Telangana HC slams slow probe, delayed relief in Sigachi factory fire that killed 50 workers
A bench comprising Chief Justice AK Singh and Justice Mohd Mohiuddin was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by retired scientist Dr K Babu Rao, who questioned the progress of the probe, absence of safety protocols at the factory and delay in compensating the affected families.
The counsel representing the petitioner pointed out that most workers at the Sigachi unit were migrants employed on a contract basis and not regular employees. The PIL urged the court to ensure that compensation is extended to all workers, regardless of their employment status, and that the state holds the factory management accountable.
During the hearing, the bench sought details from the government on the status of the FIR, provisions invoked under the law and progress made in the investigation. Chief Justice Singh asked whether any arrests had been made in connection with the incident. The Government Pleader for the Home Department responded that no arrests had taken place so far.
The court also asked the state to provide a breakdown of workers present on the day of the accident, distinguishing between permanent, casual, and daily wage workers, and the legal provisions under which the company might be held liable. It directed that details of compensation disbursed be included in the state's counter-affidavit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
SC reserves verdict on Telangana's domicile rule for medical admissions
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its verdict on pleas including one of the Telangana government against an order that struck down its domicile rule for admissions in medical colleges in the state. The state government through the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, amended in 2024, entitled only those students, who have studied for last four years up to Class 12 in the state, to admissions in the medical and dental colleges under the state quota. The Telangana High Court held that the state's permanent residents cannot be denied benefits of admissions in the medical colleges only because they lived outside the state for sometime. On Tuesday, a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard detailed arguments from both sides, including the Telangana government's counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi. Defending the state's four-year domicile criterion, Singhvi said once a domicile rule is established, "a threshold becomes inevitable". He said Telangana relied on a government order backed by a presidential order and, moreover, only the state government, not courts, could define "permanent residence". The CJI referred to the practical consequences of the rule, illustrating if "a Telangana judge is transferred to Bihar and his son studies in classes 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Bihar then the boy is disentitled from getting admissions in his home state". "Take a student born and raised in Telangana but moves away for just classes 10 and 11 and say, to Kota for coaching. Or an IAS officer from Telangana posted in Delhi, whose child studies outside the state for two years. Should such children be disqualified?" the CJI asked. Justice Chandran weighed in, "If a person remains idle in Telangana for four years, they qualify. But someone who leaves to study doesn't. Isn't that an anomaly?" Singhvi said the high court created the term "permanent resident," which only the state has the authority to define. The top court on September 20 last year stayed the high court order directing permanent residents or those domiciled in the state couldn't be denied the benefit of admission in the medical colleges only because they remained outside Telangana for sometime for their studies or residence. The state government, however, agreed to grant a one-time exception to 135 students, who had moved the high court, in admissions in the medical and dental colleges in 2024. The state's appeal argued that the high court erroneously held Rule 3(a) of the amended Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, to be interpreted to mean the respondents (candidates) were eligible to admission in the medical colleges in Telangana. The rule mandated four consecutive years of study in the state for students seeking admission in Telangana medical colleges before qualifying the exam. The state's plea argued such an order by the high court overlooked the fact that Telangana possesses the legislative competence to determine various requirements, including domicile, permanent resident status, etc. The high court's judgement, it said, mandates the state to prepare new rules for admission, which was a time-intensive process. "After framing the rules students have to apply and collect the requisite certificates from authorities concerned. Each certificate submitted by the student needs to be verified by the Health University. Whereas the present rule prescribes that the students can produce their educational certificate without approaching any office or authority. If the judgement of the high court is implemented, it will result in a huge delay in the allotment of seats to MBBS and BDS students," the plea added. PTI>
United News of India
6 hours ago
- United News of India
SC refers plea seeking lifetime ban on convicted MPs/MLAs to CJI
New Delhi, Aug 5 (UNI) The Supreme Court today took note of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking permanent disqualification of Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) upon conviction in criminal cases, and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai for listing before an appropriate larger Bench. The PIL, filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, challenges the constitutional validity of provisions under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which currently bar convicted legislators from contesting elections only for six years after completing their sentence. Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria mentioned the matter before a Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, urging for an early hearing. 