Latest news with #Acts
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
SC questions age restriction for surrogacy
NEW DELHI: Questioning the restrictions under surrogacy laws, including age limit on intended parents and surrogate mothers, Tuesday said laws shouldn't frustrate the wish of childless couples, widows and divorcees to become parents through surrogacy. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Instead, the laws should frustrate commercial surrogacy. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan said present laws seem "harsh" to those wanting to take the surrogacy route to parenthood. The bench is examining provisions of Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 and the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. The laws set age limits for intended parents and surrogate mothers. An intended mother must be aged between 23 and 50, and the intended father between 26 and 55 years. Further, a surrogate mother must be married and between 25 and 35 years of age, have a biological child, and only act as a surrogate once in her lifetime. If couple in their 50s, 60s can adopt, why can't they have surrogate child, asks SC Laws allow single women (widowed or divorced) between ages 35 and 45 to pursue surrogacy. Appearing for the govt, additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati defended the provisions, saying the age bar was needed to ensure a child's welfare and to prevent commercial surrogacy. She said the limits were also set keeping in mind the genetic quality of gametes and urged the court to refrain from passing an interim order. The bench, however, said rationality was lacking in the provision and asked why a single woman could not go for surrogacy. "If she is a widow or a divorcee then she needs it more. Look at the void in her life... Rationality and object are absent. Look how harsh it is," the bench observed. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It said if a couple in their 50s and 60s can adopt, then why can't they have a surrogate child. SC reserved its order on a plea of three petitioners, seeking its approval to go for surrogacy as they are age barred. They submitted that the laws came into force in 2022 but they started the process much earlier as they froze their embryo in 2012 and 2016, and that they should be allowed to pursue. Bhati argued that there were multiple reasons for freezing embryos, and it might not just be for surrogacy. "Crystallisation of rights happens on implantation of the embryo in the uterus and not just on freezing of embryos," the ASG submitted. She said there are a large number of embryos that might have been frozen earlier but they cannot claim exemption from the law. The court, thereafter, reserved its order on the plea but hinted that it would protect only those who initiated the process before the laws came into force. In one of the cases, the wife is 58 years old and the husband is 64. In the second case, the wife is 53 and the husband 56. Multiple petitions have been filed challenging various provisions of the Acts. One of the petitioners submitted that the laws were discriminatory as it barred a single woman from surrogacy. "The restrictions are wholly discriminatory and without any rational or reason behind it inasmuch as the said restriction is not only infringing fundamental rights of the petitioner, but also violative of the basic human rights of an individual to found a family as recognised by the UN and reproductive rights, which have been recognised as an aspect of personal liberty under Article 21," the plea said.
Daily Maverick
14 hours ago
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Eskom's court challenge to electricity trading licences is a dangerous reactionary strike against reform
Eskom's court application opposing the National Energy Regulator of South Africa's decision to issue five new electricity trading licences is not only regressive – it is dangerously disingenuous. In a filing to the Gauteng Division of the High Court on 24 July 2025, Eskom alleges that the National Energy Regulator of South Africa's (Nersa) decision represents a radical and unconsulted 'new policy' threatening to 'upend the entire landscape of electricity provision' in South Africa. This accusation reeks of institutional amnesia, denialism and resistance to long-standing reform commitments that Eskom itself has acknowledged for decades. Let us be clear: the liberalisation of South Africa's electricity sector is not new. The notion of third-party electricity trading, open access to the grid and competitive supply was explicitly articulated as early as 1998 in the White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of South Africa. The emergence of electricity traders is not a deviation – it is the fulfilment of a long-standing policy commitment. Eskom knows this. That seminal document – endorsed by the government and cited countless times by Eskom itself – called for the unbundling of Eskom and the creation of a competitive electricity supply industry to improve efficiency and ensure energy security. In the white paper the government unequivocally stated: 'The electricity sector will be gradually opened to greater competition, and the current single-buyer model will be reformed.' This included plans for retail competition and multiple electricity suppliers. Fast-forward to 2019, and the Department of Public Enterprises' Roadmap for Eskom in a Reformed Electricity Supply Industry reaffirmed this vision. It clearly mapped out the unbundling of Eskom into three independent businesses – generation, transmission and distribution – and explicitly supported the facilitation of competition in generation and supply. The Eskom roadmap stated: 'To enable fair and non-discriminatory access to the grid, electricity traders