The Electricity (Rights of Consumers) Rules, 2020, notified on December 31, 2020, provided that “no connection shall be given without a meter and such meter shall be the smart pre-payment meter or prepayment meter”.

Based on the abovementioned changes being mandated by the government, by former Mumbai mayor Nirmala Prabhawalkar and Harshad Swar moved the petition in the High Court of Bombay highlighting the hardships this scheme will have on the people by stating that “The implementation of the scheme to install smart prepayment meters/prepayment meters will cause extreme hardships and havoc on the poorest of poor class of people living in slums, chawls of Mumbai and rural hinterland.” 

Focussing on the right of the consumer to choose between pre-paid and postpaid meters, the petition emphasised on Section 47 (5) under Electricity (Rights of Consumers) Rules, 2020 under the Electricity Act, 2003, which allows consumers to opt for prepaid or post-paid meters. “The petitioner states that the above said rightful option of choice, which is protected by the Act, is sought to be snatched away by a colourful exercise of administrative overreach by resorting to a mechanism of notification of Rules under the Act by way of delegation legislation and which is void ab initio,’’ the petition provides. 

The petition also highlights for the scheme appears to have been brought in that in arbitrary there was no widespread publicity, and consumer bodies were neither consulted nor taken into confidence by governments and discoms. Even the serious doubts being expressed by consumer bodies, which ranged from the actual cost of the meter to the accuracy and reliability of such meters, were not given any importance. 

Postpaid electricity metre policies give consumers time to make financial decisions. By doing so, uninterrupted power supply is also guaranteed. However, in the prepaid electricity metre scheme, electricity supply will not start without payment of electricity bill. As a result, citizens will be inconvenienced, the petitioners have pointed out in the petition. It informs that there have been instances of erratic billing in other States where the scheme has been implemented. The petitioner states that “In such a scenario, the supply to the consumer will get automatically disconnected and the consumer will be at the mercy of recharge to restore his supply and has limited recourse to agitate for recovery of excess deduction or exorbitant debit in his account.’’

Through the petition, the issue of raised cautions about people, mainly senior citizens who are not comfortable with smartphones, becoming vulnerable to online fraud and scammers.

In addition to highlighting the hardships that people will face in securing funds to work in accordance to the pre-paid policy, the petition also pointed to the several implications of these meters. As per the petition, if the smart meter is not recharged in time for any genuine difficulty or due to any technical snag, consumers are likely to face automatic disconnection. Furthermore, the system is also bound to lead to large-scale unemployment of employees from meter reading and billing sections of discoms, and such mass scale unemployment is going to create massive socioeconomic problems.

In addition to this, the petition also pointed to the liquidity issues that the country will have to face if discoms insist on replacing existing meters with prepaid smart meters. As per the petition, after the meters are replaced, then consumers can also insist on immediate refund of the security deposits lying with all these discoms. Consumers will be justified in refusing to adjust these security deposits against their future bills because technically the day the discom installs a prepaid meter, it has no legal right to hold the security deposit even for one single day. This can create serious liquidity issue for discoms. 

The petitioners have said that the claim of reduction in payments through this scheme is also bogus. To explain the same, the petitioners cited a report of the Hindustan Times, which provided that MSEDCL declared payment default by 87511 consumers which is 0.32% of its 2.7 crore connections. They have alleged that the whole exercise is “being solely done to protect the revenue of private players taking over the role of distribution of energy…” 

Hence, through the petition it has been alleged that the smart system may be cost effective for discoms, but considering the genuine practical difficulties likely to be faced by consumers and also keeping consumer interest in mind, government must consider providing postpaid facility. The petitioners have also mentioned in the petition that they had previously also written to the union and the state electricity regulatory commissions before moving High Court, to highlight the “difficulties citizens of Maharashtra will face and calling upon them to provide the option of choice to the consumer between prepaid or postpaid connections.” The same reaped no result.

