Latest news with #Article14
Ya Biladi
a day ago
- Politics
- Ya Biladi
European Court of Human Rights condemns France for racial profiling in landmark case
On Thursday, June 26, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) condemned France for conducting an identity check that amounted to racial profiling against Karim Touil, a French citizen of North African descent. This ruling marks a first for what is often referred to as «the homeland of human rights». Touil had been stopped three times within ten days without any «objective and reasonable justification». The judges concluded there was «a presumption of discriminatory treatment» that the French state failed to rebut, according to AFP. While the court acknowledged the challenges police officers may face in urgent situations, it stressed the importance of relying on objective criteria when conducting checks. As a result of the ruling, the State must pay Karim Touil €3,000 in moral damages for violating Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private life). Five other plaintiffs, also of African descent, did not succeed in their cases. Their legal battle, which began more than a decade ago, denounced repeated identity checks in cities such as Marseille, Saint-Ouen, and Vaulx-en-Velin. After their claims were dismissed by French courts, they turned to the ECHR in 2017. A new report by the Defender of Rights (DDD), published Tuesday, June 24, reveals that young men perceived as Arab, Black, or North African remain disproportionately targeted by such practices. In 2024, 26% of respondents said they had been stopped by the police or gendarmerie at least once in the past five years—up from 16% in 2016. Last year, they were also four times more likely to be stopped than the rest of the population, and twelve times more likely to be subjected to searches or frisks.
New Indian Express
19-06-2025
- Health
- New Indian Express
Odisha to identify laws derogatory to leprosy affected
BHUBANESWAR: The state government has constituted a three-member committee headed by principal secretary, Law department to identify discriminatory, derogatory, and demeaning provisions in state laws targeting leprosy affected or cured persons. The committee will examine all state laws that are discriminatory and offending towards leprosy patients for suitable amendment. The Law department has requested all other departments to furnish a list of laws which are still part of the statute book. The directive came in the wake of the Supreme Court's May 7 order asking states to go for suitable amendments in all the statutes governing different departments. The state government was sitting over the matter despite a direction from the Supreme Court in 2017 to look into its legislations and carry out necessary exercises, leaving no scope of discrimination to leprosy affected individuals or persons cured of the disease. Section 16(1)(iv) of the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950, specifically disqualifies individuals who have been adjudged by a competent court to be of unsound mind or who are leprosy or tuberculosis patients from being qualified for election as a councillor of a municipality. Similar is the provision for disqualification of a candidate in the Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 which said, 'A person shall be disqualified for election as a Corporator, if such person at the date of nomination has been adjudged by a competent Court to be of unsound mind or is a leprosy or tuberculosis patient.' Earlier in 2008, Dhirendra Kandua, a leprosy patient from Balasore, had challenged the provision debarring him from holding the post of councillor of Balasore municipality. While upholding the validity of sections 16(1)(iv) and 17(1)(b) of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950, the Supreme Court in its September 2008 order said it is true that now with aggressive medication, a patient may be fully cured of the disease, yet the legislature in its wisdom has thought it fit to retain such provisions in the statute in order to eliminate the danger of its being transmitted to other people from the person affected by the disease. 'Having regard to these circumstances, we are convinced that the said classification does bear a reasonable and just relation with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question and cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. Accordingly, we hold that Sections 16(l)(iv) and 17 (l)(b) of the Act are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,' the SC order said. Hearing a public interest litigation, the apex court's May 7 order said, 'We are informed that there might be more than 145 State legislations, besides regulations, bylaws ... where the offending provisions still continue across States.'
New Indian Express
14-06-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
SC junks plea challenging NTA practice on conduct of NEET-UG
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking the publication of the final answer key of NEET-UG 2025 before results are declared. A vacation bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan asked petitioner Najiya Nasre as to why the high court wasn't approached in this case. Replying to the query, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for Nasre, said the issue raised in the petition has 'all-India ramifications'. 'Many students are involved and would adversely be impacted by this,' he argued. The top court told the petitioner that she should approach the concerned high court for relief. The petitioner had moved the top court challenging the practice followed by the National Testing Agency in which the final answer keys of the exam are published after the final result is announced. Opposing this, the NTA said it was only for the betterment of students that the final answer keys are published after final results are declared. The petitioner said this leads to revaluation of ranks, leading to 'serious consequences' and in violation of Article 14. Also in top court Plea over Ambanis' security rejected The Court on Friday pulled up a litigant for filling repeated pleas and binned his petition seeking revocation of the 'Z' plus security cover provided to industrialist Mukesh Ambani and his family, saying arm-twisting of the court's process cannot be allowed. A top court also clarified that it has authority over who is provided which security cover.
