Latest news with #N.KotiswarSingh
The Hindu
01-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
SC declines to intervene in spat between Thiruchendur temple Vidhayahar and State government over Kumbhabhishekam time
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in an appeal filed by the Vidhayahar of the famed Thiruchendur Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple alleging that Tamil Nadu Government authorities intervened and 'unilaterally' fixed the Kumbhabhishekam for 6 a.m. on July 7. Disposing of the petition, a Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and N. Kotiswar Singh said the court did not have the expertise to decide the 'auspicious time' for the Kumbhabhishekam. The Vidhayahar, R. Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthirigal, represented by senior advocate K. Parameshwar and advocate Karthik Ashok, said he was the 'sole, exclusive, traditional and customary authority' on the rites of the temple. The State government had defied his decision to conduct the ceremony at 12.05 p.m. 'We cannot decide what is the auspicious time. We could say in future if they should consult with you, form a committee, etc… You claim your decision is binding as far as temple rites are concerned… But the binding nature of your opinion will be decided in the civil court and not in writ jurisdiction here,' Justice Misra told the counsel. Mr. Parameshwar said that, like the court, the State government too did not have a role in fixing the time for the Kumbhabhishekam. 'He is the sole and exclusive traditional and customary authority empowered to advise and fix muhurtham and timings for all religious and spiritual functions of the temple in accordance with Agamic and Vedic principles. According to the Vidhayahar, the only spiritually and astrologically appropriate timing is the Abhijit Muhurtham (12.05 p.m. to 12.45 p.m.), based on ancient texts such as Kala Prahasiha, Kala Vidhanam, and Sarva Mukurtha Chinthamani,' the petition had argued. It submitted that the decision of the Vidyahar was not considered and the Madras High Court had gone with the timing fixed by the Expert Committee for the Kumbhabhishekam. 'The very formation of the Expert Committee is fundamentally flawed and renders the process void of neutrality. Admittedly, three out of five members of the Committee had, even prior to the proceedings, already expressed opinions suggesting a different time than the one recommended by the petitioner. This renders the composition of the Committee biased, prejudicial, and a futile exercise,' the petition had submitted. It had contended that the government's actions were 'nothing but an unwarranted intrusion into the protected religious rights and practice and have directly undermined the Vidhayahar's traditional and legal authority'.
United News of India
31-05-2025
- Business
- United News of India
SC upholds UPSIDC's land cancellation to Kamala Nehru Memorial Trust
New Delhi, May 30 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the decision of the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) to cancel a 125-acre land allotment to the Kamala Nehru Memorial Trust (KNMT), citing payment defaults and systemic flaws in the process of land allocation. A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh rejected the Trust's appeal against the 2017 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had affirmed the cancellation of the allotment originally made in September 2003 and annulled in December 2006. While dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court delivered a sharp rebuke to UPSIDC, observing that the land was allotted 'within just two months' and 'without any proper evaluation of public benefit". The Court held that such allocation practices violated the Public Trust Doctrine, which mandates that state-held resources be allocated transparently, with due diligence, and solely for the benefit of the public. 'The Doctrine requires that allocation decisions be preceded by a thorough assessment of public benefits, beneficiary credentials, and safeguards ensuring continued compliance with stated purposes,' the Court said. The Bench criticised UPSIDC for failing to adopt a transparent and competitive process in allocating such a large tract of industrial land. 'This betrays the fiduciary relationship between the State and its citizens,' the Court remarked, stressing that state authorities must ensure accountability in managing public assets. The judgment noted that no verifiable evidence was considered by UPSIDC regarding the economic benefits, employment potential, environmental impact, or alignment with regional development objectives before making the allotment to the Trust. 'Such lapses not only deprived the public exchequer of potential revenue due to the appreciated value of the land but also created a system where privileged access supersedes equal opportunity,' the Court observed. The Supreme Court further flagged concerns over UPSIDC's eagerness to re-allocate the land to another entity during the pendency of the litigation. 'We, therefore, consider it necessary to examine whether UPSIDC's procedure for industrial land allotment meets standards of administrative propriety, particularly in light of the Public Trust Doctrine mandating that public resources be managed with due diligence, fairness, and in conformity with public interest,' the Court said. In a judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant, the Court laid down binding directions to reform the process of industrial land allotment in Uttar Pradesh. It directed, 'The State Government of Uttar Pradesh and UPSIDC are directed to ensure that any such allotment in the future be made in a transparent, non-discriminatory and fair manner by ensuring that such allotment process fetches maximum revenue and also achieves the larger public interest like industrial development priorities, environmental sustainability, and regional economic objectives.' Also, the Court asked that the subject land be re-allotted strictly in accordance with the procedure above. The Court directed UPSIDC for transparent, non-discriminatory Industrial Land Allocation in Uttar Pradesh. UNI SNG RN
The Hindu
27-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Does India's alleged forced repatriation of Rohingya refugees breach international law?