It is essential to note that the Maharashtra government has, on June 15, announced that it will hold back the rollout of smart meters for domestic consumers. Deputy Chief Minister Fadnavis and Energy Minister Nitin Raut had provided that, “We have decided to put on hold the installation of smart meters in homes. This decision has been taken based on the feedback received from consumers and experts.” However, it is essential to point out that the scheme has only been put off for residential consumers, and not completely dropped. As per the announcement, the government now aims to resolve the apprehensions of the people. 

Related:

FIR filed by UP police against 2 journalists, 3 others for putting out social media posts on an incident of alleged mob lynching of a Muslim

TISS alumni write open letter against unjust termination

Family members of murdered leader Govind Pansare write to Maha ATS, emphasise the need to investigating role of Sanathan Sanstha in killing intellectuals

The post PIL challenging compulsory use of smart prepaid electricity meters remains pending in HC as Maha govt temporarily puts off decision to mandate pre-paid meters appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court on Monday, December 5, again expressed a view on religious conversion in the guise of charity, stating that the intention of persons offering such charity will have to be examined in such cases reported Bar and Bench [Ashwini Kumar Upadhay vs Union of India and ors].

A bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar also remarked that those in India have to act as per its “culture and Constitution”.

Without any hesitation, therefore, rejected the objections raised against the maintainability of a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking steps against forced religious conversion.

“We are not here to see who is right or wrong, but to set things right. If someone is offering charity to convert then need to consider their intention. Do not take it as adversarial. It is a very serious issue. When everyone is in India, they have to act as per the culture of India,” Justice Shah remarked.

He told the counsel objecting to the plea’s maintainability, to not be technical, and even handed over a copy of the pleadings when it was argued that substantial material was not put on record.The matter will now be heard on December 12 for final disposal, by when the Union government was directed to file a further counter-affidavit after getting information from States about their anti-conversion laws.

The plea by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay has sought urgent and stringent steps to tackle “forceful religious conversions.”  The public interest litigation (PIL) petition has claimed that fraudulent and deceitful religious conversion is rampant across the country, and that the Central government has failed to control its menace.

During an earlier hearing in the case, the top court had observed that forceful religious conversion is a serious issue that “threatens national security” and citizens’ freedom of conscience. 

The fundamental right to practice and propagate any religion under the Constitution does not include any fundamental right to convert people, the Central government had told the Supreme Court in an affidavit filed last Monday.

The word ‘propagate’ used in Article 25 of the Constitution does not include within its ambit the right to convert, and the decision in Reverend Stainislaus makes clear that forced conversions impinge on a citizen’s right to freedom of conscience, it was submitted.

At today’s hearing, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta said that the Union government has collected data from States. “It is the statutory regime will determine whether person is converting due to some food etc, or any fundamental change in belief,” the SG argued.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Upadhyay, said that those States that want to respond should be allowed to, but directions can be issued without waiting for everyone’s response.

“That is why we did not issue notice, since we did not want to delay the matter. Otherwise some State will ask for time,” Justice Shah responded.

Senior Counsel Raju Ramachandran and CU Singh, appearing for a priest and a rationalist organisation respectively, sought impleadment in the matter pointed out that multiple similar pleas by Upadhyay had been withdrawn after arguments.”This plea is based on hyperbole. [There is] No material at all,” it was argued. CU Singh had pointed ou how Upadhayay had filed four

Justice Shah then said the top court was the final disposal stage in the matter, and would not hear on maintainability. The counsel were, however, allowed to assist the Court. Senior Advocate Sanjay Hedge appeared for the Chhattisgarh Christian Forum.

Related:

Over 300 attacks on Christians reported this year, over 2000 women, Adivasis and Dalits injured
Survey of Churches, anti conversion laws only empower radical mobs: Archbishop Peter Machado
Hate watch: Christians attacked during Sunday mass in Chhattisgarh; 9 hospitalised 
No coercive action against voluntary religious conversion: MP High Court
India has chosen a path of exclusion and persecution for religious minorities: CMRI report

The post Those in India must act as per its culture: Supreme Court on PIL against religious conversion appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL filed by a law student seeking the release of over 200 ‘illegally detained’ farmers in connection with the farmers’ protests on Republic Day.