News18
30-05-2025
- Politics
- News18
'All Disabilities Must Get Equal Treatment': SC Strikes Down Discriminatory Retirement Policy
Last Updated: The Court observed that such arbitrary distinctions among differently-abled individuals violate the principles enshrined in disability rights legislation. The Supreme Court has recently held that prescribing different retirement ages based on the nature of disability amounts to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court observed that such arbitrary distinctions among differently-abled individuals violate the principles enshrined in disability rights legislation and entitle all benchmark disabilities to equal service benefits, including retirement age. The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice KV Viswanathan made the observation in the case of a 60 per cent locomotor-disabled electrician who was compulsorily retired at the age of 58 by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, even though visually impaired employees were allowed to serve until 60 years under an Office Memorandum (OM) dated March 29, 2013. The Appellant challenged the policy as discriminatory and violative of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and its successor, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). His representations before the State Administrative Tribunal and the Himachal Pradesh High Court were dismissed, prompting an Appeal to the Supreme Court. In a detailed order, the Court set aside the impugned policy, holding that all benchmark disabilities under the RPwD Act, 2016 form a single homogenous class for the purpose of service-related benefits and must be treated uniformly. 'Prescribing different retirement ages for employees based solely on the nature of their disability is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. There appeared no intelligible basis to confer the benefit of age extension to one disabled category and deny it to the other when both are specified under the 1995 and 2016 Acts," the Court observed. It added that while the visually impaired were granted a two-year extension under the 2013 OM, the same benefit should have been extended to all employees suffering from any benchmark disability, including locomotor disability, as listed under the applicable disability laws. The Court relied on its previous affirmation of the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), where it was held that parity in service benefits must be maintained across all disability categories covered by the PwD and RPwD Acts. While the Court upheld the state's subsequent withdrawal of the OM on November 4, 2019, under the General Clauses Act, it recognized the appellant's legitimate expectation to continue employment until the withdrawal date. Therefore, the appellant was held entitled to the benefit of the extension in retirement age up to that point. 'Such discrimination offends not only Article 14 but also undermines the very spirit of the disability rights framework that envisions equal opportunity and full participation of persons with disabilities," the Court remarked. Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeal. 'The impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2021 of the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition of the appellant is set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of continuance in service until 04.11.2019. In consequence, he shall be entitled to full wages from 01.10.2018 to 04.11.2019, with all consequential benefits that may impact his pension," it ordered. Sukriti Mishra, a Lawbeat correspondent, graduated in 2022 and worked as a trainee journalist for 4 months, after which she picked up on the nuances of reporting well. She extensively covers courts in Delhi. First Published: May 30, 2025, 15:58 IST
The Irish Sun
28-05-2025
- General
- The Irish Sun
I took DWP to court and won over tax on extra bedroom in our detached council house – now I have more benefits than EVER
'SEE you in court!' I say, voice raised, as I slam the phone down on the call handler. It was my third call to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) about the absurd bedroom tax we were facing and nothing had changed, so this time I was taking legal action. 5 Erica Crompton was sick of forking out an additional £94 a month in bedroom tax Credit: Supplied 5 She says that the two 'spare rooms' were being used for wheel chair equipment for her partner while the other was inaccessable by him Credit: Supplied The property I live in is a three bedroom detached council house in As it is just myself and my partner Paul in our home the DWP has always deducted our joint Universal Credit claim for this by almost £100 in bedroom tax. Introduced in 2013 the policy is part of the British Welfare Reform Act 2012 and outlines that council or social housing tenants with rooms deemed to be "spare" face a reduction in housing benefit. Having one bedroom more than the calculated allowance means a reduction in housing benefit of 14 per cent, and two "spare" bedrooms means that a tenant