Ministry of Civil Aviation, acting through the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), withdrew Celebi's clearance on May 15, 2025, citing national security grounds. The move came amid mounting diplomatic tensions after Turkey supported Pakistan during hostilities involving Operation Sindoor. At least seven airports in the country cancelled the services of Celebi and its subsidiaries. Celebi challenged the contract cancellations before the high courts of Madras, Bombay, and Gujarat, in addition to contesting the security revocation before the Delhi High Court. The plea in the Gujarat High Court is still pending. In June, the Madras High Court granted interim protection to Celebi Ground Services Chennai under Section 9 (interim protection to parties) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On July 7, the Delhi High Court dismissed Celebi's plea challenging the Indian government's decision to revoke its security clearance. The court stated: 'As per settled law, once national security considerations are found to exist, on the basis of which the security clearance has been cancelled/revoked, it is not for the Court to 'second guess' the same.' Justice Sachin Datta upheld the revocation of Celebi's security clearance by BCAS in the interest of national security. The court further noted the existence of impelling geo-political considerations impinging upon the safety of the country. In its petition to the Delhi High Court, Celebi Airport Services argued that public perception cannot be grounds for revocation of security clearance. The ground handling company also said it had been given no reason or opportunity for a hearing. Further, Celebi contended that the Indian government's decision to revoke its security clearance was 'arbitrary and devoid of specific reasons.'
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Cancel Madurai Adheenam's anticipatory bail: Chennai cyber crime police urge Madras High Court
The cyber crime wing of Greater Chennai City Police has approached the Madras High Court with a plea to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by Chennai Principal District and Sessions Court to Madurai Adheenam Harihara Gnanasambanda Desigar in a case booked against him for allegedly making false statements intended at promoting communal enmity between Hindus and Muslims. The advance bail cancellation plea was listed before Justice M. Nirmal Kumar on Wednesday (July 23, 2025) but could not be taken up for hearing due to paucity of time. In an affidavit filed in support of the plea, Inspector of Police B. Padmakumari said, the pontiff was not cooperating with the investigation and hence the anticipatory bail granted to him, by the sessions court, must be cancelled. The Inspector stated that the pontiff had travelled from Madurai to Chennai by road on May 2 to attend a private event at Kattankulathur. Then, his car had met with a minor accident at Ulundurpet in Kallakurichi district. However, he made public statements and gave an interview to the media insinuating as if an attempt was made to assassinate him and that the assailants were Muslims. In order to prevent communal tensions due to his statements, the police immediately secured CCTV footage from Ulundurpet and it clearly showed that it was a simple car accident caused due to the pontiff's vehicle speeding on the road. Subsequently, the cyber crime wing booked a First Information Report (FIR) against the Adheenam on the basis of a complaint lodged by advocate R. Rajendiran. The FIR was registered under Sections 192 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause rioting), 196(1)(a) (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), 353(1)(b) (statements conducing to public mischief) and 353(2) (making false statements in order to create communal enmity) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on June 24. Subsequently, the police summoned the pontiff for inquiry on June 30. However, he sought 20 days time citing his old age and poor health condition. Thereafter, the police summoned him again on July 5 and this time, he sought permission to appear through video call. But his plea was rejected since the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) does not permit such a facility for police inquiry. On July 17, the sessions court granted advance bail to the Adheenam on being convinced with his counsel Ramaswamy Meyyappan's argument that his client had no intention to instigate communal tensions and that he was merely responding to questions posed by mediapersons. 'The questions were leading and amounted to putting words into the mouth of the petitioner,' the sessions court had observed. Further, taking note that the pontiff was 67 years old and that the BNSS provides for examining individuals aged above 60 years at their place of residence, the sessions court had directed the Chennai cyber crime sleuths to conduct the inquiry at the Adheenam's place of residence. Accordingly, the police had visited the Adheenam's premises at South Avani Moola Street in Madurai on June 20. Claiming that many people gathered at the premises on that day and prevented the police from performing their duty, Ms. Padmakumari said, 'the above circumstances show that the respondent/accused is not willing to cooperate with the investigation and has continuously used one or other evasive tactics. The trial court has not fully appreciated these aspects and erroneously granted anticipatory bail.' The Inspector went on to state: 'Due to these supervening circumstances and the conduct of the respondent/accused, this case deserves immediate cancellation of anticipatory bail as the above facts demonstrate clear abuse of liberty granted to the respondent/accused and poses a serious threat to the administration of justice.'
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘No arrest, only lawful document verification': Odisha Advocate General tells Calcutta HC on migrant detentions
The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday asked the Advocate General of Odisha to submit an affidavit on the alleged detention of Bengali-speaking migrant workers who had travelled to the state for work. The division bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra asked, 'Apprise us whether they were arrested, interrogated, or detained.' The Advocate General of Odisha, appearing virtually, denied any arrest. According to the petitioners' counsel, those detained were allegedly released only after the court intervened. Raghunath Chakraborty, appearing for the petitioners, said, 'The detention was illegal and thus compensation should be provided. Those who have been released have stated that many others like them remain in custody — detained illegally and not produced before a magistrate.' 'There have been no arrests. As per the Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 3, when the citizenship of suspected persons is in doubt, we investigate for lawful verification of documents. People from all over the country come to work here, and lawfully, on suspicion, their documents are verified,' the Odisha Advocate General submitted. Senior counsel Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for the petitioners, argued, 'There must be some grounds. Only on suspicion, they cannot declare someone a foreigner.' After hearing all parties, the court directed the Odisha government to submit its affidavit in opposition by August 20. The petitioners were directed to file replies by August 27, and the matter will be taken up on August 29. The court also directed Advocate General Ashok Kumar Acharya to be present in person for the next hearing. The court is hearing two habeas corpus petitions filed earlier this month against Odisha Police, accusing it of illegally detaining Bengali-speaking migrant workers. One of the petitions was filed by Nasima Mondal, mother of Rakhibul Islam Mondal who is a resident of Hariharpara in Murshidabad and was allegedly detained in Odisha's Jagatsinghpur district. She moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, claiming her son was held for more than 24 hours without being produced before a magistrate in violation of his fundamental rights. According to her petition, police allegedly picked up Rakhibul during an identity verification drive on June 25 and 'ignored valid documents' in his possession — including Aadhaar, voter ID, and ration card. The petitioner alleged he was targeted for speaking Bengali and suspected of being Bangladeshi, without any proper identity checks. Another petition was filed by Rajjak Sheikh, also from Hariharpara, seeking the release of his son, Sainur Islam. He claimed Jagatsinghpur police detained his son during a similar identity verification drive on June 30.