will be allowed access to customers, and mechanisms will be put in place to ensure equitable pricing.' In other words, the emergence of electricity traders is not a deviation – it is the fulfilment of a long-standing policy commitment. Eskom knows this. And yet, in a desperate attempt to cling to its monopoly, Eskom's court papers now argue that these licences represent 'a unilateral policy shift' that 'has not been the subject of public consultation'. That claim is not only false – it is egregiously dishonest. The five trading licences that Eskom now seeks to nullify were granted by Nersa after following due process, including public participation by Eskom itself, as mandated under both the Electricity Regulation Act of 2006 and the Electricity Regulation Amendment Act that came into effect on 1 January 2025. Eskom also had the opportunity to comment on the Acts themselves during the industry consultation process and parliamentary promulgation processes, and no doubt did so. By waiting until after the licences were granted to launch a legal challenge, reeks of strategic delay and corporate obstructionism. Retail competition is not 'poaching' – it is how liberalised and competitive energy markets function. Worse still is Eskom's inflammatory language. The utility claims that traders are now allowed to 'poach the best of Eskom's customers' without bearing any of the 'redistributive responsibilities' enabled by Eskom's current tariff structures. This argument is deliberately misleading. Eskom Distribution holds two distinct licences: a distribution licence, which grants it exclusive rights over the wires business in its service areas, and a trading licence, which is non-exclusive and places Eskom in direct competition with other energy retailers. The tariffs charged for network access are regulated and paid by the customer, regardless of who supplies the electricity. In other words, Eskom continues to recover its costs for maintaining infrastructure even when it loses customers to another licensed electrical energy trader. This is a thinly veiled attempt to weaponise social justice rhetoric in defence of institutional self-interest. To conflate distribution revenues with energy trading revenues – as Eskom does – is a sleight of hand aimed at preserving an outdated monopoly. Retail competition is not 'poaching' – it is how liberalised and competitive energy markets function. Eskom is free to compete for customers based on service quality, price and energy attributes such as green credentials. If Eskom cannot compete on those terms, that is a reflection on its product offering – not on the rules of the game. Even more farcical is Eskom's suggestion that allowing competition will cause prejudice to 'users of electricity generally, the many poor people reliant on subsidisation… and to the taxpayer.' This is a thinly veiled attempt to weaponise social justice rhetoric in defence of institutional self-interest. Eskom's bloated operating model, high losses and culture of inefficiency are the primary threats to affordability – not the emergence of competitors who can deliver electricity more efficiently or more sustainably. Let us also not forget: the Electricity Regulation Amendment Act, which came into force on 1 January 2025, was the result of years of public engagement and parliamentary debate. It entrenches the legal foundation for competitive electricity markets and affirms the legal standing of electricity traders. Eskom did not oppose this Act or its predecessor. It cannot now claim surprise. Furthermore, PowerX – South Africa's first licensed trader – was granted its licence as early as 2009, 16 years before this court application. The licensing of several other traders has followed. Eskom never challenged these licences. To now cry foul – after traders have operated for more than a decade and with policy clearly evolving towards competition – is both disingenuous and opportunistic. Instead of adapting to the market evolution it helped script, Eskom is now deploying legal tactics to delay the inevitable. Eskom's challenge also betrays a deep contradiction at the heart of its rhetoric. On one hand, it laments the risk to its revenue and its ability to cross-subsidise poor households. On the other, it has consistently failed to deliver on its service obligations to those very households – many of whom face load reduction, unaffordable tariffs or outright disconnection. What Eskom fears is not harm to the poor – it is the erosion of its customer base by more agile, customer-centric alternatives. The true risk to Eskom's business model is not Nersa's licensing of traders. It is Eskom's failure to reform itself in line with the policy it helped shape. This case reveals Eskom for what it is: a state-owned behemoth engaged in regulatory brinkmanship to preserve its dominance, even as the sector moves on. Instead of adapting to the market evolution it helped script, Eskom is now deploying legal tactics to delay the inevitable: a competitive, diversified electricity supply industry where customers have choice and innovation can flourish. If the court entertains Eskom's arguments, the result will be profound uncertainty for all prospective market entrants. It will deter investment, undermine regulatory credibility and signal that vested interests can override both law and policy. But if Eskom's challenge is dismissed – as it should be – it will reinforce the integrity of South Africa's electricity reform process and signal that the country is serious about enabling a modern, competitive energy sector. In conclusion, Eskom's court challenge is not merely a legal objection – it is a full-frontal assault on reform. It misrepresents the law, distorts policy history and manipulates socioeconomic concerns to shield its own inefficiencies. The courts – and the public – must see this for what it is: a desperate attempt to turn back the clock on two decades of progress. DM
