Latest news with #ASGadkari
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Bombay HC dismisses plea challenging constitutional validity of UAPA
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act ( UAPA ). A bench of Justices A S Gadkari and Neela Gokhale said the Act in its present form was "constitutionally valid" and, hence, challenge to its vires fails. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Select a Course Category MBA healthcare Data Analytics Public Policy Technology Operations Management CXO others MCA Finance Cybersecurity Artificial Intelligence Digital Marketing Design Thinking Management Others Data Science Product Management Project Management Degree Healthcare Leadership PGDM Data Science Skills you'll gain: Financial Management Team Leadership & Collaboration Financial Reporting & Analysis Advocacy Strategies for Leadership Duration: 18 Months UMass Global Master of Business Administration (MBA) Starts on May 13, 2024 Get Details Skills you'll gain: Analytical Skills Financial Literacy Leadership and Management Skills Strategic Thinking Duration: 24 Months Vellore Institute of Technology VIT Online MBA Starts on Aug 14, 2024 Get Details The court dismissed a 2021 petition filed by one Anil Baburao Baile, who was issued notice in 2020 in connection with the Elgaar Parishad case by the National Investigation Agency. Baile sought a declaration that the UAPA and also the now suspended Section 124A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) pertaining to sedition be declared as ultra vires and unconstitutional. In his plea, Baile also sought the setting aside of the July 10, 2020 notice issued to him. Live Events As per the petition, the provisions of UAPA granted "unbridled power' to the executive to declare an organisation or an individual and their activity unlawful without defining the same in the law. The amendment made in the UAPA to adopt the United Nations Security Council's 2001 resolution, which was for criminalising any person supporting international terrorism, made it possible for the government to declare an Indian citizen or an organisation as a terrorist, the plea added. "Nowhere does the Constitution authorise a blanket power to the executive in deciding and Parliament cannot be granted blanket power to declare an organisation as unlawful," Baile's plea claimed.
Hindustan Times
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC orders demolition of illegal 5-building complex in Uran, SC grants interim stay
Mumbai: Observing that there was 'overwhelming evidence of material suppression, misleading actions, and apparent collusion' between property developers in Uran and officers of the City and Industrial Development Corporation (Cidco), the Bombay high court recently ordered the Navi Mumbai planning authority to demolish an illegally constructed complex of five buildings in the Chanje village in Uran taluka in four weeks. HC orders demolition of illegal 5-building complex in Uran, SC grants interim stay The village, about 15 minutes away from the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority, has had improved connectivity with Mumbai since the inauguration of the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link, otherwise known as Atal Setu, last year. 'We find this to be yet another case where the authorities have been complicit in promoting and tolerating illegal and unauthorised constructions, despite being consistently alerted through written complaints from citizens,' a division bench of justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata observed in their June 20 order. However, the respondents in the case—land owner Vivek Deshmukh and the developer, Vinayak Developers—approached the Supreme Court, which on June 27 granted an interim stay on the high court's order until it hears the case further. 'We make it clear that no eviction operation shall be carried out without the leave of this court,' the apex court said. The petition was filed in the high court by Uran residents Meenanath Patil and Vijay Jadhav, who contended that the developers had started construction on the plot in 2013 after obtaining a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the Chanje gram panchayat, while being well aware that they could not have built on the land without Cidco's approval. In December 2013, the petitioners filed three complaints against the allegedly illegal construction before the Chanaje gram panchayat, stating that the construction obstructed access to their homes and a water well. These were followed by complaints to the Uran panchayat samiti and Raigad district collector. In 2014, Cidco inspected the site of the allegedly illegal construction and issued a notice to the developer for the removal of the unauthorised construction under sections of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966. In January 2016, the planning authority also filed an FIR against the developers for the unauthorised construction. The petitioners' lawyer, Abhinandan Vagyani, told the court that Cidco also issued a similar notice to the developer in September 2024. 'By this time, an entire complex of five buildings had already been constructed illegally…' Vagyani said, adding that the notice was a mere formality. 'This is a classic case where the authorities have not just neglected their statutory obligations but have, by their conduct, actively permitted the perpetuation of illegal constructions…,' he told the court. Cidco's lawyer then drew the court's attention to an affidavit filed by its Controller of Unauthorized Constructions department, which stated that the planning authority had inspected the site in August 2024. 'Cidco officials found residents occupying illegally and unauthorisedly constructed buildings,' the affidavit said. A month later, the residents were issued notices under the MRTP Act, the lawyer said. The court was also informed that the regularisation application filed by the developers was rejected by Cidco on January 27 this year. The high court, however, said that Cidco had 'not only exhibited a deliberate inaction but has also taken superficial steps, further encouraging illegal constructions.' The judges said, 'By its conduct, Cidco has not only fostered unauthorised structures but has also jeopardised the interest of innocent flat purchasers who, despite investing their hard-earned money, have become victims of these illegal developments'. The court, however, added, 'These purchasers, who failed to exercise due diligence by conducting proper title searches and obtaining sanctioned plans, cannot be entirely absolved of their imprudence. Their recourse, if any, lies against the developer.' The court also ordered the authorities, including the Maharashtra government and Cidco, to take action against 'all concerned officers who have permitted the continuance of illegal construction since 2014 and take appropriate action against not only the officers of Cidco but also against the concerned developers…'. The high court also set aside an order of the civil judge, junior division, Uran, who had ordered a status quo in the case in December 2024.
