Birth of third child will disqualify you from contesting panchayat polls: SC

TNN
October 25, 2018

New Delhi, Oct 25: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that birth of a third child would automatically disqualify a person from contesting panchayat polls and from holding the post of a member or sarpanch in a panchayat.

Scotching attempts by a tribal sarpanch in Odisha to step around the disqualification law by giving away one of his three children in adoption to comply with the two-child norm, a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph said the legislative intent in Panchayati Raj Act was to bar any person having three 'live births' in her/his family from contesting panchayat elections or holding posts in panchayats.

"The legislative intent is to restrict the number of births in a family and not on the basis of benefit available under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act in regulating the number of children by giving the excess children in adoption," the CJI-led bench said.

The petitioner, Minasingh Majhi, had challenged an Orissa high court decision to disqualify him from holding the sarpanch's post in a panchayat in Nuapada district after the birth of his third child. Two children were born to him and his wife in 1995 and 1998. He was elected sarpanch in February 2002, but the birth of the third child in August 2002 led to his disqualification from the post.

His counsel Puneet Jain argued that he had given the first born in adoption in September 1999 and as Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act provides that once a child is given in adoption, that child ceases to be a member of the original family, his client remained compliant with the two-child norm to hold the post of sarpanch.

Jain argued that though Majhi was the biological father of three children, legally he had two children as the first born was given away in adoption to another family and, hence, he was compliant with the norm set by the Odisha Gram Panchayat Raj Act.

The bench said, "We do not know whether the law intended to make panchayat members and sarpanchs the role model for entire India by fastening the two-child norm on them. But the legislative intent appears clear that it wanted to put a cap on the number of children at two for those holding elected posts in panchayats."

Jain argued that twins and triplets were born to persons and asked whether they should be disqualified from contesting panchayat elections or holding elected posts in the grassroots level democratic institution? The bench said the situation did not apply to the case in hand and clarified that birth of twins and triplets was a rare phenomenon and the court would take an appropriate decision when such a case was brought before it.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 4,2020

New Delhi, Mar 4: The Supreme Court on Wednesday revoked the ban of cryptocurrency imposed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in 2018.

Pronouncing the verdict, the three-judge bench of the apex court said the ban was 'disproportionate'.

The bench included Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice V Ramasubramanian.

The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), whose members include cryptocurrency exchanges, and others had approached the top court objecting to a 2018 RBI circular directing regulated entities to not deal with cryptocurrencies.

Advocate Ashim Sood, appearing for IAMI, submitted that Reserve Bank of India lacked jurisdiction to forbid dealings in cryptocurrencies. The blanket ban was based on an erroneous understanding that it was impossible to regulate cryptocurrencies, Sood submitted.

The petitioners had argued that the RBI's circular taking cryptocurrencies out of the banking channels would deplete the ability of law enforcement agencies to regulate illegal activities in the industry.

IAMAI had claimed the move of RBI had effectively banned legitimate business activity via the virtual currencies (VCs).

The RBI on April 6, 2018, had issued the circular that barred RBI-regulated entities from "providing any service in relation to virtual currencies, including those of transfer or receipt of money in accounts relating to the purchase or sale of virtual currencies".

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
June 30,2020

Seventy-seven per cent children below five years of age in Jammu and Kashmir were not able to access basic healthcare services like immunisation during the lockdown imposed to curb the spread of COVID-19, CRY said on Monday citing a study.

The 'Rapid Online Perception Study about the Effects of COVID-19 on Children' was conducted during the first and second phases of the lockdown based on responses of parents and primary caregivers from all across the country, including Jammu and Kashmir, the NGO said in a statement.

It said a total of 387 respondents from Jammu and Kashmir participated in the study.

"Seventy-seven per cent children of age 0-5 years were not able to access basic healthcare services such as immunisation during lockdown - necessarily imposed to curb the spread of COVID-19 pandemic in Jammu and Kashmir," Child Rights and You (CRY) said.

It said as immunisation programmes witnessed a major setback during the lockdown across the country, the results of the survey across 23 states and Union Territories found nearly 50 per cent of parents with children below five years of age unable to access immunisation services.

"Worryingly, the figure was considerably high in Jammu and Kashmir with 77.14 per cent children below five years unable to get immunisation services," it added.

According to the study, in Jammu and Kashmir, nearly 35 per cent of the respondents said their children did not receive medical help during the lockdown, resulting in difficulties to cope with their children's illnesses and health hazards.

The study also talks about more systemic arrangements and logistical preparedness to ensure that children with no or compromised digital reach are not deprived from their Right to Education.

With online classes introduced as a substitute of schools during the lockdown, access to education for children remained a major issue of concern, as many of them, especially the ones from marginalised and financially poorer backgrounds found it difficult without smartphones and internet access.

The survey's findings revealed that nationally only 41 per cent households with children of school-going age could access online classes on a regular basis.

"Almost 90 per cent parents and primary caregivers reported that the lockdown has increased the screen time of their child to great or some extent. About half of the households recorded an increase of children's exposure to online activities during lockdown," it said.

The NGO said around 76 per cent parents agreed that they could keep a watch of their children's online activity to some extent.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
August 6,2020

New Delhi Aug 6: In a new twist in the Vijay Mallya case, a certain document connected with the case in the Supreme Court has gone missing from the apex court files. 

A bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit and Ashok Bhushan adjourned the hearing to August 20.

It was hearing the review plea filed by Mallya against a July 14, 2017 judgment wherein he was found guilty of contempt for not paying Rs 9,000 crore dues to banks despite repeated directions, although he had transferred $40 million to his children.

The bench was looking for a reply on an intervention application, which it seemed has gone missing from the case papers.Parties involved in the case sought more time to file fresh copies.

On June 19, the Supreme Court sought explanation from its registry regarding Mallya's appeal against the May 2017 conviction in the contempt case for not repaying Rs 9,000 crore dues to banks not listed for the last 3 years.

A bench comprising Justices Lalit and Bhushan had asked the Registry to furnish all the details including names of the officials who had dealt with the file concerning the Review Petition for last three years.

The bench said according to the record, placed before it, the review petition was not listed before the court for last three years. "Before we deal with the submissions raised in the Review Petition, we direct the Registry to explain why the Review Petition was not listed before the concerned Court for last three years," said the bench.In May 2017, the apex court held him guilty of contempt of court for transferring $40 million to his children, and ordered him to appear on July 10 to argue on the quantum of punishment.

The bench said let the explanation be furnished within two weeks. "The Review Petition shall, thereafter, be considered on merits," it added.In 2017, the apex court passed the order on a contempt petition against Mallya by a consortium of banks led by the SBI. 

The banks claimed Mallya transferred $40 million from Daigeo to his children's accounts, and did not use this money to clear his debt. Banks cited this as violation of judicial orders.

stm88 info live rtp slot

slot auto scatter hitam

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.