Latest news with #PrathibaSingh
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Prison authorities can decide on furlough requests of convicts whose appeals are pending in Supreme Court: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court Tuesday ruled that prison authorities can decide on parole or furlough requests of convicts whose appeals are pending in the Supreme Court. The court was hearing a challenge to Delhi's prison rules by convicts in the 1987 Hashimpura massacre. The convicts had specifically challenged Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, after their requests for furlough were denied by jail authorities earlier. The said provision reads: 'If an appeal of a convict is pending before the High Court or the period for filing an appeal before the High Court has not expired, furlough will not be granted and it would be open to the convict to seek appropriate directions from the Court.' Justices Prathiba Singh and Amit Sharma reasoned, 'The fact that 'Supreme Court' had not been incorporated in Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Prison Rules is further fortified from the fact that various other provisions in the Prison Rules have referred to 'Supreme Court' in various circumstances, and therefore, non-mentioning of 'Supreme Court' in the Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Prison Rules cannot be considered as an omission. The intention of the Competent Authority while drafting the Rules is clear from the plain language itself that what was restricted was grant of parole/furlough to convicts whose appeals are pending adjudication before the High Court and not Hon'ble Supreme Court.' The division bench further held that 'since mere pendency of Criminal Appeal/Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be taken as a bar for release on furlough, each case would be determined on its own eligibility criteria as per Rules by the Competent Authority and the same would be subject to judicial the High Court'. It added that the prison rule provision cannot be interpreted to consider a bar on either the convicts' right to apply for furlough if their appeal is pending before the Supreme Court. During the 1987 Hashimpura massacre in Uttar Pradesh's Meerut, the accused, who were posted for riot control following communal riots, rounded up around 42-45 Muslim men and took them away in a truck. They were later shot, and the bodies were dumped in the Gang Nahar and Hindon canal. Of the 38 who were killed, the bodies of only 11 were identified by families. The remaining bodies were not recovered. In 2018, a division bench of the Delhi High Court, headed by Justice S Muralidhar, reversed the 2015 acquittal of 16 former members of the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) in the Hashimpura massacre case, and held them guilty of murder, criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, and causing disappearance of evidence. The convicts were sentenced to life imprisonment. The Delhi High Court also set aside a single judge's interpretation in an order in July 2023, which had held that the 'high court' in the above provision implies any appellate court, which would then include the Delhi High Court as well as the Supreme Court. The convicts, whose criminal appeals are pending before the Supreme Court, had challenged the rejection of their furlough request by the prison authorities. The latest court ruling means that the high court can now hear their petitions seeking a review of the prison authorities' rejection. The division bench in its order held, 'To impose a bar on consideration of parole/furlough if a Special Leave Petition or Appeal is pending in the Supreme Court could have completely unpredictable consequences and could also result in practical difficulties for convicts who may require to be granted parole/furlough due to emergent situations.' 'It cannot be expected that every convict would have to compulsorily approach the Supreme Court for temporary release or emergent release in grave situations, including medical exigencies of the convict, demise in the family, any emergency involving children of the convict, etc… The Delhi Prison Rules are categorical and clear that Rule 1224 bars parole/furlough being granted only if the appeal is pending in the High Court. This bar cannot be extended to the Supreme Court by way of judicial interpretation when the language does not read as such,' the order added.
Indian Express
04-07-2025
- Indian Express
17 complaints entertained by HC ICC in a decade, most related to ‘misunderstandings': Justice Prathiba Singh
Maintaining that the Delhi High Court's Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) has entertained 17 complaints in the past decade, Justice Prathiba Singh on Thursday said that 'most of the complaints arise out of misunderstanding or a lack of sensitivity of the terminologies that can be used towards colleagues'. She also said that redressal for sexual harassment complaints need not only cater to women but should cover 'men and all persons with different sexual orientations, so there may be a need for change in the legislation over here'. Justice Singh, the presiding officer of the seven-member committee of the HC's ICC, was speaking at the launch of an integrated online portal that allows for the filing of sexual harassment complaints. The portal not only includes the HC's ICC, but also integrates the ICCs for the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) and the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD). 'The existing ICC of the HC primarily handles complaints against the staff and maybe sometimes against any other person. However, in the working of ICC, we realised there is a big gap that needs to be filled, and that's when we requested the DHCBA and the BCD… and now both have ICCs,' Justice Singh said. 'A collection of data would show that in the last 10 years, 17 complaints have been entertained by the Delhi HC ICC. In (Delhi's) district courts' ICC, there have been about 20-30 complaints… but it doesn't mean there are only that many complaints. There may have been many other women who have not been able to file complaints in a confidential manner. During our experience in the Delhi HC ICC, we realise there is a hesitation among women to physically go and file complaints, which this portal intends to solve,' she added. Sharing patterns of the complaints received by Delhi HC's ICCs, Justice Singh further said, 'One of the biggest things we realised during ICC proceedings was that most of the complaints arise out of misunderstanding or a lack of sensitivity of the terminologies that can be used towards colleagues. Sometimes men or women may use language which may not be acceptable, but they don't know it is not acceptable language. So, sensitisation is one of the best ways this can be (remedied)… Most of the time, it is onlya misunderstanding…' 'The other challenge we faced was the quantum of time ICC had to spend on each of these complaints… Some of the challenges I personally felt… there is a huge amount of time that sitting judges has to spend on ICC complaints as trials take a long time, a large number of staff against whom complaints are filed are governed by CCS (CCA) Rules [Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules], and inquiries can be long drawn. We don't know how to solve this problem… we need to find a solution…' 'So, there was a need felt that we should have our own guidelines, which can also be adopted by DHCBA and BCD… A sub-committee was formed to draft those guidelines and they have been finalised,' she added. Delhi HC Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya on Thursday said he has approved the guidelines and the same are expected to be made public soon. Batting for mediation to also be made a part of the initiatives taken to deal with sexual harassment complaints, Justice Singh said, '…a lot of ego issues which colleagues may have with each other… which may have converted into sexual harassment complaints… can get sorted.' Expanding on the ambit of sexual harassment complaints, she added, '…While we are focusing on women filing sexual harassment complaints, the other experience was, several men who face these complaints face it wrongfully… If we don't find anything in the complaint at the preliminary stage itself, we close several complaints… and there could be various extraneous conditions as well, which can lead to the filing of such complaints. The ICC is very conscious while dealing with such complaints… Some complaints are genuine and some are not, and I feel sexual harassment need not be constrained to women complainants but could also be extended to men and all persons with different sexual orientations, so there may be a need for change in the legislation over here.' Justice Kotiswar Singh from the Supreme Court, who was present at the event, said, 'While the POSH Act (Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013) has been understood in most jurisdictions, yet the number of cases being handled varies from HC to HC. Even in SC – I won't go into details as some sensitive cases are being handled – but what I found was that this is particularly confined to the lawyers' community.' 'So, it is a big responsibility of the Delhi Bar Council and Association to see that the redressal mechanism is properly put in place and the mechanism is indeed functional… We also need to sensitise people that certain acts are prohibited, cannot be tolerated… and it is not an easy process,' he added.
