Latest news with #R.Mahadevan
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Health
- Business Standard
SC grants Fssai 3-month extension to decide on front-of-pack labels
The Supreme Court has granted the expert committee under the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (Fssai) another three months to submit its recommendations on the proposed introduction of mandatory warning labels on the front of packaged food items. Earlier this year, in April, the apex court had already allowed a 90-day extension to the committee for its recommendations on the amendments proposed by the Fssai regarding Front-of-Pack Warning Labels (FOPL) on packaged foods, to inform customers about the sugar, salt, and fat contents. On the insistence of the Centre, a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan granted a further three months on 15 July, stating it would be the last opportunity for the committee. "This is an application at the instance of the Union of India praying for extension of time by a further three months to enable the Expert Committee to prepare its Report as directed by this grant further time of three months for one last time, failing which we shall proceed to take appropriate steps in accordance with law," the court order of 15 July stated. The direction was passed following a public interest litigation plea filed by 3S and Our Health Society, highlighting the urgent need for interpretive labels that clearly indicate levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fat in packaged foods. The plea argued that such labels would empower consumers to make informed dietary choices, help reduce the prevalence of diabetes and other non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and address public health concerns related to obesity, hypertension, and cardiovascular conditions. In an affidavit filed by the FSSAI, it was stated that to implement the Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling (FOPNL) requirements, a draft of the proposed amendment to the FSS (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, was notified on 13 September 2022 and made available to the public for objections/suggestions. Following the notification, over 14,000 comments were received from public stakeholders, including food businesses, consumers, and consumer organisations. To analyse the public feedback, the Fssai constituted an expert committee on 17 February 2023. In its fifth meeting, the expert committee prepared a report containing its recommendations. The report of the expert committee and the amended final draft notification of the FSS (Labelling and Display) Amendment Regulations, 2022, were to be submitted to the Scientific Committee for recommendation and approval. According to Fssai's affidavit, the proposed amendment aims to introduce an Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) for FOPNL. This format employs a star-rating system (ranging from 0.5 to 5 stars) that presents simplified nutrition information on the front of pre-packaged food items, providing information on the overall nutritional value of the food and/or the nutrients included in the FOPNL. Under the INR system, a higher star rating indicates a healthier product. The design aims to simplify the complex nutritional content of packaged foods, enabling consumers to assess products quickly and make healthier dietary decisions more easily.
News18
3 days ago
- Politics
- News18
Prisoners With Disability Have Enforceable Rights To Dignity, Rehabilitation & Accommodation: SC
The Supreme Court held that denial of reasonable accommodations in custody violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and breaches the RPwD Act, 2016 The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment affirming the constitutional and statutory rights of prisoners with disabilities, declaring that the State is duty-bound to ensure their dignity, humane treatment, and equal access to rehabilitation. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that disabled inmates must not be relegated to the margins of the justice system merely because of their incarceration, and that reasonable accommodations in prison are not a matter of charity but a constitutional and legal obligation. 'The punishment lies only in the restriction of liberty, not in the denial of humane treatment or reasonable accommodations," the bench said. 'Lawful incarceration does not suspend the right to human dignity." The judgment came in a plea by advocate L. Muruganatham, who suffers from Becker Muscular Dystrophy, a degenerative condition resulting in 80% locomotor disability. He challenged the Madras High Court's order enhancing his compensation from ₹1 lakh to ₹5 lakh after he faced systemic neglect during a wrongful period of incarceration. The Court, while refusing to enhance the compensation further, acknowledged broader issues of systemic inaccessibility and neglect faced by prisoners with disabilities and issued time-bound, binding directions for prison reforms across Tamil Nadu. These, it held, stem not only from India's constitutional ethos but also from the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, and Article 15 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), to which India is a signatory. The bench said that denial of access, medical treatment, interpreters, assistive devices, or accessible formats within custodial settings cannot be brushed aside as mere administrative gaps. They amount to violations of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 'Such systemic omissions lead to indirect discrimination," the Court said, especially when a prisoner's ability to participate in their own defence is hindered due to inaccessible procedures. The absence of interpreters, proper communication support, or assistive technology, it said, can result in miscommunication, delays in justice, and denial of fair hearing. The Court expressed deep concern that there