BackVerdict on state intervention in private unaided colleges today
SC will hear the case regarding ban on entry of women in Sabarimala temple
Premium
New Delhi: Courts on Monday have much to offer, ranging from a verdict on how far states can interfere in fees and admissions criteria for private unaided colleges to the iron ore mining cases in Karnataka.
Here’s a look at the newsmakers of the day.
State interference in fees and admission criteria of private unaided colleges
A verdict is expected on Monday by a five-judge constitutional bench comprising Justices Anil R. Dave, A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal, Adarsh Kumar Goel and R. Bhanumathi relating to the extent of state interference in the fees and admission to private unaided professional colleges in Madhya Pradesh.
Ban on entry of women into Sabarimala temple
The Supreme Court will hear the case regarding ban on entry of women in Sabarimala temple. The court has questioned the rationale for keeping women from entering the temple in the light of constitutional principles. The case came to the court through a petition from a not-for-profit outfit Indian Young Lawyer’s Association, seeking entry of women. Read more
During earlier hearings, the court had questioned the rationale for keeping women out of the temple and addressed it in the light of customs and dimensions of constitutionality. The court also discussed the effect of menstruation on the issue. Read more
Lodha Committee report
Monday will see yet another hearing in which the apex court is overseeing implementation of the Lodha committee report on administrative reforms within the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which has come in for criticism for not implementing the recommendations. Read more
The court has time and again criticised the cricket regulatory authority for not falling in line. Read more
E-auction of iron ore mines in Karnataka
The case regarding e-auction of 15 iron ore mines in Karnataka in which the court has given a stipulated time period to the state government for its compliance will be heard on Monday.
In April 2013, the court had ordered that all sales of iron and manganese ores in Karnataka should be done only through e-auctions that will be monitored and overseen by the central empowered company.
It also ordered several measures to prevent environmental damage due to mining. The court’s ruling came in a 2003 case filed by non-profit Samaj Parivartana Samudaya against large-scale depletion of forests in Karnataka due to illegal mining on an unprecedented scale. Read more
However, last month, the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries, a mining industry body, moved the Supreme Court against the e-auction process, claiming that e-auction was not in the best interest of mineral activity. Read more
Teesta Setalvad anticipatory bail case
The apex court will hear a case of anticipatory bail filed by activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand in relation to an embezzlement charge levelled against them for siphoning off money from the donations collected by them for the construction of a memorial for the 2002 Gujarat riots victims at Gulbarg Society. Read more
On 19 February, the court had reserved judgement in this matter, while directing that no arrests would be made in the interim. Read more
Status of SYL canal land
The apex court will also hear a case regarding the status of the Satluj-Yamuna Link Canal land, which is allegedly being acquired illegally by farmers in Punjab with political help. Read more
Centre-state tussle in Delhi
The long-drawn face-off between the Centre and the state will continue with the high court hearing a plea to decide the distribution of power between the Centre and the Delhi government. On Tuesday, senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the Delhi government, proposed referring the matter to a larger bench as it involved grave constitutional questions. The issue has been heard expeditiously and is bound to have an impact on resolving various problems existing between the two. The last hearings have addressed the issue of the powers of Lieutenant-Governor (L-G) over consultation with the council of ministers in taking various decisions.The immediate reason for the problem is a Union ministry of home affairs notification dated 21 May 2015 replacing a 1998 notification on the issue. The Centre’s notification said that in police and other service matters, the L-G could take decisions independently of the state government. Read more
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