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
The Supreme Court trans ruling must be challenged
Second, the judgment completely ignored the Hansard records of Parliamentary debates in both the Commons and Lords, which confirm that Parliament intended that the gender recognition process would change a person's legal sex for the purposes of equality legislation. The court decided they knew better what the wording of the Gender Recognition and Equality Acts means, and that those Acts do not implement what Parliament clearly intended and understood them to do. Third, the court apparently ignored the legal requirement, in section 3 of the Human Rights Act, to interpret legislation, if it is possible to do so, compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights. That Convention has required, for more than two decades, an effective method for trans people to change their legal sex. Fourth, the court made the staggeringly naïve claim in their judgment that it "would not be disadvantageous to trans people". In reality, of course, it already has been. It is fundamentally changing the situation for trans people across Britain, potentially affecting their access to services from healthcare to toilets. And, as we have seen, it is a green light for those who want to further restrict trans people, their voices, and the voices those who stand up for them. Had it not been for the first issue above, perhaps the court may have understood this better. Well done to any union supporting its trans members by pointing out any of these issues. Equality law is reserved to Westminster, so only the UK Government and Parliament can put this situation right. They should urgently amend the Equality Act to restore the original intention of Parliament, to allow trans people to continue to live their lives in peace and (where they wish) privacy. Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh. Read more letters Superyacht no match for Glen Rosa You report today that the Russian oligarch-owned £82 million superyacht La Datcha is moored in James Watt Dock, Greenock ("Superyacht owned by Russian billionaire docks in Greenock", heraldscotland, July 28). How ironic that she is berthed next to the eight years' late, drydocked MV Glen Rosa, which is currently priced at £172.5m and whose crew's terms and benefits of employment outweigh that of the superyacht by a large margin. It was suggested here that the La Datcha should be taken over and given to CalMac but that is unlikely to be attractive as it would require a massive upgrade to the crew accommodation. Peter Wright, West Kilbride. Make our pavements safe We are now controlling pavement parking, so it should be easier for wheelchair users, pram pushers and the like to use them. Indeed our local traffic wardens – called parking attendants for some reason – have been told to prioritise penalties for pavement parking and the misuse of disabled parking bays. However, what about other pavement obstructions such as hedges which overhang by up to 300mm or low garden trees which cause pedestrians to duck? There are also bicycle and scooter users wheeching past pedestrians without any warning. Worst still, there is one furniture removal or delivery company which erects a long ramp from front doors to the tailgate of its lorry, completely blocking the pavement so pedestrians, wheelchair users and pram pushers have to pass the lorry on the road or cross the road twice to avoid the ramp. The so-called parking attendants have the powers to issue fines for illegal parking and some traffic offences, as did the former wardens. Can they not attend to the other transgressions mentioned above? We do not have sufficient police presence on our streets, so the wardens seem the best bet for safeguarding our pavements. I know that the present parking attendants can photograph vehicles and troublesome or abusive vehicle owners so they can surely photograph these other transgressors to provide evidence for police action and prosecution. JB Drummond, Kilmarnock. Hysteria over the Lionesses Perhaps unusually for a Scot living north of the Border, I enjoyed the performances of the Lionesses during the recent football tournament and was happy to see them ultimately prevail against Spain ('England fans celebrate Lionesses' Euro win', The Herald, July 28). That said, however, my enjoyment of their sporting success was tempered by the subsequent media hysteria. An open-topped bus celebration is an expected thank you to the supporters, but do we really need to see the drunken members of the squad screaming at the camera in the post-match hotel party? It brought to mind the 1966 World Cup success of their male counterparts following which the FA generously arranged a free celebratory dinner to which neither the media nor the WAGS were invited. Things have obviously come a long way since then, but surely there's still a place for privacy and an element of decorum? David Edgar, Biggar. The legendary former Hibs manager Eddie Turnbull (Image: SNS) The trials of Turnbull Recent letters on grammar and pronunciation brought to mind a story told in football circles in Edinburgh in the 1970s. Eddie Turnbull was a renowned manager of Hibs who had a very good but intractable centre half, whose name will remain secret because I have forgotten it. Eddie was giving this player a hard time, prompting him to make a written transfer request which contained the following: "Ah umny gonnae play for you nae mair". The player was ever after known as "Big Umny". Incidentally, that Hibs team contained Alan Gordon, a graduate, to whom Turnbull said: "The trouble wi' you, Gordon, is a' your brains are in your heid." John Jamieson, Ayr.