According to Bar & Bench, a Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh directed the Delhi Police to conduct its investigation into the FIRs registered related to the violence that took place during the tractor rally in an expeditious and time bound manner. However, the Chief Justice called this Public Interest Litigation, a “publicity interest litigation.”

Counsel for the petitioner requested the Bench to issue directions to the Delhi Police to release status reports since there was an alleged discrepancy with respect to the number of arrested persons in view of newspaper reports. Bar & Bench reported that the court was apprised that as per the Delhi Police, 122 persons had been arrested after being named in 44 FIRs.

The counsel stated that the plea was not solely based on newspaper reports, and that a list of 15 missing persons was attached with the petition. She further asserted that the petitioner belonged to the village from where persons have been missing since January 26-27. 

The High Court remarked that they would need affidavits from the family members of the people who have been missing. The Bench asked, “(What if) we issue notice and these persons have gone from their personal work?”

The Bench further noted that the counsel for the petitioner was not aware of the details with respect to the FIRs registered by Delhi Police and the nature of the allegations. Hence, it found no merit in the matter and dismissed the application, accordingly.

Related:

PIL in Delhi HC seeks release of over 200 ‘illegally detained’ farmers

The post Delhi HC dismisses PIL seeking release of over 200 “illegally detained” farmers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A plea has been filed before Delhi High Court seeking release of farmers and other persons who, allegedly, have been illegally detained by Delhi police after the Tractor parade on January 26.

A law student has filed the plea through Advocates Ashima Mandla and Mandakini Singh basis information received through personal survey, newspaper reports, media reports and social activists that people have been illegally detained from the Singhu border, Ghazipur border and Tikri border. The plea states that the arrests violate Articles 14 (right to equality), 21 (right to life) and 22 (Protection against arrest and detention) of the Constitution.

The petitioner has established their locus standi asserting that habeas corpus can be invoked by any person, on behalf of illegally detained person.

The plea further states that Delhi Police told the media, as it was reported that over 200 persons have been detained for the alleged violence during the tractor rally and that 22 FIRs have been registered. The petitioner notes that Delhi Police failed to comply with procedural formalities like signing of the arrest memo, informing the next of kin within a period of 8-12 hours, and production of the persons before the Magistrate u/s 167 CrPC thus making this a case of illegal detention. The plea contends that the notion of liberty cannot be diffused even in emergencies.

Reportedly, over 200 participants of the parade are missing and Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) formed a committee to gather information on such persons and their whereabouts. “Any information on missing persons can be shared with 8198022033 with full name of the missing person, full address, phone number of the person and any other contact number at home and missing from when,” said the SKM during a press conference at the Singhu border.

Farmers have decided to observe ‘chakka jam’ (road block) on February 6 on all national and state highways from 12 PM to 3 PM. “The youth arrested and beaten; missing tractors and vehicles after January 26; blocking of all routes leading to farmer protest sites; problem relating to water, electricity, latrines, internet; attacks on journalists; stopping of trains carrying farmer supporters; withholding of Kisan Ekta Morcha – considering all this, we have decided to call for a three-hour road blockade on February 6,” said farmer leader Balbir Singh Rajewal during a press conference at the Singhu border.

Related:

Farmers declare chakka jam on Feb 6 on all major highways
Nails embedded on roads, barricades set in concrete at Delhi borders, who are they trying to keep out?
Over 100 persons missing after Kisan Ganatantra Parade!

The post PIL in Delhi HC seeks release of over 200 ‘illegally detained’ farmers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A plea has been filed at Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the validity of the MP Freedom of Religion Ordinance, 2020 by a law student, Amratansh Nema. The public interest litigation states that the provisions contained in the ordinance are motivated by religious intolerance, are a grave violation of constitutional provisions, and a blatant attack on the religious autonomy of individuals of the state. The ordinance which was promulgated by the Governor of the state on January 9 prohibits religious conversion by force, allurement, undue influence and even by marriage.

