Latest news with #AGMasih
Indian Express
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Supreme Court to Telangana Speaker: decide on disqualification of BRS MLAs who defected to Congress within 3 months
The Supreme Court Thursday asked the Speaker of the Telangana Assembly to decide petitions seeking the disqualification of 10 Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs who had defected to the ruling Congress expeditiously and not later than three months. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih was hearing petitions filed by BRS leaders who sought a directive to Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar for timely action on disqualification proceedings. The BRS had initially moved the Telangana High Court, where a single-judge bench gave the Speaker four weeks to fix a schedule for hearing the disqualification petitions. On appeal by the Speaker, a division bench on November 22, 2024, set aside the single-judge order and asked the Speaker to decide the petitions in a reasonable time. Setting aside the Telangana High Court division bench's order, the Supreme Court said the very objective of the anti-defection law was to curb the evil of political defections, and the only purpose of entrusting the role of adjudication to the Speaker was to avoid delay and to ensure expeditious decision on disqualification petitions. The bench noted that the Speaker, in his capacity as Tribunal, in deciding disqualification petitions, does not enjoy any 'constitutional immunity'. It asked the Telangana Speaker not to allow the MLAs, against whom disqualification petitions have been filed, to protract the proceedings. The court said an adverse inference can be drawn against any MLA who attempts a delaying tactic. The ruling pointed out that the Speaker had not even issued notice on the petitions seeking disqualification for almost seven months and said, 'If we do not issue any directions, it will amount to allowing the Speaker to repeat the widely criticised situation of 'operation successful, patient dead'.' Noting the recurring instances of Speakers allegedly sitting on disqualification proceedings, the Supreme Court also asked the Parliament to review the present mechanism contemplated under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution. 'Though we do not possess any advisory jurisdiction, it is for the Parliament to consider whether the mechanism of entrusting the Speaker/Chairman (with) the important task of deciding the issue of disqualification on the ground of defection is serving the purpose of effectively combating political defections or not. If the very foundation of our democracy and the principles that sustain it are to be safeguarded, it is to be examined whether the present mechanism is sufficient or not. At the cost of repetition, we observe that it is for the Parliament to take a call on that,' the Supreme Court said. The BRS filed the disqualification petitions before the Telangana Assembly Speaker in March-April 2024. This was after Danam Nagender, Kadiyam Srihari, Tellam Venkat Rao, Pocharam Srinivas Reddy, Kale Yadaiah, M Sanjay Kumar, Krishnamohan Reddy, Mahipal Reddy, Prakash Goud, and Arekapudi Gandhi, who were originally elected on a BRS ticket in the 2023 Telangana Assembly elections, switched to the Congress.
NDTV
22-07-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
2-Month Gap Between Case, Arrest In Marriage Cruelty Cases To Stay: Top Court
New Delhi: The Allahabad High Court guidelines that advise going slow with arrest in cases involving matrimonial disputes will stay, the Supreme Court said today while hearing a case where the husband and his father had spent months in jail after the wife filed a slew of false cases against them. The guidelines framed by the High Court will remain in effect and should be implemented by the authorities, the court said. Endorsing the safeguards, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, said the husband was jailed for 109 days and his father for 103 days as a result of the criminal cases filed by the wife. "What they have suffered cannot be resituated or compensated in any manner" the court said. The woman, who is an IPS officer, has been asked to issue an unconditional public apology, which the court said was just a moral redress. Under the Allahabad High Court's guidelines, no arrest or police action can take place against the accused without a cooling off period after the First Information Report is filed. This period extends to two months and during this, any further issues will be directed to the district's Family Welfare Committee. Every district shall have at least one or more Family Welfare Court comprising at least three members. Only those cases shall be referred to the Family Welfare Committee in which the offence is punishable under Section 498-A (cruelty), along with other sections attracts a sentence of imprisonment of less than 10 years. The guidelines aim to curb the growing tendency among litigants to implicate the husband and his entire family by making sweeping allegations.
NDTV
22-07-2025
- NDTV
"Apologise": Supreme Court As Cop Gets Husband, Father-In-Law Jailed In False Cases
An IPS officer has been asked to issue an unconditional public apology to her former husband and in-laws for the "physical and mental agony" they underwent after she filed multiple criminal cases against them during a marital dispute. While ordering this, the Supreme Court also cancelled all the ongoing cases. The Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih also dissolved the marriage since the couple were separated since 2018. The court ordered that their daughter will stay with her mother and the husband and family members will be able to meet her. In its verdict, the court said the husband had to spend 109 days and his father 103 days in jail due to criminal cases filed by the wife. "What they have suffered cannot be compensated in any way," the court said, ordering the officer to tender a public apology. "The woman and her parents shall tender an unconditional apology to her husband and his family members, which shall be published in the national edition of a well-known English and a Hindi newspaper," said the judges. This apology shall also be published and circulated on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and other similar social media platforms within 3 days of the order, the judges said. It would not be construed as an admission of liability and shall have no effect on the legal rights, obligations or consequences arising under the law. The court also asked the woman "not to use her position and power" or that of her colleagues to initiate any proceedings against the husband and his family. The husband was warned not to use her apology in any manner either. The woman had filed separate criminal cases against the husband and his family and a parallel one in the family court for divorce and maintenance. Her husband too, had filed tit-for-tat cases. Besides, there were cases filed by third parties. Both husband and wife had filed an application in the Supreme Court to transfer the cases to their respective jurisdiction.