is no existing policy framework, unlike the minimal protections afforded to women prisoners, to protect the rights of disabled inmates or members of the transgender community. The appellant had submitted that his physical condition had worsened in custody due to the lack of protein-rich food, assistive devices, and proper healthcare. The Court noted that while he did not receive certain specific facilities, records show that he remained in the prison hospital and was given some special amenities. The failure to provide particular food items or advanced interventions, the bench said, stemmed from 'institutional limitations" rather than malice. Importantly, the Court clarified that Article 21 does not extend to personalised or luxurious food preferences, but mandates 'adequate, nutritious and medically appropriate food." What matters is whether the State fulfilled its obligation to safeguard the prisoner's basic health and dignity. Recognising the structural neglect of disabled inmates, the Court framed 15 actionable directives aimed at transforming custodial spaces into inclusive, rights-compliant environments. These include: Mandatory identification of prisoners with disabilities at the time of admission. Accessible prison infrastructure with ramps, modified toilets, wheelchair paths, and sensory-safe spaces. Dedicated physiotherapy and psychotherapy spaces in every prison. Access audits to be completed within six months by expert committees. Compliance with RPwD Act provisions, Harmonised Guidelines (2021), and related prison rules. Provision of healthcare services, including regular physiotherapy, psychiatric services, and assistive devices. Sensitisation of prison and medical staff to recognise and support disabling conditions without bias. A medically appropriate diet for all prisoners with disabilities, tailored to individual needs. Lifesaving therapies and urgent interventions, either on-site or linked to government hospitals. Mandatory training for prison officials on disability rights and reasonable accommodation duties. Review of the State Prison Manual within six months to align with RPwD and UNCRPD standards. Regular consultation with disability rights groups to frame inclusive prison policies. Monitoring committee to inspect and report on prison conditions every three months. Maintenance of disability-disaggregated data to track needs, services, and accommodations. Comprehensive compliance report to be filed before the State Human Rights Commission by the Director General of Prisons within three months. While the Court upheld the Madras High Court's ₹5 lakh compensation order as 'just and reasonable," it made it clear that the broader issue lies in institutional failure. 'A systemic transformation is urgently required, one grounded in compassion, accountability, and a firm constitutional commitment to dignity and equality," the bench declared. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 16, 2025, 17:30 IST News india Prisoners With Disability Have Enforceable Rights To Dignity, Rehabilitation & Accommodation: SC Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Lack of toilets in courts: SC anguished over non-filing of reports by many HCs
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 16, 2025) expressed its anguish over 20 High Courts not filing compliance reports following its verdict on ensuring toilet facilities in all courts and tribunals in the country and gave them eight weeks to do so. It was the last opportunity, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said. Failure to file the reports in the next eight weeks will have consequences, the bench noted sternly. In January 15, the court ruled that access to proper sanitation is recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Issuing a slew of directions, it asked High Courts, State governments and UTs to ensure availability of separate toilet facilities for men, women, persons with disabilities and transgender persons in all court premises and tribunals. It also asked for a status report within four months. On Wednesday, the bench noted that only the High Courts of Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Calcutta, Delhi and Patna had filed affidavits giving details of actions taken to comply with the directions of the judgement. There are 25 High Courts in the country. 'Last opportunity' 'Many High Courts are yet to file their affidavits/compliance report… we grant them the last opportunity to file the compliance reports within eight weeks. We make it clear that if they fail to file the status reports, then the registrar general of the High Courts will remain present personally in the court,' the bench ordered. In its January 15 judgement, the court said the High Courts shall oversee and ensure that the facilities are clearly identifiable and accessible to judges, advocates, litigants and court staff. "For the aforesaid purpose, a committee shall be constituted in each of the High Courts under the chairmanship of a Judge nominated by the Chief Justice and members comprising the Registrar General/Registrar of the High Court, the Chief Secretary, the PWD Secretary and the Finance Secretary of the State, a representative of the Bar Association and any other officers as they deem it fit..." It directed the committee to formulate a comprehensive plan and compile numbers on how many people visited the courts every day on an average and ensure that sufficient separate washrooms are built and maintained. "The State Governments/UTs shall allocate sufficient funds for construction, maintenance and cleanliness of the toilet facilities within the court premises, which shall be periodically reviewed in consultation with the committee constituted by the High Courts. A status report shall be filed by all the High Courts and the States/UTs within a period of four months," the bench said. The top court's judgement came on a PIL filed by advocate Rajeeb Kalita.