The petition also points out that the Ordinance was promulgated in utter haste without any proper consultation defying due process of law. This, the petition stated, was a reflection of abuse of legislative powers.

While referring to the provision under the ordinance that mandates given notice to district administration before converting oneself to another religion, the plea states, “Exercising a fundamental right can never be subjected to any approval by or intimation to any authority. The said provision visibly contravenes the fundamental right of personal liberty, privacy & choice and encourages the wrongful intervention of state,” reported LiveLaw.

The petitioner states that the Ordinance does not have any provision for a time limit for the District Magistrate to respond with respect to the notice given and this may result in unnecessary harassment of the individual.

The petitioner also asserts that the law violates right to privacy and right to freedom of choice. LiveLaw reported that the petitioner submitted, “The stated provision gives an unrestricted opportunity to the family members of a person converted to harass him by filing frivolous complaints alleging the contravention of Section 3 in order to secure their illusionary social reputation at the cost of personal liberty of an individual exercising his right of practicing & professing the religion of his own choice”.

The petition also raises concerns about the burden of proof imposed on the person who has converted himself/herself which goes against the principle of “presumption of Innocence” in criminal law jurisprudence. It further states that “Burden of Proof can only be reversed in the cases where the charges are based on some foundational facts proved by prosecution, while placing reliance upon apex court judgement in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & Ors., (2018) 7 SCC 192.”

A petition challenging the validity of similar anti-conversion laws passed by Uttarakhand and UP, filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace is pending before the Supreme Court.

Related:

Love Jihad, Conversions and Laws curbing Freedoms
Notice publication of marriage under Special Marriage Act violates privacy: Allahabad HC
Love Jihad PILs: UP gov’t blames fear psychosis for forceful conversions

The post PIL filed in MP HC challenging validity of state’s anti-conversion law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A public Interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions that the Centre transfers all contributions of the PM CARES Fund to the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) and that it formulates a National Plan as per the Disaster Management Act.

PM CARES in Courts

The petition has joined the series of petitions on PM CARES Fund, which are currently pending before the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court. The ones before the Supreme Court have already been dismissed. One was a petition that questioned the procedure by which the fund was established and another by TMC MP Mahua Moitra questioned why Chief Minister relief funds were excluded from receiving contributions under Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) while PM CARES was allowed the same. 

The one at the Nagpur court seeks transparency in terms of amount collected and how the same have been utilised. The petition at the Delhi High Court seeks to bring PM CARES under the ambit of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) so that all the information such as amount collected, utilised can be readily available for the public at large. Another petition at Delhi High Court has challenged the rejection of information on PM CARES fund by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) in response to an RTI application.

As per its website, the PM CARES Fund or the Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund is a “national fund with the primary objective of dealing with any kind of emergency or distress situation, like posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and to provide relief to the affected”.

The petition

The petition filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) seeks that all present and future collections, contributions, and grants for the fight against COVID-19 should be credited towards the NDRF in tandem with section 46(1)(b) of the Disaster Management Act. The section deals with provisions related to setting up of a National Disaster Response Fund for meeting any threatening disaster situation and states that any grant that may be made by any person or institution for the purpose of disaster management is mandatorily required to be credited into the NDRF. The petition says, “The Central Government could have, and should have, included NDRF too (apart from SDRF) for the purpose of providing assistance in the fight against the COVID-19 virus which was decided to be treated as a notified disaster. However, the Central Government chose not to do it so for reasons best known to it.”

The petition also points out that PM CARES is not subject to audit of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and as per Centre’s response does not even come under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). “All the contribution being made by individuals and institutions in relation to CoVID-19 crisis are being credited into the PM CARES Fund not to the NDRF, in clear violation of section 46 0f the DM Act,” says the petition.

