Latest news with #Justice
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Telangana HC cancels land allotment to International arbitration centre; says govt acted in haste, land grant violated rules
HYDERABAD: The Telangana high court on Friday set aside a 2021 govt order that allotted 3.70 acres of prime land in Hyderabad's upscale Raidurg area free of cost to the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC). Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The centre was initiated and backed by former chief justice of India, Justice N V Ramana. A division bench of Justice K Lakshman and Justice K Sujana said the state govt displayed undue haste in the allotment. The previous BRS govt had allotted land on Dec 26, 2021. The bench was hearing two PILs challenging the allotment and the financial assistance of Rs 3 crore annually to the centre. At the time, the state had also decided to get all disputes arising from its tenders and other commercial deals necessarily referred to the centre. The bench ruled that the allotment violated the Telangana Land Revenue Act and the Andhra Pradesh Alienation of State Lands Rules, 1975, which mandate market-value payment for land given to private entities. The mediation centre, not being a statutory body or registered under the Companies Act, was deemed ineligible for free land. The bench, however, agreed with the view that the institutional arbitration must be promoted by govts and upheld the state's decision to give an annual financial assistance of Rs 3 crore and automatic reference of disputes. The judges added a rider that the state must review the performance of the centre every year after the passage of five years. HC flags centre's poor performance The two PILs were filed by Koti Raghunath Rao, an advocate from Hyderabad, and A Venkatarami Reddy, a retired govt employee. Senior counsel S Satyam Reddy appeared for one petitioner and questioned the state's support to the centre, which he described as a private trust. Low caseload a concern, says high court The Telangana high court, in its order expressed concern over the poor performance of the mediation centre. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "We would like to express our concern regarding the performance of the IAMC and its future." the judges said. "The statistics of the IAMC were placed before this Court. It was stated that as on 29.01.2025 only 15 arbitration cases were conducted by the IAMC. Out of the said 15 cases, 11 arbitration cases were conducted pro-bono." The high court bench pointed out that overall only 57 mediation cases were conducted by the centre, of which 17 were pro-bono. "The abysmally low caseload raises concerns regarding the future sustenance of the IAMC on its own. The govt, as a part of its policy, can provide financial assistance to a new institution like the IAMC. However, such financial assistance to a private arbitral institution cannot be perpetual," the bench added.
Edmonton Journal
2 hours ago
- Health
- Edmonton Journal
Alberta transgender health-care bill blocked as judge issues temporary injunction
Article content EDMONTON — An Alberta judge has put on hold a provincial law that bans doctors from providing gender-affirming care to youth. Justice Allison Kuntz, in a written judgment Friday, said the law raises serious Charter issues that need to be hashed out in court, and issued a temporary injunction against it before it fully came into effect. Kuntz wrote that a temporary stop is needed while the issue is debated. Article content 'The evidence shows that singling out health care for gender diverse youth and making it subject to government control will cause irreparable harm to gender diverse youth by reinforcing the discrimination and prejudice that they are already subjected to,' Kuntz wrote in the judgment. 'Intentionally or not, the ban will signal that there is something wrong with or suspect about having a gender identity that is different than the sex you were assigned at birth.' The law, passed late last year but not fully in effect, bans doctors from providing treatment such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy to those under 16. LGBTQ+ advocacy groups Egale Canada and the Skipping Stone Foundation — as well as five transgender youth who would be affected by the law — took the province to court the same month it passed. In the Friday decision, Kuntz wrote that denying treatment risks causing youth emotional harm and exposing them to permanent physical changes that don't match their gender identity. Article content The government, according to the decision, argued that claims of harm were speculative considering the law wasn't fully in effect, and that the treatments the law seeks to ban aren't scientifically supported. Kuntz wrote that the advocacy groups also submitted scientific evidence on the treatments that support their perspectives, but the injunction hearings weren't the appropriate stage to determine which side's evidence stood taller. Kuntz, however, largely sided with the advocacy group's evidence in her decision. She wrote that the government's scientific evidence wasn't 'so overwhelming' as to prevent a finding that the youth's human rights are being infringed upon. The province also argued that the law didn't cause the psychological harm facing the youth involved in the case, but it was a result of going through puberty. Article content 'The starting point for an alleged harm might not be caused by government action, but government action may impact an individual's ability to address the harm in a way that infringes their Charter rights and causes further harm,' Kuntz wrote in response to that argument. Egale's legal director Bennett Jensen said Friday that the decision was a 'huge relief.' '(The legislation) does not solve any real issues in the medical system,' Jensen said in an interview. 