Rss

  • stumble
  • youtube
  • linkedin

Archives for : Petitioner

Bombay HC- PIL demands speedy trial for Naxal/ Maoist suspects

TNN | Mar 14, 2013,

NAGPUR: A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed on Wednesday before the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court seeking judicial intervention and relief into the various aspects of Naxal undertrials. The petitioner, Soma Sen is a member of the Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights and associate professor of English Department at the Nagpur University. She is engaged in social work for more than two decades.

The PIL deals with the plight of the several farmers and other residents of Naxal-affected Gadchiroli who had been nabbed during various operations launched by the government forces in the district. Following their arrest, the petitioner has claimed that the trials are often delayed on numbers of pretexts including not providing escort guards to enable undertrials to remain present before the court.

The petitioner has also claimed that delayed trial of the victims has been aggravated by the violation of the fundamental rights of the prisoners and other laws pertaining to present them before the court. Sen has also prayed before the court to discourage videoconferencing facilities which do not allow the undertrials to have access to their lawyer

 

Related posts

Sanction pension to mentally challenged person: Madras High Court #good news



CHENNAI : Coming to the rescue of a mentally affected person who was denied disability pension, the Madras High Court has directed the authority to sanction the pension in three months.

Disposing of a writ petition filed on behalf of him, Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar concurred with petitioner’s counsel that the mentally affected individual was also entitled to get ‘Physical Disability Pension.’

The Judge also pointed out that the government had removed income limit for receiving such pension.

The writ petition was filed on behalf of C. Rajamani (46) of Jodukuli village in Salem district by his brother C. Saravanan, contending that Rajamani was denied pension even after authorities had issued Disability Certificate stating that he had mental disability to the extent of 65 per cent.

An application, submitted by him to Special Tahsildar, Social Security Scheme, Omalur, on June 28, 2010 seeking grant of pension, was rejected on the ground that his mother was getting pension and that the applicant had landed property.

M.R. Jothimanian, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the income limit mentioned earlier was removed by the government from the financial year 2010-2011 and therefore the petitioner was entitled to get such pension.
When the petitioner again submitted an application, it was rejected on the ground that being a mentally disabled person, the petitions did not come in the category of ‘Physically Disabled Person.’

The counsel also submitted that the issue was clarified by the Deputy Director of State Commissionerate for Physically Disabled Persons, through his proceedings in 2012 stating that “if a person is mentally disabled, he is also entitled to get Physical Disability Pension.”

The counsel further said that the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 also defines that physical disability includes ‘mental illness’ and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to get ‘Physical Disability Pension’ at the rate of Rs.1,000 per month.

After hearing the submissions, Mr. Justice Paul Vasanthakumar said, “Considering the said submission and having regard to the Certificate issued by the District Disabled Rehabilitation Officer, Salem, and in the light of the order dated June 28, 2010 removing the income limit, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.”

Setting aside the impugned orders, the Judge directed the Special Tahsildar to sanction pension to the petitioner within three months.

The court also permitted Mr. Saravanan to get pension on behalf of him, after getting orders in the Original Petition which was already filed in the District Court, Salem for appointing him as a guardian.

 

source: The hindu

  • #India- Enabling the disabled (kractivist.wordpress.com)
  • #iNDIA- Mental Health Law Reform: Challenges Ahead (kractivist.wordpress.com)

 

Related posts

One recommended issue of passport, another wanted it to be impounded: S P Udayakumar

Published: June 6, 2012 14:46 IST |

 

Madurai

    , The Hindu -Staff Reporter

 

Files counter affidavit in a writ filed by anti-nuclear activist S.P. Udayakumar

The Regional Passport Officer (RPO) here has submitted that his office issued a passport to anti-nuclear activist S.P. Udayakumar on September 15, 2010 following a positive police verification report given by Kanyakumari Superintendent of Police but subsequently decided to impound it on the basis of a request made by Tirunelveli Superintendent of Police.

Filing his counter affidavit to a writ petition filed by Mr. Udayakumar, the RPO, V. Sundararaman, said that the petitioner, a resident of Nagercoil in Kanyakumari district, had applied for renewal of his passport, originally issued by the Tiruchi RPO, in July 2010.

Then, a positive police verification report was received from the Kanyakumari SP recommending issuance of the passport.

Hence, the petitioner’s passport was renewed on September 15, 2010. Thereafter, the Tirunelveli Superintendent of Police wrote to the Madurai RPO seeking the petitioner’s passport details as he was involved in more than 72 criminal cases.

Immediately, the RPO furnished the details with a request to investigate as to how a positive report was sent by the Kanyakumari SP.

Reply

In reply, the Tirunelveli SP sent another communication through the Chennai RPO stating that the petitioner was involved in more than 98 criminal cases in Kudankulam and Pazhavoor police stations.

He also attached a list containing the details of the case numbers and requested the Madurai RPO to initiate steps for impounding the petitioner’s passport.

On receipt of the communication, the RPO requested the SP to obtain an order from a competent court for impounding the passport.

Notice

Simultaneously, he issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on March 3 this year informing him about the contents of the SP’s letter and advising him to surrender the passport within 15 days or to face appropriate action under the Passports Act 1967.

“The petitioner did not surrender the passport until April 16 and accordingly a final decision was taken to impound the passport. The decision was communicated to the petitioner along with his right to prefer an appeal against the decision before the authority concerned… The above action taken by this office is well within the framework of the provisions contained in the Passports Act.

“The procedure followed in the matter and the contents of our show cause notice are neither wilful nor in violation of principles of audi alteram partem (hear the other party too). The show cause notice is also not arbitrary in any manner. It also does not curtail the personal liberty of the petitioner in any way. The action taken by this office is also not with any malafide intention,” the counter affidavit read.

Adjourned

When the matter came up for hearing on Tuesday, Justice K. Venkataraman adjourned it to Thursday following a request made by Central Government Standing Counsel S. Sukumaran. The petitioner was represented by his counsel T. Lajapathi Roy and S. Vanchinathan.

Related posts