will lose 25 per cent of their housing benefit. Read More on Real Lives The ruling states that one bedroom is allowed per adult couple and while I have three bedrooms I don't agree that we should be penalised for them. The £911 a month Universal Credit we received barely covered our rent and bills so to lose out on £94 to spare bedroom tax was out of the question. Conservative minister While many will be quick to agree, I do in fact need all of the bedrooms in my home. Most read in Fabulous The first spare 'bedroom' is upstairs and is completely inaccessible to my partner as he is a permanent wheelchair user. The two downstairs rooms are both under 3 x 3 metres so we need the extra room simply to store Paul's wheelchair and equipment such as wheelchair chargers and the two extra seats we removed from his car to fit his hoist and wheelchair in. Tragic 'suicide' of bedroom tax victim As the rooms are so small, Paul also needs his wardrobe in our spare room as the other room only fits a queen-sized bed and wheelchair. The spare bedroom tax penalises those with disabilities and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Two-thirds of the people affected are registered as disabled and when the policy was introduced many found themselves suddenly liable for the bedroom tax after deaths or after children had moved out of the home. In 2012 the High Court rejected the premise that the policy was a breach of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to the effect on disabled people. The following year disabled grandmother Stephanie Bottrill took her own life after struggling to cope with the newly introduced tax on the three bedroom home she had lived in for 18 years. The law has since been amended so that those whose bedrooms stand empty as a result of death are exempt. Prickling with the injustice of our own situation, I asked the DWP to reconsider what we are entitled to, known as a mandatory reconsideration. When this was rejected with an official letter, I made the decision to take the DWP to court, a tribunal all DWP claimants are entitled to if they disagree with a decision. 5 Erica took the DWP to court over the dispute and won Credit: SUPPLIED 5 Only the downstairs area of their home (seen here) is accessible to her partner Paul Credit: Erica Cartier It wasn't the first time I'd done this. In 2013 my PIP for schizophrenia was stopped. According to the DWP I couldn't possibly work part-time as a journalist if I really had schizophrenia. It didn't seem to matter that I was working from home, mostly from my bed on my laptop, always in my PJs and never working more than 16 hours a week. Back then I also disagreed with the decision to stop my PIP and asked for a mandatory reconsideration. After they rejected this, I took the DWP to court and the judge ruled I was indeed entitled to middle rate PIP - which was a higher rate than I'd expected. WHAT IS THE BEDROOM TAX? Called the under-occupancy policy, it was dubbed the Bedroom Tax as critics who condemned the changes faced by people on benefits amounted to a tax, due to the lack of social housing for affected people to downsize to. Having one bedroom more than the calculated allowance means a reduction in housing benefit of 14 per cent, and two "spare" bedrooms means that a tenant will lose 25 per cent of their housing benefit. The penalties, which can see people affected losing a significant amount of their income or risk being evicted, have also been criticised as having a disproportionate impact on disabled people. In 2016 it was announced that the penalty would be extended to elderly people, despite promises from the government to protect the elderly from benefit cuts. Our court hearing this March only lasted 20 minutes. Armed with my packet of Lambert cigarettes and wearing my tracksuit, I calmly stated our case to the DWP representative. I was intimidated, so I only said the bare bones of our case, that I disagreed with the DWP's decision to add bedroom tax for two spare rooms to our Universal Credit payment each month. We got lucky with our representative who said that the decision to add bedroom tax to our benefits was 'utterly ridiculous' especially when the upstairs room was inaccessible by wheelchair. So a month after the ruling, I got a lump sum of £600 and an extra £94 a month in Universal Credit. I've invested the £600 in a desk, a sewing machine and new laptop which I hope, when further benefits cuts take place next year, might help make an income from writing and clothing alterations. If, like me, you disagree with a decision made about your benefits don't stay silent. Ask for your mandatory reconsideration and if you still disagree, take it to a tribunal. Be sure to read all documents in full and they will outline the steps that you need to take, to further your claim. I've won the two appeals and now my benefits income has been boosted to £1,004 a month, more than ever before. That doesn't make me greedy or a scrounger, it's just what I am entitled to. 5 Erica secured an additional lump sum in repayments and saw her benefits boosted to £1004
