New home construction crisis in Karnataka
Bengaluru: A recent Supreme Court ruling prohibiting the provision of electricity, water, and sewerage connections to buildings lacking Completion and Occupancy Certificates (CC & OC) has created a major crisis for new home construction across Karnataka, particularly in urban areas like Bengaluru.
The decision has left over 3 lakh building owners in limbo, many of whom are either halfway through construction or preparing to begin. The ruling applies to all new buildings and halts utility services unless both certificates are secured — a situation that has now put government departments under pressure to respond quickly.
While existing local municipal laws require CC and OC for final approval, the Electricity Act of 2003 does not mandate these certificates as prerequisites for connection. This legal contradiction has prompted concerns that even sheds, small homes, and village structures might be denied essential services due to technicalities.
High Court advocate Sridhar Prabhu, who has closely studied the issue, has written to the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister, and Law Minister, suggesting that the government issue a revised clarification — allowing utility connections first, with CC/OC to follow.
He noted that the Supreme Court's directive, issued on December 12, 2024, has been in effect for over six months, but the state has failed to respond with actionable solutions. He warns that failure to amend state and municipal laws (BBMP, KMC, BESCOM) could deprive thousands of citizens of basic amenities, despite investing heavily in legal construction.
Prabhu recommends that the government urgently clarify via a simplified order that utility services can be granted prior to the issuance of CC/OC — and that local bodies can take action later if these certificates are not secured.
'How can a structure without electricity, water, or sanitation be certified as livable?' he questioned, urging the state to draft legislative amendments to protect the rights of genuine homeowners while remaining within the framework of the Supreme Court's ruling.
If not resolved immediately, this legal contradiction could halt real estate and housing development across the state — with no clear workaround in sight.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
43 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
* Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling Supreme Court ruling causes confusion over birthright citizenship * Lawyers and advocates field calls from anxious clients * Uncertainty remains on policy across different states By Ted Hesson and Kristina Cooke WASHINGTON, - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. "There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. "Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. WORRIED CALLS Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. "He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. "It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic." Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. "I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. "She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?" This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
Not just ‘socialist, secular', a lot more from Emergency-era 42nd Amendment still part of Constitution
The 42nd was, by far, and still is, the most comprehensive of all the amendments. It not only amended the Preamble, but also 40 Articles and the Seventh Schedule, and added 14 new Articles. Hence, having altered the face of the Constitution of India, it is often referred to as the 'mini' Constitution. It was the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 that added the two words, but it did not just change the Preamble. New Delhi: RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale, speaking at an event to mark 50 years of the Emergency Thursday, called for a discussion and review of the words 'socialist' and 'secular', which were included in the Preamble to the Constitution during the Emergency. Among other things, the 1976 amendment made fundamental rights subservient to the Directive Principles of State Policy. It gave the Parliament unbridled powers to amend any part of the Constitution. It restricted the powers of the Supreme Court and high courts to strike down any laws that violated the Constitution. Through these changes, it destabilised the separation of powers, tilting the scales in favour of the ruling central government. Moreover, the 42nd Amendment added to the Constitution the fundamental duties that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party have often emphasised. In 2019, soon after his victory in the Lok Sabha elections, Modi called for a 'paradigm shift' in India from the centrality of 'fundamental rights' to that of 'fundamental duties'. While subsequent amendments and court judgments overturned the amendments introduced by Indira Gandhi, other changes, including the fundamental duties and the changes made to the Preamble, despite periodic opposition, seem to have stood the test of time. No political party has ever formalised a bill to bring changes to these provisions. ThePrint explains the changes inserted by the 42nd Amendment, the changes that remain, and the changes that subsequent amendments or judicial pronouncements removed. Fundamental duties The 42nd Amendment inserted the fundamental duties into the Constitution through Article 51-A. The original 1976 amendment included 10 such duties, calling upon citizens to respect the Constitution, the national flag, and the national anthem; to cherish the noble ideals of the freedom struggle; uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India; defend the country and render national service when called; promote harmony and common brotherhood among all the people of India; preserve the rich heritage of the composite culture of the nation; protect the