The petition points out that COVID19 was included to be funded by State Disaster Relief Funds (SDRF) but not by the NDRF, which seems to be an unreasonable exclusion.

The petitioner thus pleads, “the Centre may be directed to utilize NDRF for the purpose of providing assistance in the fight against COVID-19 pandemic in compliance with Section 46 of the DM Act, all the contributions/grants from individuals and institutions shall be credited to the NDRF in terms of Section 46(1)(b) rather than to PM CARES Fund and all the fund collected in the PM CARES Fund till date may be directed to transferred to the NDRF.”

National Plan

The plea says that “in the face of an unprecedented crisis that hit the country, passing of ad hoc and emergent orders was understandable. But after over two months since the lockdown was imposed, there is a need for a robust National Plan.”

About the National Plan, the plea further states, “The National Plan should provide inter alia proper and detailed mechanism for any future lockdown measures, detailed coordination mechanism between Centre and States, social distancing norms keeping in mind the predicaments of the lower strata of the society, least disruption of public transports and essential activities, large scale ramping up of quarantine facilities along with rapid manufacturing of testing and PPE kits and all this needs to be done transparently…. There cannot be continuous arbitrariness in the decision-making process in dealing with the current COVID-19 pandemic and resultantly putting a disproportionate burden on the poor and other marginal sections of the society as the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia. Thus, a National plan is required to be prepared…”

The petition states that as per the Act, the National Plan is to be made in consultation with state governments as well as after seeking the opinion of experts and it is to be prepared by the National Executive committee. The petition further says that the Central government has ignored the opinion of experts even from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) while making critical decisions while relying upon news reports and a letter dated May 25, sent by lndian experts in the field of epidemiology and public health to the Prime Minister.

Stressing on the importance of a National Plan, the petitioner states, “while the issuance of ad hoc and emergent orders are understandable owing to the largely unpredictable crisis being faced by the entire world, however, at least now, i.e. after passing of more than two months since the issuance of the first national lockdown, there needs to be in place a broader and well thought out National Plan outlining inter alia a detailed coordination mechanism between Centre and states.”

Guidelines for minimum standards of relief

While pointing out that India has reached the fourth position in the world, in number of COVID19 cases, the petitions stresses upon the need for “Guidelines for minimum standards of relief” under section 12 of the Act, which includes minimum requirement of food in relief camps, special provisions for windows and orphans, ex gratia assistance on account of loss of life  and so on.

The petition states that there has been a lack of short-term measures and guidelines for providing immediate relief to the worst affected sections of people which need to be accompanied with sufficient funds and monetary relief coming from the Centre. It further suggests, “while the economy is being opened in a staggered manner and means of livelihood of the marginal farmers, street vendors, migrant labourers may eventually be restored to some extent, it is going to take a long time and till then, it is submitted, there should be immediate cash outlay for them”.

The petition states that these guidelines could also cater to the grievances of healthcare workers who are complaining of shortage of PPEs putting them at a high risk.

It remains to see whether this petition will meet the same fate as the earlier two petitions dismissed by the Supreme Court; one for being ‘misconceived’ and the other was directed to be debated in the Parliament.

The complete petition may be read here.

Related:

Is PM CARES a public authority or not?
Delhi HC: SG to file reply to petition challenging PMO response denying PM CARES info under RTI
Plea in Delhi HC seeking directions to get PM CARES under RTI Act
Bombay HC’s Nagpur bench refuses to dismiss petition seeking CAG audit of PM CARES, issues notice
PM CARES not Public Authority says PMO, in response to RTI query

The post Plea in SC demanding transfer of funds from PM CARES to NDRF appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: nationalheraldindia.com

In another setback to the already suffering PMC depositors, the Supreme Court (SC) bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, refused to admit a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the PMC Bank issue on Friday.

