Free legal aid clinic for defence personnel inaugurated in Hyderabad under Veer Parivar scheme
The initiative, launched nationwide by NALSA under Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant, offers free legal aid to defence personnel, paramilitary forces, ex-servicemen and their families.
Justice Koshy said those stationed at remote borders often face legal hurdles at home, and these clinics would help bridge the gap. Clinics will operate on the first and fourth Saturdays, staffed by a panel lawyer and paralegal volunteer.
IPS officer Ravi Gupta called the initiative a major step in welfare support. Awareness campaigns and clinics in all district headquarters are also planned.
Colonel P Ramesh Kumar and TSLSA officials attended.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Are Rohingya people in India refugees or illegal migrants? Supreme Court to decide
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will examine whether Rohingyas staying in the country were refugees or illegal migrants before going ahead with hearing a batch of petitions filed on their behalf challenging their deportation and seeking basic amenities during their stay in refugee camps. IA Rohingya woman holds her baby boy's hand at a refugee camp in Bangladesh. (AP FILE/REPRESENTATIVE IMAGE) 'The first major issue is whether they are refugees or illegal migrants. Rest is consequential,' a bench of justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh said. 'If they are refugees, they are entitled to certain protections under law. If not, they are illegal migrants and should be deported back to their country.' The four questions framed by the court in the Rohingya batch of cases included, 'whether Rohingya entrants are entitled to be declared as refugees and if so, what protection emanates from the rights they are entitled to; whether Rohingyas are illegal entrants and if government of India and states are obligated to deport them in accordance with law.' There were two consequential issues also that were framed by the court. These were: 'Even if Rohingya entrants are held to be illegal entrants, can they be detained indefinitely or they are entitled to be released on bail subject to conditions.' Lastly, it said, 'Whether Rohingya entrants who are not detained but living in refugee camps have been provided with basic amenities like drinking water, sanitation, education, etc.' The court had taken up 22 cases involving the deportation of Rohingya who were either in detention camps or claimed refugee status. Among these, the bench sought to segregate cases related to Rohingya migrants as a single batch. The other cases involving other foreigners were directed to be grouped into a separate batch to be handled separately. As the batch of cases got listed together, the bench expressed a practical difficulty in proceeding with the hearing, as some petitions spoke about the deportation of foreigners in general, while others specifically related to the condition of foreigners in detention camps. Advocate Kanu Agarwal, appearing for the central government, submitted a list of cases pertaining to Rohingya people and urged the court to decide this batch of cases first. The non-Rohingya matters, he added, seek interpretation of the Foreigners Act. The bench agreed, saying, 'The issues that arise in the other batch of cases will be determined separately on another date.' Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who was appearing in multiple petitions, said that the genesis of these cases began with cases filed by Rohingya people in 2013. He said 15 out of the batch of 22 cases pertained to Rohingya refugees and the need to provide them facilities in their camps on par with refugees recognised under the UN Convention on Refugees. India is not a signatory to this convention and has not considered granting refugee status to them. Senior advocates Ashwani Kumar and Colin Gonsalves, appearing in other matters, pointed out that the Rohingya people who hail from Myanmar have fled to India seeking asylum as they were being persecuted in their country. Gonsalves further referred to a case filed by the wife of a foreigner facing detention in Assam which concern Rohingya and non-Rohingya foreigners. In that case, Gonsalves showed orders passed by the court to expedite the deportation process despite the fact that Myanmar was unwilling to take these persons back. In May this year, while hearing an application filed by Rohingya people in Delhi, the top court refused to adopt a piecemeal approach in deciding individual cases and called for all cases pending on the issue to be listed together. The Centre has been opposing the maintainability of these petitions, citing the Supreme Court's order passed in April 2021. This order permits the Centre to take deportation measures as required under law and held that while the right to life and liberty is available to even non-citizens, the right not to be deported is ancillary but concomitant to the right to reside or settle in any part of India, which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e) only to citizens.
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Will first hear on maintainability issue on August 6 on pleas seeking review of PMLA verdict: SC
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it would first hear arguments on August 6 on the issue of maintainability of the petitions seeking a review of its July 2022 verdict that upheld the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) powers to arrest, attach properties allegedly involved in money laundering, and carry out search and seizure under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). A three-judge bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh noted that the ED has proposed three preliminary issues that primarily deal with the question of the review petitions' maintainability. The bench said the review petitioners have proposed 13 questions for its consideration. It noted the submissions of the questions raised by both parties and fixed the matter for further hearing on August 6. 'Since the proposed issues are arising in the review proceedings, we propose to first hear the parties on the issue of maintainability of the review petitions, followed by a hearing on the questions proposed to be raised on behalf of the review petitioners. Eventually, the questions that would finally arise for consideration will also be determined by us if we hold that the review petitions are maintainable,' the bench observed. The Supreme Court had on 4 May 2025 reconstituted a new bench to hear a batch of review petitions filed against the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (VMC) judgment, which upheld certain provisions of the PMLA. The VMC judgment was delivered on 27 July 2022 by a three-judge bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar, and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar (all now retired). It upheld certain provisions of the PMLA. 'Sections 5, 8 (4), 15, 17 and 19 of PMLA, relating to the Directorate's power of attachment, search and seizure, and arrest is upheld,' the top court had said.
New Indian Express
4 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Supreme Court to hear cases on Rohingya status, detention
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear cases related to Rohingyas as to whether they are refugees or illegal entrants, and whether they can be detained indefinitely in India. The apex court, which was hearing a batch of petitions on the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees in the country, identified the main issues and decided to segregate them for adjudication later. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, while recording the submissions of the petitioners and others, observed that once the key issues are decided, other factors might be consequential. The Court segregated the cases for convenience and passed an order to hear the matter based on these issues. 'Are Rohingyas entitled to be declared as refugees, and if so, what protections or rights are they entitled to? If they are not refugees but illegal entrants, are the Union government's actions in deporting them justified? Even if they are held to be illegal entrants, can they be detained indefinitely, or are they entitled to be released on bail under conditions the Court deem fit to be imposed? Whether the Rohingyas who are not detained and living in refugee camps, have been provided basic amenities such as sanitation, drinking water, and education, etc. (in conformity with Article 21)?' The Court also said it would examine whether, if the Rohingyas are deemed illegal entrants, the Government of India and the States are obligated to deport them in accordance with the law. It, however, clarified that the issues that arose in Batch II will be dealt with separately by the Supreme Court. The apex court, however, did not fix any particular date to hear the issues.