The Hindu
04-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court refuses plea to reconsider NEET-UG results, says lives and careers of students at stake
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 4, 2025) refused a plea by a National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2025 exam candidate to 'correct' the final answer key in accordance with the authoritative National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) standards and declare results afresh. A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R. Mahadevan dismissed the plea made by Shivam Gandhi Raina, represented by senior advocate R. Balasubramanium and advocate Sriram Parakkat, for an interim stay on the commencement or continuation of the counselling process. Noting that a similar petition to stay the NEET-UG answer key and results had come up and been dismissed a few days back, the apex court said it would not 'interfere in an national exam, putting the lives and careers of thousands of students at risk'. When Mr. Balasubramanium pointed out that the top court had intervened in previous years when answer keys were found to be wrong in multiple choice questions, the Bench noted that a committee of experts had been constituted in the aftermath of such judicial interventions to reform the question system. 'We cannot tackle individual grievances like this,' Justice Narasimha remarked. The petition alleged the violation of Articles 14 and 21A due to errors in the answer key. It said both the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) had failed to 'rectify demonstrably incorrect answers in the provisional as well as the final answer key, despite the submission of well-founded objections supported by authoritative academic material, thereby resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice and an unconstitutional deprivation of marks that critically impact merit and career prospects of the petitioner'. The petition referred to how the provisional answer key had three errors, specifically in questions 52, 136 (Code 47), and 140 (Code 45). 'Without delay on June 4, the petitioner submitted detailed objections with supporting evidence, including NCERT Biology, conclusively establishing that the correct answers had been erroneously marked by the NTA and MCC. However, despite these well-founded objections, the final answer key is published and the result is declared on June 14, retaining the incorrect answer for Q.136 (Code 47),' the petition pointed out.
The Hindu
04-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court agrees to examine Tamil Nadu's plea against Madras HC stay on nine Acts on V-C appointments in universities
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 4, 2025) agreed to examine a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government against an interim order of the Madras High Court on May 21 staying nine Acts which vests with the State, and not the Governor, the authority to appoint Vice-Chancellors in State-run universities. A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R. Mahadevan issued notice to the petitioner in the High Court, advocate K. Venkatachalapathy; the Union government; the University Grants Commission (UGC); the office of the Tamil Nadu Governor; and the Human Resources and Development Ministry arraigned as respondents in the special leave petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu. The Bench observed that a transfer petition filed by the State, to shift the case from the Madras High Court to the top court, was already pending and scheduled to be listed soon after the summer vacations in mid July. Tagging the petition with the transfer plea, Justice Narasimha said the parties could approach the Chief Justice of India for an early hearing. The court preferred to wait for the respondents' response to a plea by the State for an interim relief of stay of the May 21 order. Senior advocates AM Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi and P. Wilson appeared for Tamil Nadu. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the UGC, said the Acts were completely repugnant to the UGC Regulations of 2018. The State argued that the High Court had ordered the stay on May 21 despite the Supreme Court, in an April 8 judgment, declaring that the Bills were granted 'deemed assent' by Governor R.N. Ravi. The State government had notified the proposed laws following the judgment. The Acts in question include The Tamil Nadu University Amendment Act, 2020; Act No.15 of 2025-The Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (Amendment) Act, 2020; Act No.16 of 2025-The Tamil Nadu Universities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2022; Act No. 17 of 2025-The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University (Amendment) Act, 2022; Act No. 18 of 2025-The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai (Amendment) Act, 2022; Act No.19 of 2025-The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (Amendment) Act, 2022; Act No.20 of 2025-The Tamil University (Second Amendment) Act, 2022; Act No.21 of 2025-The Tamil Nadu Fisheries University (Amendment) Act, 2023; Act No.22 of 2025-The Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (Amendment) Act, 2023. The State has argued that there was a strong presumption of constitutionality against laws passed by the legislature. 'Courts should be slow in passing interim orders in matters challenging constitutionality of provisions and against the strong presumption of constitutionality. The High Court passed an interim order directing stay of operation of provisions which take away power of appointment of Vice Chancellor from the hands of the Chancellor and vest the same in the government,' the State's petition submitted. Pertinently, the State has also argued that the writ petition was filed in the High Court during vacations, without pleading any urgency in the matter. The State said its appeal has raised questions of law with wide ramifications pertaining to the issue of federalism and State autonomy to establish, regulate and administer State Universities under Entry 32 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution along with the issues pertaining to judicial impropriety and discipline in keeping a hands-off approach.