The Star
2 days ago
- Business
- The Star
Cross Border Insolvency Bill 2025 tabled in Dewan Rakyat for first reading
KUALA LUMPUR: The Cross Border Insolvency Bill 2025, enabling local creditors to recover debts from insolvent companies within the ASEAN region, has been tabled for its first reading in the Dewan Rakyat. Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said tabled the Bill on Monday (July 28). The proposed Bill aims to promote cooperation between courts and authorities in Malaysia and foreign states involved in cross-border insolvency cases. It also seeks to provide legal certainty for trade and investment and ensure fair administration of cross-border insolvencies, protecting creditors' interests and the debtor. The Bill aims to protect and maximise the value of the debtor's property and facilitate the rescue of financially troubled businesses. Clause 3 outlines the Bill's application when assistance is sought in Malaysia or any foreign state regarding cross-border insolvency proceedings, or when foreign creditors participate in Malaysian proceedings. However, the Bill does not apply to individual insolvency, bankruptcy, those carrying on a registered business under specific Acts, or limited liability partnerships under the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2011. Some of the notable Clauses are; > Clause 4 provides that the Bill is to be read alongside existing Malaysian insolvency laws, supplementing rather than replacing them. > Clause 6 authorises Malaysian insolvency office-holders or court-appointed individuals to act in foreign states subject to local laws, while Clause 7 gives theCourt discretion to refuse recognition or grant relief if it conflicts with Malaysian public policy. > Clause 11 states that foreign representatives appointed in foreign proceedings can apply to commence proceedings under Malaysian law if conditions are met. > Clause 12 allows foreign representatives to participate in Malaysian debtor proceedings upon the recognition of foreign proceedings while Clause 13 ensures foreign creditors have the same rights as Malaysian creditors, stating their claims shall not be ranked lower solely because they are foreign. > Clause 21 provides discretionary relief upon recognising foreign proceedings, allowing the foreign representative to manage the debtor's Malaysian property, ensuring local creditors' interests are protected and > Clause 32 ensures equitable payment in concurrent proceedings, preventing creditors from receiving more than their share compared to others in Malaysia. The Bill's tabling follows Malaysia's plan to adopt the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.
The Star
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Star
Time to draft and table gender equality Bill, says Mah
All smiles: Dr Mah posing for photographs with Perak Wanita MCA members during the AGM in Ipoh. — RONNIE CHIN/The Star IPOH: More efforts should be put into the drafting and tabling of the long-awaited Bill for gender equality, says Datuk Dr Mah Hang Soon. The MCA deputy president said while there had been some positive changes regarding women's rights, the unity government was still slow in drafting the Bill. 'The government has made some strides in advancing women's rights but there is still discontent among some communities. 'For over a decade, civil society organisations, human rights advocates and various political coalitions have been pushing for this landmark legislation. 'Its primary goal is to codify and enforce the principles of gender equality and non-discrimination into Malaysian law, moving beyond piecemeal amendments to existing Acts,' he said in his speech when opening the Perak Wanita MCA annual general meeting (AGM) here yesterday. 'There is no clear timetable to table the Bill in Parliament, which I feel should be an urgent need,' he added. Dr Mah said he believes the primary obstacle to the Bill was due to opposition from conservative religious and political groups. 'Some criticisms included promotion of Western or liberal values that are incompatible with Malaysian culture. 'There is also resistance due to concerns that it could be used to advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, which is a sensitive issue. 'I believe that a Bill can be drawn within the framework of the Federal Constitution, which ensures justice and fairness to the people,' he said. Dr Mah said among the problems still faced by women is inadequate representation in political parties or decision-making positions, moral policing of women's attire and domestic violence. 'The goal was to achieve a 30% quota for women in political decision-making roles but it remains elusive. 'The amount of female representation in Parliament has also decreased with only five women ministers. 'While laws exist, domestic violence remains a significant issue, with thousands of cases reported annually,' Dr Mah added. Separately, Dr Mah, who is also state MCA chairman, urged party members to continue to be committed to the party. He said it was important for members to attend important party events, especially those who represented the party as elected representatives or appointed to government positions. 'If they can't even show up for the party's annual general assembly, or if you just mark your attendance but leave, or frequently skip meetings, these (actions) say everything. 'If they can't even fulfil the basic requirement of participation, it shows they do not respect the party,' Dr Mah said. He added that while most of the state Wanita wing's division representatives were present during the AGM, there were still a few who were expected to attend, but were absent. 'If someone does not take the party seriously, the party will reassess their performance accordingly. 'We are committed to grooming new talents but action will still be taken if issues arise.'
