Latest news with #GNarender
Indian Express
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Uttarakhand High Court vacates stay on panchayat elections
Observing that the repetition of reservation in seats is minuscule and in compliance with Article 243D of the Constitution, the Uttarakhand High Court vacated the stay on panchayat elections and ordered that the process be resumed. The pleas, which prompted the stay on June 23, were by a clutch of petitioners arguing that the government's decision to nullify the existing reservation rotation for the panchayat polls and bring about a new rotation has prevented them from being able to contest. Under the reservation rotation system, constituencies are reserved for various categories for three terms, after which the quota goes to other seats. With a new rotation starting this year, the petitioner had said a seat that had been reserved for the last three terms would again be reserved this year, preventing him from contesting the election. The division bench of Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Alok Mahra heard the counsel for the government who argued that the repetition was conducted on the recommendations of a report by a committee and was in compliance with the provisions of Article 234 D of the Constitution (pertaining to the reservation of seat in Panchayati Raj system). While arguing, the counsel for the state had relied on the Supreme Court's verdicts on withholding elections. 'The apex court has held that withholding election is a breach of constitutional mandate, for any reason, and even the SC cannot do it, even under article 142. This constitutional mandate that elections should proceed at any cost is inviolable,' the Advocate General had said. On Friday, the HC said that the rulings of the Supreme Court that the counsel relied on elucidated one invariable rule that the constitutional courts may stall the election process where there is no compliance with the constitutional mandate regarding reservation under Article 243-D of the Constitution of India. Aiswarya Raj is a correspondent with The Indian Express who covers South Haryana. An alumna of Asian College of Journalism and the University of Kerala, she started her career at The Indian Express as a sub-editor in the Delhi city team. In her current position, she reports from Gurgaon and covers the neighbouring districts. She likes to tell stories of people and hopes to find moorings in narrative journalism. ... Read More
Indian Express
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Plea in Uttarakhand HC challenges 2025 amendment to Doon Valley Notification: ‘Destroys very essence'
A petition in the Uttarakhand High Court challenges the 2025 amendment to the Doon Valley Notification, 1989. According to the petition, the amendment undermines its objective and ignores the ecological sensitivity of the valley by allowing industries in the red category to operate. A Division Bench of Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Alok Mahra Friday sought the government counsel to secure instructions on the same. The petition, amended to incorporate a prayer to quash the gazette notification, filed by Congress leader Abhinav Thapar, claimed that the new amendment to the Doon Valley notification, 1989, which was notified on May 13, fails the original motive of the notification. The 1989 Doon Valley Notification, a significant instrument which classified industries based on pollution levels under green, red, and orange categories, and prohibited mining, change in land use, and grazing without the MoEF&CC nod in Doon valley. The May amendment has given the state government the authority to approve tourism plan, grazing plan, master plan of development, land use plan, and any other plan, including zonal master plans. It also makes the orange category industries not covered under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, to be considered by the Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board. The amendment also makes orange category industries, which are now in the red category, continue, and expansion of such orange category industries falling in the schedule of the EIA notification to be allowed under conditions. According to the petition, the amendment does not take into account the ecological sensitivity of the Doon Valley. 'It allows all the industries to work in the area whether it was originally there in the notification of 1989 or not, destroying the very essence of the notification…by this notification, all the industries which now fall under red category are allowed to operate, which fails the original motive of the notification of 1989,' it says.
Scroll.in
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Uttarakhand HC blocks demolition notice issued to man accused in Nainital rape case
The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday ordered the Nainital municipal authorities to withdraw a demolition notice issued to a man arrested for allegedly raping a 12-year-old girl, The Indian Express reported. The court also directed the authorities to issue an unconditional apology to the 65-year-old man, The New Indian Express reported. The person accused of the crime, identified as Usman, worked as a contractor and allegedly raped the minor on April 12 after luring her with money, according to reports. A first information report was registered in the matter on Wednesday night under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and he was arrested. Communal clashes broke out in the resort town on Wednesday night. A group of men from the Hindu community vandalised shops and eateries belonging to Muslims in the area where Usman's office is located. The mob also threw stones at a mosque, shouted anti-Pakistan slogans and damaged several vehicles, PTI had quoted unidentified police officers as saying. In the demolition notice, the authorities had asked the man to remove allegedly illegal structures from his home within three days or face action, according to India Today. Several other persons in the area where the house is located also received the notice. On Friday, the division bench of Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Ravindra Maithani said that it was 'issuing contempt' and taking up the matter seriously. The bench was hearing a petition filed by the wife of the man challenging the demolition notice. 'You [municipal council] cannot violate a Supreme Court order; it was not passed aeons ago,' The Indian Express quoted the bench as having said. 'Whoever it is, whatever it is, the Supreme Court has been very clear: if you want to demolish a house, what is the procedure?' There are no provisions in Indian law that allow for the demolition of property as a punitive measure. However, the practice has become commonplace in Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled states. In November, the Supreme Court held as illegal the practice of demolishing properties of persons accused of crimes as a punitive measure. It said that processes must be followed before removing allegedly illegal encroachments. The advocate representing Usman argued that the notice had been served in violation of the Supreme Court's guidelines, which mandate a 15-day wait before encroachments can be removed. The counsel for the municipal authority accepted that issuing a three-day notice was an error and that it would be withdrawn. On Friday, another bench of the High Court took suo motu cognizance of the communal tensions in Nainital and directed the police to prevent gatherings and maintain law and order. The police should issue appeals to people and carry out more patrols to ensure that no violence occurs, the bench said.