'It simply creates them and targets an already very vulnerable, small group of young people with further discrimination, and that's what the judge found.' Premier Danielle Smith has said she believes the legislation is needed to protect young people from making permanent, life-altering decisions. Smith has said it's about preserving that adult choice, and that making 'permanent and irreversible decisions' about one's biological sex while still a child can limit that. Article content Kuntz, in her decision, disagreed and said Alberta's law was not necessary to preserve choice. 'That choice is available without government intervention,' Kuntz wrote. 'The ban takes away choice in favour of preserving a very specific choice that some youth may not want to preserve, or that some youth may want to approach differently than the ban assumes.' Alberta Justice Minister Mickey Amery's press secretary, Heather Jenkins, reiterated in an email that the legislation protects youth from making irreversible decisions. 'Alberta's government will continue to vigorously defend our position in court and is considering all options with respect to the court's decision,' Jenkins said. Opposition NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi said in a statement that his party was pleased with the decision, calling it a 'great day for young Albertans who simply want to live authentically and safely.' Article content 'This was never about doing the right thing: it was always about demonizing vulnerable kids to boost Danielle Smith's political fortunes,' Nenshi said. Also lauding the decision Friday was Senator Kris Wells, the former Canada Research Chair for the Public Understanding of Sexual and Gender Minority Youth. 'This isn't just a win for trans youth, it is a win for Canada's health-care system,' Wells wrote on social media. 'No politician should be dictating or restricting your access to evidence-based medical care.' Egale and the Skipping Stone Foundation aren't the only groups challenging the bill. Last month, the Canadian Medical Association and three Alberta-based doctors launched a legal case challenging the legislation's constitutionality, arguing it violates their Charter right to freedom of conscience. Alberta's other two pieces of transgender legislation _ banning transgender women from competing in women's sports and requiring children under 16 to have parental consent to change their names or pronouns at school — have yet to be challenged in court. Latest National Stories
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Himachal high court rejects apology, ex-MP Sushant, son to face contempt case
Jun 28, 2025 07:48 AM IST Former Lok Sabha MP Rajan Sushant and his son Dhairya Sushant will face criminal contempt as the Himachal Pradesh high court on Friday rejected an 'unqualified and unconditional' apology offered by them. The high court had taken a suo motu notice after a video was uploaded on Facebook, levelling allegations against the judicial system. The court reviewed the Hindi and English transcriptions of the video. The Himachal high court has listed the matter for July 16 for framing of charges. (Getty Images/iStockphoto) 'We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the 'slap, say sorry and forget' school of thought in the administration of contempt jurisprudence… Saying sorry does not make the slapper poorer, nor does the cheek which has taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word,' said the division bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja while referring to Supreme Court judgements refusing to accept the apology. 'Apology tendered herein is nothing but a paper apology, which in the given facts and circumstances cannot be accepted. Had the respondents been sincere and honest, they they would have made all endeavour to have apologised at the earliest given opportunity. Therefore, the apology cannot be accepted,' the court said in its 21-page order. 'An apology can be accepted in case the conduct for which the apology is given is such that it can be ignored without compromising the dignity of the court, or it is intended to be evidence of real contrition. It should be sincere. Apology cannot be accepted in case it is hollow, more especially, when there is no regret and repentance,' ruled the court while listing the matter for July 16 for framing of charges. Both Rajan and Dhairya have been directed to personally remain present before high court.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
US Supreme Court upholds Texas law to shield kids from online pornography
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law aimed at blocking children from seeing online pornography. Nearly half of the states have passed similar laws requiring adult websites users verify users' ages to access pornographic material. The laws come as smartphones and other devices make it easier to access online porn, including hardcore obscene material. The court split along ideological lines in the 6-3 ruling. It's a loss for an adult-entertainment industry trade group called the Free Speech Coalition, which challenged the Texas law. Th majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, found the measure didn't seriously restrict adults' free-speech rights. Adults have the right to access speech obscene only to minors ... but adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification, he wrote. In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court should have used a higher legal standard in weighing whether the law creates free-speech problems. Pornhub, one of the world's busiest websites, has stopped operating in several states, including Texas, citing the technical and privacy hurdles in complying with the laws. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, celebrated the ruling. Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures, he said. The decision could pave the way for more states to adopt similar laws, the group National Center on Sexual Exploitation said. While the Free Speech Coalition agreed that children shouldn't be seeing porn, it said the law puts an unfair free-speech burden on adults by requiring them to submit personal information that could be vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The age verification requirements fall on websites that have a certain amount of sexual material, not search engines or social-media sites that can be used to find it. Samir Jain, vice president of policy at the nonprofit Center for Democracy & Technology, said that age verification requirements raise serious privacy and free-expression concerns. The court's decision overturns decades of precedent and has the potential to upend access to First Amendment-protected speech on the internet for everyone, children and adults alike. In 1996, the Supreme Court struck down parts of a law banning explicit material viewable by kids online. A divided court also ruled against a different federal law aimed at stopping kids from being exposed to porn in 2004 but said less restrictive measures like content filtering are constitutional. Texas argues that technology has improved significantly in the last 20 years, allowing online platforms to easily check users' ages with a quick picture. Those requirements are more like ID checks at brick-and-mortar adult stores that were upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, the state said. District courts initially blocked laws in Indiana and Tennessee as well as Texas, but appeals courts reversed the decisions and let the laws take effect.
Yomiuri Shimbun
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Supreme Court Upholds Texas Law Aimed at Blocking Kids from Seeing Pornography Online
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law aimed at blocking children from seeing online pornography. Nearly half of the states have passed similar laws requiring adult website users to verify their ages to access pornographic material. The laws come as smartphones and other devices make it easier to access online porn, including hardcore obscene material. The court split along ideological lines in the 6-3 ruling. It's a loss for an adult-entertainment industry trade group called the Free Speech Coalition, which challenged the Texas law. Th majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, found the measure didn't seriously restrict adults' free-speech rights. 'Adults have the right to access speech obscene only to minors … but adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification,' he wrote. In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court should have used a higher legal standard in weighing whether the law creates free-speech problems for adults. 'I would demand Texas show more, to ensure it is not undervaluing the interest in free expression,' she wrote. Pornhub, one of the world's busiest websites, has stopped operating in several states, including Texas, citing the technical and privacy hurdles in complying with the laws. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, celebrated the ruling. 'Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures,' he said. The decision could pave the way for more states to adopt similar laws as one of several steps to prevent children from being exposed to pornography, the group National Center on Sexual Exploitation said. While the Free Speech Coalition agreed that children shouldn't be seeing porn, it said the law puts an unfair free-speech burden on adults by requiring them to submit personal information that could be vulnerable to hacking or tracking. Alison Boden, its executive director, called the ruling disastrous. She said that minors have already found ways to find sexual content online despite the law and its 'massive chilling effect on adults.' The age verification requirements fall on websites that have a certain amount of sexual material, rather than search engines or social-media sites that can be used to find it. Samir Jain, vice president of policy at the nonprofit Center for Democracy & Technology, said that age verification requirements raise serious privacy and free-expression concerns. The court's decision 'overturns decades of precedent and has the potential to upend access to First Amendment-protected speech on the internet for everyone, children and adults alike.' In 1996, the Supreme Court struck down parts of a law banning explicit material viewable by kids online. A divided court also ruled against a different federal law aimed at stopping kids from being exposed to porn in 2004 but said less restrictive measures like content filtering are constitutional. Texas argues that technology has improved significantly in the last 20 years, allowing online platforms to easily check users' ages with a quick picture. Those requirements are more like ID checks at brick-and-mortar adult stores that were upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, the state said. District courts initially blocked laws in Indiana and Tennessee as well as Texas, but appeals courts reversed the decisions and let the laws take effect. 'There has to be a gatekeeper somewhere when it comes to exposure,' said Rania Mankarious, a mother of three and CEO of Crime Stoppers of Houston. 'While nothing is full proof, we're thankful to see something be done.'