natural environment and have compassion for living creatures; develop scientific temper, humanism, and spirit of inquiry and reform; safeguard public property and abjure violence; strive for excellence in all individual and collective activity. Atal Bihari Vajpayee added to these fundamental duties in 2002 through the 86th Amendment to the Constitution, calling upon parents and guardians to 'provide opportunities for the education of his child, or as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years'. The Swaran Singh Committee recommended that the fundamental duties, in nature, be made obligatory, suggesting a law to provide for the imposition of a penalty or punishment for non-compliance. However, the 10 fundamental duties eventually included in the Constitution were a modified form of the committee recommendations. Also Read: BJP has learned to exploit web of power relations created by India's Constitution Ones that remained The 42nd Amendment introduced changes to the Seventh Schedule, which deals with the division of the crucial lawmaking powers between the Centre and the states. It transferred five subjects—education, forests, weights and measures, protection of wild animals and birds, and administration of justice—from the state list to the concurrent list. A new entry, 20A, was also added to the Concurrent list, adding population control and family planning as a subject. Both Parliament and state governments can enact laws on the subjects listed under the concurrent list. However, according to Article 254, if there is a conflict between laws, the central law overrides the state law. The 42nd Amendment also introduced Articles 323A and 323B to the Constitution, establishing the tribunals. Article 323A pertains to administrative tribunals that look into disputes or complaints concerning recruitment or conditions of service of people appointed to government posts or public services. Article 323B is about the establishment of the other tribunals by the Parliament or the state legislatures on assessment or collection of any tax, labour disputes, land reforms, and elections, among other matters. The Constitution has retained the provisions related to the tribunals. Additionally, the 1976 amendment added Articles 39A (equal justice and free legal aid), 43A (participation of workers in the management of industries), 48A (protection and improvement of the environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife), and 39(f) (protection of children and youth). All of these provisions have also remained in the Constitution. Besides these, the 42nd Amendment made changes to Articles 81 and 82 of the Constitution, effectively freezing the number and boundaries of parliamentary constituencies– or the delimitation exercise— based on the 1971 Census until the publication of the post-2000 Census. In 2001, the 84th Amendment to the Constitution extended the deadline from 2000 to 2026. Ones that had to go Morarji Desai became the first non-Congress Prime Minister in India after the 1975 Emergency when the Janata Party assumed power. The Indira Gandhi government had to go, and so did many of the amendments it had introduced through the 42nd Amendment. The 42nd Amendment restricted the powers of the high courts, allowing them to consider only the constitutional validity of state laws, and gave exclusive power to the Supreme Court to consider the constitutional validity of central laws. It also added a provision requiring a minimum of seven judges to consider and a two-thirds majority of them to declare a law unconstitutional. The Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act 1977, however, removed these restrictions on the judiciary. The 42nd Amendment introduced a provision for Parliament to enact specific laws against anti-national activities and anti-national associations. However, the 43rd Amendment criticised the 'sweeping nature' of the powers and how open they were to 'abuse', leading to the deletion of the provision. The statement of objects and reasons of the 44th Amendment cites one of the primary objectives of the bill as providing safeguards to recent experiences that showed a 'transient majority' was capable of taking away fundamental rights. The 44th Amendment removed 'internal disturbance' as a ground for the proclamation of a national Emergency—the provision India Gandhi used. Instead, it included 'armed rebellion' as a ground for declaring an Emergency. The 42nd Amendment also increased the term of the Lok Sabha and the legislative assemblies from five to six years. However, the 44th Amendment restored their term to five years. Before the 44th amendment, Article 359 allowed the suspension of fundamental rights and their enforcement during an Emergency. However, the 44th Amendment reined in this power, asserting that even during an Emergency, the government could not suspend the rights in Articles 20 (protection in respect of conviction for offences) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty). Additionally, while Article 358 allowed the suspension of Article 19 during any national Emergency, the 44th Amendment inserted a safeguard—the government could suspend the right only when an Emergency was declared on the basis that 'war' or 'external aggression' threatened the security of India. Also Read: Is UCC a state issue or a national one? Uttarakhand vs the Constitution Minerva Mills case The changes made by the 42nd Amendment but not undone by subsequent amendments bore the brunt of a landmark Supreme Court judgment in what was popularly known as the Minerva Mills case. In the early 1970s, the Congress government nationalised Minerva Mills, a textile mill based in Karnataka, claiming that management of the mill affairs was highly detrimental to the public interest. Shareholders and creditors of the mills then approached the Supreme Court, challenging Congress's move. While the issues at the centre of their petitions were the government's