Bejon Mishra, a Delhi-based consumer activist sought a court order quashing the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) cash withdrawal restrictions, but the SC bench asked him to move his plea before the “concerned High Court”. This is not the first PIL to be filed in the matter. Earlier, a group of depositors had too filed a PIL before the Bombay HC seeking to remove withdrawal restrictions imposed on the PMC Bank account holders.

Mishra had approached the SC saying that the Centre and RBI should be directed to “ensure complete insulation and protection of money deposited by people in various cooperative banks and nationalised banks by enacting an appropriate measure of 100 per cent insurance coverage towards the deposited amount.”

He also alleged that the Centre and RBI had not taken any emergency steps to ensure the protection of the money of these 15 lakh customers of PMC Bank.

Mentioning that thousands of depositors were grappling with the circular which issued to denote that the withdrawal limit is capped at Rs. 25,000, the petitioner called the notice ‘arbitrary and discriminatory’.

The SC has recently increased the withdrawal limit to Rs. 40,000 and provided a special withdrawal limit of Rs. 1 lakh for medical emergencies and Rs. 50,000 for occasions like marriage and the needs of aged persons and persons with disabilities.

This move came in after almost 4 people lost their lives due to stress-related incidents after the news of the scam and when one person committed suicide being unable to bear the uncertainty in the matter.

Advocate ShashankDeoSudhi, the petitioner’s counsel said that the issue had involved four states – Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. Yet, the SC dismissed the petition and asked the petitioner to approach the High Court.

Solicitor Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Centre, said that the Government was concerned about the issue and that prompt steps had been taken in the matter.

Mishra’s plea also requested that a high-powered committee be constituted to look into the complete affairs of the working and operations of all cooperative banks to ensure a transparent mechanism that would inspire confidence of the common people with regards to such banks. This, especially after the PMC scam has eroded the confidence of the people in the banking system of the country.

Meanwhile, the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) has appointed Ajay Misar as a Special Public Prosecutor to ensure there are no legal loopholes in the case given its scale. Misar has earlier handled high-profile cases including the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case. Misar’s appointment is meant to ensure that there is a speedy recovery of the money after the auctioning of the attached properties which have approximately amounted to Rs. 4,500 crore.
 
Related:
Disaster Day for PMC Account Holders: Acute Customer Distress on Twitter
RBI puts Mumbai based PMC under restrictions, Chaos reigns outside Bank’s Branches
Why aren’t we up in arms? PMC bank crisis claims life of 2
 

The post PMC Bank Crisis: SC refuses to admit PIL against withdrawal limits appeared first on SabrangIndia.

RTI Commissioner Shridhar Acharyulu (Ravindra Joshi/HT PHOTO)
 

The post Amendments to RTI Act will spell doom for good governance: RTI Commissioner appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Shadab Patel, a Bandra based businessman has, on Monday filed a PIL before Bombay high court, seeking action by the Court against “self-proclaimed gau rakshaks“ in Maharashtra.

Expressing a grave apprehension that these self-styled  cow vigilante groups could stir up trouble during the upcoming Bakri Eid festival, Shadab Patel has urged the court to direct the state to take effective steps to protect citizens, especially those who deal in trade and transport of cattle, from lynch mobs. The anxiety in Maharashtra has grown given the fact just a few days back, a Muslim, and a BJP worker was brutally beaten up in Nagpur after allegations of carrying beef. In a stark example of vigilantes taking law into their own hands and committing the crime of assault, PTI reports that after the assault, the man himself was arrested as ‘it was proven and tested that he was carrying beef,’

“The cow vigilantes groups and sanghatnas are taking law in their own hands and immediate action should be taken against them. They are a threat as they cause disturbance or riot-like situation in the name of beef,“ said Patel in the petition filed through his lawyer, Asif Naqvi.“The citizens have a right to life and right to carry out business and trade, guaranteed by the Constitution of India. It cannot be be violated by such cow vigilantes, whose main aim is to create a sense of fear in the minds of people,“ said the petitioner.