Indian Express
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Delhi HC postpones Madrasi Camp demolition to June 1, says need to relocate its residents before monsoon
The Delhi High Court has postponed the demolition of the unauthorised Madrasi Camp — a jhuggi-jhopdi (JJ) cluster located on the Barapullah drain bank near Jangpura — to June 1, nearly three weeks after the scheduled date of May 10. The authorities had issued a demolition notice to the squatters to remove encroachments and unauthorised construction on the Barapullah drain to de-clog it. A bench of Justices Prathiba Singh and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was hearing a bunch of applications filed by Madrasi Camp dwellers, seeking the court's intervention in their relocation to Narela. The court said that the relocation of Madrasi Camp residents is of 'utmost urgency and significance, particularly in light of the approaching monsoon season'. It also maintained that while the 'clearance of Barapullah drain was imperative to prevent waterlogging during monsoon', the 'rehabilitation of Madrasi Camp dwellers is also essential for the de-clogging of the Barapullah drain'. Of the 370 jhuggis in Madrasi Camp, residents of 189 have been found eligible for rehabilitation under the Delhi Slum and Jhuggi Jhopri Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. Set to be rehabilitated to Narela, the residents had highlighted before the court that the flats where they would stay lacked basic amenities. While noting that the 'demolition ought to be done in a systematic manner', the HC directed the authorities — Delhi Development Authority (DDA), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Urban Shelter Improve-ment Board (DUSIB), Public Works Department and Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi — to hold two camps between May 10 and 12. While the first camp 'would be for handing over possession letters of the Narela flats', the second 'shall be for the purpose for sanctioning loans, if required'. '… the representatives of banks shall be duly present at the camps so that if any of the dwellers wish to avail of loan facilities, it can be arranged without inconvenience,' the HC directed. The court also directed DDA and DUSIB to ensure that the amenities are made available at the flats in Narela by May 20. After May 20, the bench directed, the Madrasi Camp dwellers 'shall start moving their belongings to the respective flats allotted to them in Narela' and if any of the residents choose not to take possession letters or avail of loan facilities, 'no further opportunity shall be granted to them for seeking allotment of the flats at Narela or any rehabilitation camps'. The court has given the dwellers time between May 20 and 31 to shift out of Madrasi Camp, following which, demolition shall begin from June 1.
Time of India
29-04-2025
- Business
- Time of India
CCPA cracks down on Delhi restaurants over service charge violations, orders refunds and issues notices
New Delhi: Marking a significant step in reinforcing consumer rights, the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has directed five Delhi-based restaurants to refund mandatory service charges they failed to return, despite the order of the Delhi High Court in this regard. In a strong move against unfair trade practices, the CCPA also issued notices to these restaurants after taking suo motu cognisance of the violation of consumer rights. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi In a statement, the consumer affairs department said that the action was being taken against Makhna Deli, Xero Courtyard, Castle Barbeque, Chaayos and Fiesta by Barbeque Nation for failing to refund mandatory service charges despite the Delhi HC's order. "Notices have been issued under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, directing the restaurants to refund the service charge amounts," it said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 3 Reasons to Plug This Into Your Home Today elecTrick - Save upto 80% on Power Bill Learn More Undo The department said the measure is aimed at reducing the undue pressure on consumers to pay additional charges when availing services at any restaurant, as "no hotel or restaurant shall force a consumer to pay a service charge, nor shall it be collected under any other name". Justice Prathiba Singh of Delhi HC had on March 28 dismissed two petitions of restaurant bodies — National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) and Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India — challenging the CCPA guidelines prohibiting hotels and restaurants from mandatorily levying service charges on food bills. The judge had said that collecting service charge on a mandatory basis "in a coercive manner" would be "contrary to the consumer interest and is violative of consumer rights". Meanwhile, on Monday, NRAI moved the Delhi HC challenging Justice Singh's decision. This appeal is likely to be heard on May 9. On July 4, 2022, CCPA had issued guidelines in its bid to curb unfair trade practices and protect consumer interests regarding service charges in hotels and restaurants. As per the guidelines, no hotel or restaurant shall add service charges to the food bill by default.