India Today
24-06-2025
- India Today
He was just watching: Mumbai court frees bar customer in obscene dance raid case
The Bombay High Court, while holding that merely naming a person in the FIR and chargesheet is not sufficient without supporting material, has quashed proceedings against a man who was caught watching an allegedly obscene dance performance at a bar in Mumbai in bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Rajesh Patil was hearing a petition filed by a 48-year-old Mumbai-based businessman who was booked under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working Therein) Act, FIR was registered against the petitioner and other accused on August 1, 2019, with allegations that obscene dances were being performed by women at a bar managed by accused Pravin Shetty. The petitioner was allegedly present as a customer when the police conducted the raid. Advocates Rahul Yadav and Rajesh Khobragade, appearing for the petitioner, argued that there were no specific allegations against him and that, even if the material on record were accepted as true, it did not disclose any Public Prosecutor Kiran Shinde contended that the petitioner's name was clearly mentioned in the FIR and that the chargesheet recorded his presence at the bench examined the FIR, chargesheet, and the evidence on record and noted that the man had been charged with indulging in an obscene act in a public place. However, it observed that some of the invoked sections were applicable only to owners, proprietors, managers, or those acting on their behalf, while the petitioner was merely a is no allegation in the FIR that the petitioner was showering coins, currency notes, or any form of money on a dancer or misbehaving indecently with any woman. Moreover, there is no allegation that the petitioner touched any woman in the bar during the raid,' the bench concluded, 'In our opinion, as regards the provisions of the Act of 2016, merely naming the petitioner in the FIR and chargesheet is not sufficient. There is a lack of material to indicate that the ingredients of the alleged offences under the said Act are present in the chargesheet.''The petitioner's name is merely mentioned in the FIR and panchnama as a customer, and therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed,' the bench said, while quashing the FIR and the proceedings pending before the Bandra Magistrate Court.- Ends
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Court proceedings cannot be recorded without nod, warns Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has released a public notice cautioning individuals against recording court proceedings without authorisation. This directive applies to all courtrooms in the high court as well as district courts across Punjab, Haryana, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, Bar and Bench reported. The court emphasised that electronic devices used for such recordings are liable to be seized. It also warned that those found violating the directive may face contempt of court proceedings. 'All the parties/litigants and public at large are hereby informed that recording of court proceedings by any person or entity is prohibited in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the District Courts in the state of Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh. In case any person/entity is found violating these orders, appropriate action can be taken by the concerned court including confiscation of electronic gadget used for recording of proceedings and initiation of contempt proceedings against such person/entity,' the Registrar General said in a statement issued on Wednesday. In line with other high courts The move aligns with similar measures implemented by other High Courts of India. The Uttarakhand High Court, for instance, has also explicitly prohibited unauthorised usage or recording of virtual hearings. 'Any unauthorised usage/recording of video conferencing facility through any means will be punishable as an offence under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, I T Act, 2000, and other provisions of law, including the law of contempt,' reads a notice on the official website of the Uttarakhand High Court. Man fined for recording court proceedings In March this year, the Bombay High Court levied a penalty of Rs 1 lakh on a Navi Mumbai resident who was caught recording a court hearing without permission. The incident occurred during the hearing of a property dispute before Justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata. Court staff noticed Sajid Abdul Jabbar Patel filming the proceedings and confronted him. Patel claimed to be related to some of the respondents. Advocate Hiten Venegaonkar, representing the respondents, confirmed that Patel had not been authorised to record the session. His mobile phone was subsequently confiscated and handed over to the court registry. 'He fairly submitted that the act of the said person cannot be justified. However, he requested this court to show leniency to him as this is his first act and therefore may not take stringent action against him,' the Bench recorded. Patel agreed to deposit Rs 1 lakh into the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund within three days.