The petition claimed that since 2014, around 24 persons had been killed allegedly by cow vigilantes across India. It listed various incidents from the killing of Mohammed Akhlaq, to Pehlu Khan, Junaid Khan and the most recent attack on a man last month in Nagpur.

“The state and Centre have miserably failed to curb such attacks, hence it is necessary for the court to make guidelines for preventive and safety measures,“ said the petitioner. The PIL has asked the court to direct the state to set up a 24-hour helpline to “keep a check on illegal acts by cow vigilantes moving around freely in the name of cow protection in large groups“. The state should also ask each police station to maintain a list of such vigilante groups in their areas and submit a report to court on action taken against them. The petitioner said the state should provide 24-hour security to traders when transporting livestock. He sought implementation of a Supreme Court order suspending the Union government’s notification banning sale and purchase of cattle at animal markets for slaughter.“If the state cannot provide safety to citizens who deal in cattle trade and transport, they should be provided gun licences to save their lives,“ added the petition. The PIL is likely to be heard later this week.

In the Nagpur incident, newspaper PTI reported that the Nagpur Rural Police have arrested Salim Shaha, a BJP worker who was allegedly beaten up by cow vigilantes earlier this week, under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act for possession of beef.

Shaha was beaten up by some people on July 12 on the suspicion that he was carrying beef. Police had said on Sunday that as per the forensic laboratory report, the meat which he was carrying that day was beef. Superintendent of police (Nagpur Rural) Shailesh Balkawde told PTI today that Shaha was arrested last night, and produced before Narkhed magistrate’s court in the district today which sent him in police custody for one day.

Police will ask for extension of his custody tomorrow, the SP said, adding that a case has been registered at Jalalkheda Police Station. Shaha (34), a resident of Katol town in Nagpur district, was returning home on his motorcycle when a group of five or six men accosted him at a bus stop in the Bharsingi village on July 12. They allegedly assaulted him on the suspicion that he was carrying beef. Shaha’s family, however, said he may not have known what he was carrying. The family was initially reluctant to talk about the forensic report, stating that it was already “in trouble”.

But “Salim may not have been aware of what he was carrying,” a relative said. The Nagpur (rural) unit president of the BJP, Rajiv Potdar, had said Shaha would be dismissed from the party.After Shaha was beaten up and taken to a hospital, four men–Ashwin Uike (35), Rameshwar Taywade (42), Moreshwar Tandurkar (36) and Jagdish Chaudhari (25)–were arrested and booked under charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

The post Petition Against Maharashtra’s Cow Vigilantes: Bombay High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

टाइम्स ऑफ इंडिया की खबर के मुताबिक, बीजेपी प्रवक्ता ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट में चार पीआईएल डाली हुई थीं। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने उनमें से एक की सुनवाई करते हुए उसे खारिज भी कर दिया था।

कोर्ट ने कहा कि बीजेपी पावर में है और आप मंत्री के पास जाकर जो भी दिक्कतें हैं, उन्हें दूर कर सकते हैं. ऐसा कोई दिन नहीं गया जब हमने आपको कोर्ट में न देखा हो, आपके पास दूसरा काम नहीं है।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने बीजेपी प्रवक्ता से आगे कहा, ‘आप रोज कोई ना कोई पीआईएल डाल देते हैं। आप पेशेवर पीआईएल डालने वाले बन गए हैं। आपकी पार्टी ही केंद्र की सत्ता में है। आप केंद्र से भी अपनी बातों को लेकर शिकायत कर सकते हैं।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि कोर्ट में राजनीति को बढ़ावा नहीं दिया जाएगा। कोर्ट ने बीजेपी प्रवक्ता की याचिका को खारिज करते हुए कहा, ‘हम लोग राजनीतिक फायदे के लिए कोर्ट में यह सब बर्दाश्त नहीं कर सकते।’

Courtesy: Janta Ka Reporter
 

The post बीजेपी प्रवक्ता को सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने फटकारा, पूछा – क्या बीजेपी आपको पैसा देती है ? appeared first on SabrangIndia.