Earlier this month, reports surfaced alleging that Indian authorities had transported dozens of Rohingya refugees to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and subsequently abandoned them in international waters, in an attempt to deport them to Myanmar. However, on May 16, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh declined to pass any interim order to halt the purported deportation. The Court also cast doubt on the credibility of the evidence submitted before it. Meanwhile, the United Nations has launched an inquiry into the incident and has called on the Indian government to cease the inhumane and life-threatening treatment of Rohingya refugees, including their repatriation to perilous conditions in Myanmar. Does India's alleged forced repatriation of Rohingya refugees constitute a violation of international law? Does the deportation of refugees without adherence to due process infringe upon constitutional protections? In the absence of treaty ratification, is India nonetheless bound by the customary international law principle of non-refoulement? What policy reforms are needed to ensure a humane and rights-compliant refugee framework in India? Guest: Colin Gonsalves, senior advocate and founder of Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) Host: Aaratrika Bhaumik Edited by Jude Francis Weston For more episodes of In Focus:
United News of India
22-05-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
BJP-led Delhi govt moves SC to withdraw seven cases filed by previous AAP regime challenging LG's role
New Delhi, May 22 (UNI) The BJP-led Delhi Government has approached the Supreme Court seeking to withdraw seven petitions filed during the tenure of the previous Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) regime challenging the constitutional authority and role of the Lieutenant Governor (LG) in various government bodies and decisions. Appearing before a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati informed the court that the Delhi Government now seeks to withdraw all seven pending cases. 'These matters should not trouble this Court anymore,' submitted ASG Bhati while requesting the court to take the withdrawal request on record. Responding to the submission, the Supreme Court bench directed the matter to be listed on Friday for further consideration. One of the seven cases included in the withdrawal plea relates to the Supreme Court's earlier stay on the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) direction that had appointed the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi as the Chairman of a High-Level Committee constituted for the rejuvenation of the Yamuna River. The AAP government, under whose tenure the appeal was filed, had challenged this appointment under Section 22 of the NGT Act, contending that the order violated the constitutional scheme governing Delhi's administration. It argued that the LG is only a constitutional figurehead, with real executive power limited to three subjects: police, public order, and land and therefore, the NGT's decision undermined the elected government's authority. The Supreme Court will now consider the BJP-led government's request to formally withdraw the cases on the next scheduled hearing. UNI SNG RN
United News of India
06-05-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SC orders Maharashtra SEC to notify local body elections within four weeks
New Delhi, May 6 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Maharashtra State Election Commission (SEC) to issue a notification for holding local body elections within four weeks. A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh also clarified that the issue of OBC reservation in these elections will be dealt with as it existed before the 2022 Banthia Commission report. The top court accepted the Banthia Commission's recommendation, which had suggested that a census be conducted to gather accurate data on Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and had proposed 27 percent reservation for OBCs in local body elections. However, the Court said that until the triple test criteria laid down in its earlier 2010 judgment are fully met, these reserved seats will continue to be treated as general category seats. The bench set a four-month deadline for the completion of the election process and allowed the SEC to seek more time if needed. It also clarified that the results of these elections will depend on the outcome of pending cases related to OBC reservation in the Supreme Court. This decision came in response to a plea filed by the Maharashtra government, which had sought to reverse an earlier Supreme Court order. That order had prevented the State Election Commission from restarting the election process for 367 local bodies, where polling had already begun, to accommodate OBC reservations. Previously, the Maharashtra government issued an ordinance granting 27% reservation to OBCs in local elections. The government then approached the top court asking it to allow changes in the election process. However, the Supreme Court had earlier warned the SEC of contempt if it moved forward without following legal procedures. In 2021, the Supreme Court had struck down the SEC's attempt to implement OBC reservation without completing the triple test, which requires a dedicated commission to collect data on OBC backwardness in each local body, a clear determination of how much reservation is justified, and ensuring the total reservation for SC, ST, and OBCs does not exceed 50%. The court reiterated that there can be no OBC reservation in the 367 local bodies, including 92 municipal councils and 4 nagar panchayats, where the election process had already started when the court put the process on hold in August 2022. UNI SNG CS