'This is a matter of grave concern. Orders have been passed from time to time. The February 10 order requires that it be listed before a three-judge bench,' Hansaria submitted. The Bench acknowledged the urgency and referred to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the February 10, 2025 order passed by a Bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta, directing that the matter be placed before the CJI for further directions. The plea is now expected to be heard finally on October 20, subject to the CJI's listing. In February 2025, the Union government opposed the plea, arguing that a lifetime disqualification of elected representatives was a matter purely within the domain of Parliament and not for the judiciary to decide. The Centre, through the Legislative Department, maintained that while the court may declare a provision unconstitutional under its power of judicial review, it cannot rewrite legislation to substitute "lifetime" for "six years" as suggested by the petitioner. 'The relief sought effectively asks the Court to read 'lifetime' instead of 'six years' in all sub-sections of Section 8. This is unknown to judicial review and constitutional law,' the Centre submitted. The government emphasized that Parliament has the discretion to decide what duration of disqualification is appropriate, keeping in view principles of proportionality and reasonableness. 'It is one thing to say that Parliament has the power to impose a lifetime ban, and another to say that it must necessarily exercise that power in all cases,' it said. The Centre further argued that the PIL failed to distinguish between the basis for disqualification (i.e., conviction) and the effect of disqualification (i.e., its duration). It noted that Indian penal statutes often impose time-bound restrictions on rights and freedoms post-conviction, and that extending these indefinitely would be unduly harsh and disproportionate. 'At the end of the prescribed time, penalties cease to operate automatically. Deterrence is ensured, while undue harshness is avoided,' the government stated. It also reiterated that any direction to Parliament on how to draft or amend laws would be beyond the constitutional powers of the judiciary. The PIL raises a larger question regarding the criminalisation of politics, an issue repeatedly flagged by the Supreme Court in the past. The Court has, over the years, issued directions for the expeditious trial of criminal cases against lawmakers and for greater transparency in candidate disclosures. As the matter now heads to a larger Bench, the decision could have far-reaching implications for electoral reforms, legislative accountability, and the scope of judicial intervention in matters of legislative policy. UNI SNG AAB
Economic Times
11 hours ago
- Economic Times
SC reserves verdict on Telangana's domicile rule for medical admissions
Synopsis The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on the Telangana domicile rule for medical college admissions, which prioritizes students who studied in the state for the four years leading up to Class 12. The Telangana High Court previously struck down the rule, arguing it unfairly denies opportunities to permanent residents who studied elsewhere. Agencies Supreme Court The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its verdict on pleas including one of the Telangana government against an order that struck down its domicile rule for admissions in medical colleges in the state. The state government through the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, amended in 2024, entitled only those students, who have studied for last four years up to Class 12 in the state, to admissions in the medical and dental colleges under the state quota. The Telangana High Court held that the state's permanent residents cannot be denied benefits of admissions in the medical colleges only because they lived outside the state for sometime. On Tuesday, a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard detailed arguments from both sides, including the Telangana government's counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi. Defending the state's four-year domicile criterion, Singhvi said once a domicile rule is established, "a threshold becomes inevitable". He said Telangana relied on a government order backed by a presidential order and, moreover, only the state government, not courts, could define "permanent residence". The CJI referred to the practical consequences of the rule, illustrating if "a Telangana judge is transferred to Bihar and his son studies in classes 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Bihar then the boy is disentitled from getting admissions in his home state". "Take a student born and raised in Telangana but moves away for just classes 10 and 11 and say, to Kota for coaching. Or an IAS officer from Telangana posted in Delhi, whose child studies outside the state for two years. Should such children be disqualified?" the CJI asked. Justice Chandran weighed in, "If a person remains idle in Telangana for four years, they qualify. But someone who leaves to study doesn't. Isn't that an anomaly?" Singhvi said the high court created the term "permanent resident," which only the state has the authority to define. The top court on September 20 last year stayed the high court order directing permanent residents or those domiciled in the state couldn't be denied the benefit of admission in the medical colleges only because they remained outside Telangana for sometime for their studies or residence. The state government, however, agreed to grant a one-time exception to 135 students, who had moved the high court, in admissions in the medical and dental colleges in 2024. The state's appeal argued that the high court erroneously held Rule 3(a) of the amended Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, to be interpreted to mean the respondents (candidates) were eligible to admission in the medical colleges in Telangana. The rule mandated four consecutive years of study in the state for students seeking admission in Telangana medical colleges before qualifying the exam. The state's plea argued such an order by the high court overlooked the fact that Telangana possesses the legislative competence to determine various requirements, including domicile, permanent resident status, etc. The high court's judgement, it said, mandates the state to prepare new rules for admission, which was a time-intensive process. "After framing the rules students have to apply and collect the requisite certificates from authorities concerned. Each certificate submitted by the student needs to be verified by the Health University. Whereas the present rule prescribes that the students can produce their educational certificate without approaching any office or authority. If the judgement of the high court is implemented, it will result in a huge delay in the allotment of seats to MBBS and BDS students," the plea added.
