Supreme Court directs NHAI to take effective steps to curb unauthorised occupation of highways
The Supreme Court also directed the Centre to give wide publicity to the availability of 'Rajmargyatra' mobile application on print, electronic, as well as social media. The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has introduced the 'Rajmargyatra' mobile application which aims to provide comprehensive information and efficient complaint redressal for national highway users.
A Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih said information about the availability of the mobile application shall be displayed prominently at toll and food plazas on highways.
'We direct the Joint Secretary [Highways] to file on record the details of various categories of complaints lodged on the 'Rajmargyatra' mobile application, including complaints regarding unauthorised occupation of highway lands and action taken thereon.
'We further direct NHAI to report compliance regarding the creation of grievance redressal portal for reporting complaints relating to unauthorised occupation of highways. The compliance affidavits shall be filed within three months,' the Bench said.
The Supreme Court also directed the highway administration to issue a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) regarding the constitution of teams for inspection of the national highways, including collection of data regarding unauthorised occupation of highway lands.
"We direct the Union of India to constitute surveillance teams consisting of State police or other forces. The duty of the surveillance teams will be to do patrolling regularly and punctually. Even this compliance shall be reported within a period of three months.
"We direct the highway administration and the concerned respondents who are members of the same to take into consideration the suggestions submitted by the amicus curiae on October 5, 2024 and take steps to implement the said suggestions," the Bench said while posting the matter for compliance on September 15.
The Supreme Court was hearing a PIL filed by a person named Gyan Prakash whereby he sought various directions for implementation of provisions of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 and removal of encroachments from highways. Advocate Swati Ghildiyal was appointed amicus curiae by the Supreme Court for assisting in the matter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
26 minutes ago
- The Hindu
185 displaced persons granted Indian citizenship under CAA in Gujarat
After years of uncertainty, 185 displaced persons from Pakistan were granted Indian citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019. The recipients, many of whom have been residing in Gujarat's Rajkot, Morbi, and Kutch districts for several years, were handed over citizenship documents at an event in Rajkot. 'You are now citizens of the great nation - India,' Gujarat Minister of State for Home Affairs Harsh Sanghavi told the gathering. The announcement was met with chants of 'Bharat mata ki jai (Victory to mother India)' from the audience, with several recipients becoming emotional as they received their certificates. The beneficiaries included men, women, and children who migrated from Pakistan citing religious persecution and lack of security. Many belong to Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist communities - groups recognised under the CAA as eligible for naturalisation. Among those granted citizenship was a young woman doctor who had completed her medical education in Pakistan. 'Just as she was about to begin her career, her family was forced to flee the country,' Mr. Sanghavi said. 'After years of waiting in India without legal status, she now holds official Indian citizenship,' he said. Mr. Sanghavi added that she was just one example of the many lives impacted by the law. Other beneficiaries included daily wage earners, homemakers, and elderly persons who had lived without formal citizenship for several years. Mr. Sanghavi said the Government of India is committed to supporting those who have suffered due to religious discrimination in neighbouring countries. 'This is not just the distribution of a certificate - it is the return of dignity, safety, and rights,' he said. He added that India, guided by the principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family), respects all religions and safeguards the rights of the vulnerable. He credited Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah for the implementation of the CAA, calling it a step that has saved lives and restored identity to many. Mr. Sanghavi also directed local officials to facilitate the integration of the new citizens into government systems and ensure their access to schemes related to education, healthcare, housing, and livelihood. 'From today, your children will grow up with access to the same opportunities as any other Indian citizen,' he told them. Several beneficiaries expressed gratitude after receiving their citizenship certificates. 'From today, I am part of India. I feel safe. I feel recognised,' said Asha Ben Becharbhai, a resident of Rajkot. Bhavna Ben Maheshwari, who has lived in Rajkot for the past 10 years and has been working for the past eight, said, 'Now I can say without hesitation - I am an Indian citizen. I thank the government for supporting us.'
The Hindu
26 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Govt. silent on reforms to address judicial misconduct
At a time when the government is seeking to remove Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma after burnt currency notes were found at his official residence in Delhi this March, the Law Minister, while speaking in Parliament, did not specify the government's stance on legislative reforms regarding the Supreme Court's in-house procedure to address judicial misconduct. Responding to a question in Lok Sabha whether reforms were required in the top court's procedure, Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal only described the existing rules and regulations for removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts and did not speak on the need for reforms. 'Article 124 (4) provides that a judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity,' he said. 'For Judges of the High Court, Article 217(1)(b) stipulates that 'A Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner provided for in clause (4) of Article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court,' the Minister said in a written reply in the House. The Minister described the procedure adopted by Parliament for the removal of a judge but skipped the reply to a question about steps being taken on reforms, and if there has been any consultation with experts on this. Opposition parties and civil rights groups have, in the past, raised the demand for judicial accountability. Apart from Justice Varma's case, questions on judicial integrity were raised by the Opposition when Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Yadav, last December, made veiled attacks on the Muslim community while speaking about Uniform Civil Code at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event. The judge had said that the country would run as per the wishes of the 'majority'. The Opposition, across party lines, had objected to the speech and had demanded his removal. In the ongoing monsoon session of Parliament, CPI(M) MP John Brittas said that the integrity and transparency of the judiciary needed to be maintained. 'We are for the removal of Justice Varma. We have already expressed our desire to be part of that process,' he said.
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Courts can allow changes in criminal complaints if no prejudice caused: SC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday said procedure was only a "handmaiden and not a mistress of justice' and held courts can allow amendment in criminal complaints if changes do not cause any prejudice to the accused in trial. Courts can allow changes in criminal complaints if no prejudice caused: SC A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan further observed procedural law was meant to aid justice, not hinder it. The top court's verdict reinforced the principle that procedural technicalities must not override the course of justice and allowed an amendment in a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When a charge is altered, the court said, if there is no prejudice to the accused, the trial can proceed. 'Further, if it is likely to prejudice, the court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial to such a period. Section 217 of the CrPC grants liberty to the prosecutor and the accused to recall witnesses when charges are altered under the conditions prescribed therein. The test of 'prejudice to the accused' is the cardinal factor that needs to be borne in mind,' it added. The court found it appropriate to observe that amendments to complaints were "not alien" to the Code of Criminal Procedure . 'Section 216 of the CrPC deals with the power of court to alter any charge and the concept of prejudice to the accused. No doubt when a charge is altered, what is altered is the legal provision and its application to a certain set of facts. The facts per se may not be altered….,' the bench said. The case at hand stemmed from a complaint that three cheques issued by the respondents, amounting to ₹14 lakh, dishonoured. The complaint alleged the cheques were issued for the purchase of 'Desi Ghee '. However, the complainant later sought to amend the complaint to correct a purported typographical error stating that the goods sold were actually 'milk.' While the trial court allowed the amendment in September 2023, holding no prejudice would be caused as the cross-examination had not yet begun, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed its decision. The high court observed the amendment changed the nature of the complaint and potentially had tax implications under the GST regime. Setting aside the high court verdict, the top court held the amendment was a 'curable irregularity' and that it did not cause any prejudice to the accused. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