NDTV
05-06-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Top Court Refuses To Interfere With High Court Order In Temple Consecration Case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea challenging the constitution of a committee by the Madras High Court to decide the schedule for Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony) for Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Tamil Nadu's Thoothukudi district. The court, however, allowed the petitioner to file a review plea in the High Court against its order. A bench of Justices PK Mishra and AG Masih was hearing a plea by the Vidhayahar of the temple when it passed the directives. It noted that the petitioner had already participated in the committee that, he claimed, was biased. In his plea, the petitioner argued the High Court had failed to address the core constitutional and religious grievance that state authorities cannot override religious autonomy and temple customs, particularly when he is the only recognised figure competent to chalk out the schedule. "The order under challenge is thus arbitrary, devoid of impartiality, and suffers from a manifest error of law," the plea said. Appearing for the petitioner in the top court, senior advocate K Parameshwar also said the state's interference was unwarranted. "The prescription of a 'mahurat' is purely a religious function. It has nothing to do with regulation of the state," he said. The lawyer said the temple in question is considered one of the six largest temples of Lord Karthikay in Tamil Nadu. He said the petitioner belongs to a family that was traditionally tasked to decide the schedules for religious ceremonies at the temple. The High Court's move has led the state to completely take over the temple's essential functions, he added. "It is pertinent to note that three out of five members of the committee had, even prior to the present proceedings, gave an opinion at the instance of the Respondents/Govt authorities, suggesting a time different than what was recommended by the Petitioner, thereby making the constitution of the committee, biased, prejudicial and a futile exercise," the plea said. Instead of adjudicating upon the matter, the High Court created a committee, failing to address the issue of constitutional religious rights of the petitioner, it added.
Indian Express
29-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Thane-Bhayandar mega infra projects: Why L&T, MMRDA are in Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 29) asked Mumbai's infrastructure development authority whether it was willing to carry out a re-tendering process for two major projects in the financial capital – and warned that failure to do so might lead to the court to stay the current tenders. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih had asked this question to Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) first on May 26. The Bench had said it was difficult to comprehend that the technical bids submitted by Larsen and Toubro (L&T) Ltd – the company which had been chosen to execute the Central Vista project in New Delhi – had been rejected for the Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayandar tunnel and elevated road projects. The Bench is hearing a challenge by L&T to orders passed by the Bombay High Court on May 20 upholding MMRDA's position that the reasons for rejecting the technical bids need not be communicated to the company before the projects are awarded. The two projects will link Thane with Mira-Bhayandar. They are part of an extension of the Mumbai Coastal Road project. The first project is a 5-km twin tunnel of 14.6-metre diameter, connecting Gaimukh near the mouth of Vasai Creek in Mira-Bhayandar to the Fountain Hotel junction at Shilphata in Thane. The project cost is estimated at Rs 8,000 crore. The second project, a 9.8-km elevated creek road bridge, will connect Bhayandar with Ghodbunder Road in Thane. The cost of this project is estimated at Rs 6,000 crore. The elevated bridge is likely to be second in length only to the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link (MTHL) bridge, also called Atal Setu, which, at almost 22 km, is both the longest bridge and the longest sea bridge in India. L&T's contention MMRDA invited tenders for the two projects on July 27, 2024. L&T approached the HC claiming not enough time had been allowed to collect geotechnical data. On October 8, MMRDA assured that the last date for the submission of bids would be extended by 60 days. Earlier this month, L&T filed two petitions before the HC, contending that MMRDA did not follow a fair and transparent tender process. The company said that it had submitted its technical bid on December 13, 2024, and the bid was opened on January 1, 2025 – however, it had received no communication about the outcome of the evaluation. After learning that MMRDA had scheduled the opening of financial bids on May 13 and invited select bidders for it, L&T suspected that it had been excluded from the process, the company submitted. This, L&T said, violated the principles of natural justice. The Instructions to Bidders (ITB) – which are detailed guidelines for potential bidders to prepare and submit their bids for a specific project – are discriminatory, L&T said. MMRDA's stand MMRDA claimed that as per the clauses of ITB, it was not required to intimate L&T that its technical bid had been found unresponsive before the opening of financial bids. Once L&T had accepted the terms of the tender, it could not oppose the opening of the financial bids, MMRDA submitted. It argued that public infrastructure projects should not be delayed, and L&T's pleas deserved to be dismissed. High Court ruling A Vacation Bench of the court dismissed L&T's pleas and declined to continue the stay on opening of financial bids for the elevated road. In the case of the tunnel project, the Bench rejected L&T's plea, noting a 'suppression of material facts'. The HC said it had to be 'mindful' that the matter involved 'mega infrastructure projects of significant public importance', and 'any delay…would adversely impact the execution of the project'. The court gave L&T the opportunity to approach the Supreme Court in appeal. In Supreme Court L&T submitted before the SC that there was an arbitrary declaration of the L1 (Lowest one) bid for both projects to Hyderabad-based Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL), even though its bid was at a substantially higher project cost compared to L&T's. L&T claimed that compared to MEIL, its price bid was almost Rs 2,521 crore less in case of the tunnel project, and Rs 609 crore less for the elevated road project. MMRDA argued that the question of price did not arise if the petitioner was disqualified. However, the Bench disagreed, and said it shall be considered in case of 'public interest matters' and 'public money would be saved'. On Thursday (May 29), the SC reiterated that the difference of nearly Rs 3,100 crore between the two bidders was 'not a small amount'. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing MMRDA submitted that the disqualification was not on 'flimsy or fanciful grounds' and the authority would justify its decision and respond to the court's queries during the next hearing. The matter will come up for hearing on May 30.
