High Court issued notice to AAP MLA over illegal construction

Justice Mukta Gupta of Delhi High Court a plea by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA’s neighbour who has alleged that the illegal construction was going on despite a work-stop notice and a show cause notice being issued to him, directed South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) to ensure that no further alleged illegal construction was carried out by an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) legislator at his residence.

Court further issued notice to Delhi Government, South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC), and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA from the Kasturba Nagar constituency Madan Lal for alleged unauthorised construction. Court further came heavily on SDMC for its delay in taking any action after it issued show cause notice to the legislator, asking “you want the construction to be raised fully before you demolish it?

Court further directed the corporation to ensure that no further illegal construction took place and the demolition is carried out as per law. It is an another big blow to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government that, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA’s are continuously featuring in controversies.

Tough time for Kejriwal’s government: SC issues notice

Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court of India

A bench of Justices AK Sikri and UU Lalit, while refusing to stay Delhi HC order allowing Anti- Corruption Bureau of Delhi to take action against officials in corruption cases, clarified that observation made by the High Court on Ministry of Home Affairs notification of May 21 was tentative in nature and it would not be binding.

Apex Court described as tentative a high court observation that the central government’s May 21 order giving Delhi’s lieutenant governor (Najeeb Jung) the final say in posting and transfers of bureaucrats was ‘suspect’, even as it issued notice to the city government on the issue. While saying that observation in paragraph 66 of the high court judgment holding notification suspect as tentative, the apex court said that in respect of other paragraphs it will a call only after receiving reply from the Delhi government.

The apex court issued notice to Arvind Kejriwal Government on Centre petition and asked it to file response within three weeks. The court also said that dispute arising out of power tussle between Delhi Government and Centre should be decided by the Supreme Court and asked the AAP government to take a decision whether it wants the case to decided in Supreme Court or Delhi high court.

Kejriwal Centre Tug-of-War: Delhi High Courts Observations put on hold

Kejriwal Centre Tug-of-War

In a big blow to the Aam Aadmi Party Government in Delhi, the Supreme Court has stayed the Delhi High Court’s observations on Delhi Government’s notification which said that the Lieutenant Governor has no power in posting and transfer of bureaucrats. The Supreme Court further observed that the High Court observations will not have any bearing on the case filed by the Delhi government challenging the Home Ministry notification.

Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court of India

A bench of Justices AK Sikri and UU Lalit of the Apex Court while, refusing to stay Delhi HC order allowing Anti- Corruption Bureau of Delhi to take action against officials in corruption cases, clarified that observation made by the High Court on Ministry of Home Affairs notification of May 21 was tentative in nature and it would not be binding.

However, the Supreme Court has asked the Delhi government to reply within three weeks. The court also said that dispute arising out of power tussle between Delhi Government and Centre should be decided by the Supreme Court and asked the AAP government to take a decision whether it wants the case to be decided in Supreme Court or Delhi High Court.

Government to check if airlines have got sexual harassment panel

Adyasree Prakriti Sivakumar

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan saw India open its eyes towards safety and security of working women. The guidelines laid down in this case brought a major revolution in the area of “Sexual harassment of women in work places”. It brought happiness in lips and safety in hearts of working women.

In a recent case, these guidelines were challenged in the court of law for the Civil Aviation sector. A suit was filed by an Indian employee employed in Sri Lankan Airlines who challenged the guidelines. She questioned the Civil Aviation Ministry and Women and Child Development Ministry, Delhi government, the airline and its officials for failing to prevent her from harassment, which was released by the press on November 23, 2014. Adding on, the main defaulter, Sri Lankan Airlines, has been questioned not only by its own employee but also by the High court of Delhi as to why it had not set up regular internal complaints committees, as per the guidelines, at its seven offices in India to look into instances of sexual harassment.

Justice Hima Kohli asked the Centre and Delhi government to verify if airlines operating from the capital, international and domestic have a sexual harassment committee as per the landmark Supreme Court guidelines. To quote the court, “What steps have you (Centre, Delhi government and airlines) taken for the implementation of Vishaka guidelines in all Airlines or at every workplace? You should have done it by now. You should ensure Vishaka guidelines are functional in every other organization.”

We are living in an era where we want “equality” in everything, “no discrimination” in all aspects. If so is the case then why is it that when it comes to the safety and security of women there is “inequality” and “discrimination”? The words said by our Prime Minister on Independence Day this year, would be the best way to conclude, “Question not your daughters where they are going but tell your sons to behave.”

Private Schools to set their own guidelines for nursery admissions in Delhi

Justice Manmohan of the Delhi High Court, disposing of the writ petitions moved by the groups representing the schools and parents, set aside the Lieutenant Governor’s previous guidelines issued in this regard and held that the administrative autonomy of schools could not be restricted by official orders and upheld the Ganguly Committee’s recommendations and allowed private unaided schools to set their own guidelines for nursery admissions and evolve point systems to suit their requirements.

The notification issued by the Lieutenant Governor had created a 100 point system for nursery admission of general category students and done away with the management quota.

Court said that, private unaided schools should have administrative autonomy to decide on admissions. Also it was observed that, the “Administrative autonomy of private unaided schools cannot be restrained by way of office orders“. The high court also said the power to decide the school of a child should lie with the parents. “Position on map cannot decide which school a child should go to,” it added.

It was also observed that the practice of administering the process of school admissions through circulars, notifications and office orders creates uncertainty and added that consistency; certainty and incorporation of popular will could only be done by the Legislature revisiting the issue of nursery admissions.

Court, earlier restrained the Delhi government from issuing fresh notification for nursery admissions for the next academic session, said the children should have the option to go to a neighbourhood school, but their choice could not be restricted to a school situated in their locality.

However, while reserving his verdict, Justice Manmohan had also restrained Delhi government from issuing fresh notification for nursery admission for the upcoming academic year in the national capital on a plea challenging last year’s guidelines.

The verdict has come as a major relief for private unaided schools, as it will be applicable to the admissions for the year 2015-16.