&w=3840&q=100)
Maharashtra govt tables bill to amend slum act, enable SRA to recover dues
The bill seeks to amend the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. It also seeks to treat unpaid rent to slum dwellers as arrears of land revenue, thereby empowering the SRA to initiate recovery proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLRC). "The SRA hopes that the amendments will help fast-track its projects and also ensure slum dwellers are not left in the lurch without their rightful rent," an official said.
As per the proposed amendment, if a defaulting builder lacks sufficient company assets to clear the dues, the liability can extend to the personal property of its directors or partners. Currently, the SRA can issue stop-work notices or deny new permissions to defaulter developer. Officials, however, say that even as the stop work notice is issued, slum dwellers are left in lurch with no rent and the lack of stronger punitive measures lead to widespread non-payment of rent, which is why amendment is necessary. The bill also seeks to reduce the window for dissenting slum dwellers to join the SRA schemes - from 120 days to 60 days - once a majority (over 50 per cent) has consented to a redevelopment plan.
After the 60-day period, those who do not join the scheme risk losing their claim to on-site rehabilitation and may only be considered for relocation elsewhere, subject to availability. Another provision allows land under slum redevelopment to be handed over to government agencies like MMRDA, MHADA, MSRDC and CIDCO within 30 days of issuance of a letter of intent, enabling faster execution of public sector-led projects.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
14 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Reuters' X account block: what just happened?
Here's the gist: First, Reuters' X account was blocked. Then, it got unblocked. X says it withheld the account in response to a legal demand from the Indian government. The Indian government denied the claim. And then X jumps in, saying India actually ordered a ban on over 2,300 accounts, including Reuters. Let's dig into the details. On July 5th, international news agency Reuters had its X accounts @Reuters and @ReutersWorld, blocked in India. A message on X said the accounts were withheld 'in response to a legal demand.' And it wasn't just Reuters. The X accounts of Chinese newspaper Global Times and Turkish public broadcaster TRT World were also withheld in India. When questions started surfacing, a spokesperson from Press Information Bureau told Reuters that no Indian agency had asked for their account to be withheld and added that officials were working with X to resolve the problem. And just 24 hours later, the accounts were restored. Meanwhile, X In a post on its Global Government Affairs handle, stated: On July 3, 2025, the Indian government ordered X to block 2,355 accounts in India, including international news outlets like @Reuters and @ReutersWorld, under Section 69A of the IT Act. Non-compliance risked criminal liability. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology demanded immediate action- within one hour- without providing justification, and required the accounts to remain blocked until further notice. After public outcry, the government requested X to unblock @Reuters and @ReutersWorld. We are deeply concerned about ongoing press censorship in India due to these blocking orders. What is the Act all about? The Section 69A of the IT Act empowers the government to restrict access to any content in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of the country, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or for public order. According to a PTI report, an unnamed government source said the demand to block Reuters' X account came during Operation Sindoor, and X must have acted on it only now. Credit: Camera: Johan Sathya Das, Kailas Krishna Producer: Athira Madhav
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
SC refuses to stay Bihar voter list revision, urges ECI to allow Aadhaar
The Supreme Court on Thursday urged the Election Commission of India (ECI) to consider accepting Aadhaar cards, ration cards, and EPIC (electoral photo identity) cards as valid documents to prove voter identity in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, Bar and Bench reported. A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi declined to stay the revision process but questioned the ECI's decision to exclude Aadhaar as identity proof. Although no interim relief was granted, the apex court made it clear that if the ECI chooses not to accept Aadhaar, EPIC, or ration cards, it must explain the reasons. 'After going through the documents, ECI has pointed out that the list of documents for verification of voters include 11 documents and is not exhaustive. Thus, in our opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if Aadhaar card, EPIC card and ration card be included. It is for the ECI to still decide whether it wants to take the documents or not. If it does not take the documents, (it has to) give reasons for the same and the same shall satisfy the petitioners,' the top court said. Petitions challenge ECI's directive The top court was hearing petitions filed by opposition leaders and NGOs challenging the ECI's June 24 directive initiating the SIR ahead of the Bihar Assembly elections in November. It noted the tight timeline and issued a notice to the ECI, seeking its reply by July 21. Debate on Aadhaar's validity as ID proof The court also observed that Aadhaar is widely accepted for identity verification and should be included. 'We feel since Aadhaar has been taken as a solid proof for inclusion in electoral rolls as per Section 23, it should be included,' Justice Bagchi said, as quoted by the report. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, argued, 'I am injuncted to use Aadhaar (for proving) citizenship or domicile proof as per the Act.' The June 24 ECI order asks voters not listed in the 2003 roll to submit citizenship documents. Those born after December 2004 must also provide parental proof of citizenship. Petitioners argue the rules could disenfranchise many due to lack of proper documentation in Bihar.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 hours ago
- Business Standard
Custodial torture cannot be considered police duty: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that police officers accused of custodial torture cannot be exonerated solely due to the absence of government sanction, reported Bar and Bench. Justice Kauser Edappagath made these remarks while hearing a revision petition filed by a woman named Sudha, who had previously worked as a housemaid. She was accused by her employers of stealing gold sovereigns and was subsequently taken to the police station, where she alleged she was subjected to custodial torture, the report added. She was beaten and tortured by police officers for over three hours before her employers admitted the missing gold had been found at home. Sudha later filed a private complaint before a Magistrate Court, which found enough grounds to proceed against both the employers and the police under various provisions of the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, a sessions court discharged all the accused—citing lack of prima facie evidence against the employers and absence of prior sanction to prosecute the police—prompting Sudha to challenge the decision in the High Court through a revision petition. Custodial torture not protected under CrPC The High Court noted that custodial torture cannot be considered part of the official duties of the police. Therefore, it should not be shielded by legal provisions requiring prior government sanction for prosecution. 'The act of custodial torture inflicted by a police officer without justification on an arrestee cannot be shielded under the protective mantle of Section 197 of CrPC,' the judgment stated. 'It can never be said that a police officer acts or purports to act in discharge of his official duty when he inflicts custodial torture on an arrestee.' Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) mandates prior government approval before prosecuting public servants for actions committed in the course of their official duties. 'Worst kind of violence' The court also noted that custodial torture represents a grave violation in any society governed by the rule of law. Highlighting the broader implications, the judgment stated: "The courts must not lose sight of the fact that custodial torture is perhaps one of the worst kinds of crime in a civilised society, governed by the rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilised society. Police excesses and the maltreatment of detainees/undertrial prisoners or suspects tarnish the image of any civilised nation and encourage the men in 'Khaki' to consider themselves to be above the law and sometimes even to become law unto themselves," as quoted by Bar and Bench. It further urged the court to deal with such in a realistic manner and with the sensitivity that they deserve. "Otherwise, the common man may lose faith in the judiciary itself," it noted. Normalisation of torture within police forces A recent study revealed that a significant proportion of police personnel in India view the use of physical force during interrogation as justified. According to the Status of Policing in India Report 2025 by Common Cause and Lokniti-CSDS, over half of police personnel surveyed believe it is important to use tough methods, including violence, to instil fear among criminals. Around 30 per cent justify the use of third-degree torture in serious cases. It also highlighted that 22 per cent of police personnel believe that killing 'dangerous criminals' is better than giving them a legal trial. Many officers surveyed held the view that methods such as beatings were effective in extracting confessions or maintaining order. The study also indicated that a considerable number of officers did not see the use of torture as a violation of human rights.