nationalisation power and the right to property, it was the legendary jurist and lawyer Nani Palkhivala who decided to use the case to challenge Indira Gandhi's amendments. The key issues involved the amended Article 31C, giving the Directive Principles of State Policy primacy over the Fundamental Rights enshrined under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 19 (protection of certain rights, including freedom of speech and expression) of the Constitution. It meant that any laws made to give effect to any of the Directive Principles of State Policy could not be struck down by a court if they violated the right to equality or the freedom of speech and expression or other rights under Article 19. The 42nd Amendment also tweaked Article 368, which pertains to parliamentary powers to amend the Constitution. It provided the Parliament with unlimited powers to amend the Constitution. Meanwhile, it took away court powers to review the amendments. With the amendment to Article 368, the Congress government attempted to undo the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment, which laid down the basic structure doctrine, holding that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by the Parliament through amendments. However, the Supreme Court, through the Minerva Mills verdict, struck down these amendments, which the Indira Gandhi government introduced during the Emergency. The seeds At a time, the government was operationalising the Emergency, the Sardar Swaran Singh Committee constituted in 1976 sowed the seeds for the 42nd Amendment. Appointed by then Congress President D.K. Barooah, Sardar Swaran Singh, the then external affairs minister, headed the 12-member committee. The committee report, while giving a plethora of recommendations, said that while the Constitution functioned without any serious impediment, the interpretation of some of its provisions threw up difficulties—'more particularly when they concern the right of Parliament to be the most authentic and effective instrument to give expression and content to the sovereign will of the people'. However, there were warning signs about the extent of the changes suggested. Renowned lawyer Nani Palkhivala had warned that the committee report 'will in reality change the basic structure of our Constitution'. In an article published in the 4 July 1976 edition of the Illustrated Weekly of India, Palkhivala lamented that 'our monumental apathy and fatalism are such that the proposals are less discussed in public and private than the vagaries of the monsoon or the availability of onions'. On 1 September, 1976, the Indira Gandhi government introduced the amendment bill in the Lok Sabha, incorporating several of the changes suggested by the Swaran Singh Committee. In her speech in the Lok Sabha, the then prime minister asserted that the purpose of the bill was 'to remedy the anomalies that have long been noticed, and to overcome obstacles put up by economic and political vested interests'. The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha then passed the bill, which received the President's assent on 18 December 1976. (Edited by Madhurita Goswami) Also Read: Tharoor calls Bhagwat's embrace of Constitution 'triumph', Sibal warns against taking it at face value
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Trump slams $30 billion Iran deal report as 'sick hoax' while supreme court hands him sweeping powers
It was a Friday of fire for Donald Trump, first came explosive headlines accusing him of planning a $30 billion civil nuclear deal with Iran, and then came a Supreme Court ruling handing him a game-changing expansion of presidential power. And, true to form, Trump was not in the mood for calm responses. Donald Trump demands prosecution over Iran Intel leak | Credit: X Trump explodes over 'ridiculous' $30 billion Iran deal report US media outlet CNN claimed that Trump's administration was considering offering Iran up to $30 billion in economic aid to develop a non-military nuclear programme, in exchange for halting uranium enrichment. That would be a massive pivot for the former president, who famously torched Obama's Iran nuclear deal back in 2018. But Trump is having none of it. Taking to Truth Social in his signature all-caps fury, the former president blasted the reports as 'FAKE NEWS' and 'just another HOAX.' He questioned which so-called journalist was behind the claim and doubled down on calling the media 'sick' for pushing what he said is a fabricated narrative. US President Donald Trump | Credit: X Sources claim the alleged deal included help from regional players to build nuclear facilities, but Trump insisted he had 'never heard' of such a plan. If true, the pivot would be monumental, coming just days after US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and a surprise ceasefire deal brokered by Trump amid heightened Middle East tensions. Supreme court gives Trump a legal superpower While Trump was on the warpath online, the US Supreme Court handed him what he called a 'big, amazing decision' in his favour. The justices ruled that lower courts would face more limitations when blocking executive orders, a legal shift that significantly strengthens Trump's authority. Calling it a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' Trump beamed at reporters from the White House podium. Legal experts now say this ruling could allow Trump to push through key elements of his second-term agenda with fewer judicial roadblocks. Donald Trump demands prosecution over Iran Intel leak | Credit: X Birthright citizenship: Next battle incoming? One of the first big policy moves expected is an attack on birthright citizenship. Trump's controversial executive order ending automatic citizenship for all babies born on US soil is now set to go into effect within a month. While the Supreme Court has not fully shut the door on legal challenges, it has given Trump a crucial head start.
