Latest news with #DivisionBench
The Hindu
2 days ago
- General
- The Hindu
Mother cannot seek cancellation of gift deed executed by father or vice-versa, rules Madras High Court
The Madras High Court on Thursday held that revenue authorities cannot take steps to cancel gift deeds, by invoking their power under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act of 2007, if the father had executed the deed but the mother had filed an application for cancellation or vice-versa. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh ruled that as per the scheme of the 2007 Act, only the transferror of a property by way of gift, settlement or such other mode of transfer could maintain an application for cancellation too if the children fail to maintain him/her as per a specific condition that had been mentioned in the deed itself. 'No other person can maintain an application under Section 23(1) of the Act. As a consequence, the application submitted by the mother of the present petitioner is not maintainable and the second respondent (Kallakurichi Revenue Divisional Officer) ought not to have entertained the application and passed orders,' he wrote. The verdict was delivered while allowing a writ petition filed by Karuppan of Kallkurichi against the RDO's February 15, 2019 order for cancelling the gift deed executed in his favour by his father in 1997. After the father's death, the petitioner's mother had sought cancellation of the deed since he failed to take care of her. Justice Venkatesh set aside the RDO's order and directed the Sub Registrar to remove the encumbrance from the property not only on the ground that the cancellation application had not been filed by the executor but also on the ground that the gift deed did not impose any condition regarding maintenance of parents. The judge pointed out that at least five judges of the Madras High Court sitting single had taken a consistent view that parents could seek cancellation of gift deeds only if a specific condition had been imposed in them that the children must take care of them during old age failing which the deeds were liable to cancellation. Similar view had been taken by the Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts too. However, one Division Bench of the Madras High Court alone had taken a contrary view that the condition need not be mentioned explicitly in the gift deed and that the maintenance of parents was an implicit requirement. 'It is well settled that courts cannot rewrite a statutory provision when the words used by the legislature are plain and unambiguous,' Justice Venkatesh said and pointed out that the Supreme Court judgements relied upon by the Division Bench nowhere state that the condition for maintenance need not be explicit. 'This court has carefully gone through the Supreme Court's decision in Urmila Dixit's case and is unable to find a single sentence/word in that decision which supports the theory of 'implied condition' propounded by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. Mala,' Justice Venkatesh said. Therefore, stating that the Division Bench had not laid down the law correctly, the judge held that gift deeds could not be cancelled if the properties had been settled, in favour of the children, absolutely without imposition of any condition to take care of the parents.
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
HC orders Centre to restart MGNREGA in Bengal from Aug 1, TMC says state govt vindicated
Stating that no central scheme can be sent to cold storage forever, the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday directed the Centre to restart MGNREGA, the 100-day rural job guarantee scheme, in West Bengal prospectively from August 1. The Division Bench of the High Court, led by Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam, allowed the Centre to impose special conditions, restrictions, and regulations — not imposed in other states — to ensure that no irregularity occurs when the scheme is being implemented in West Bengal. The BJP-led government at the Centre had stopped the implementation of the scheme in West Bengal from March 9, 2022, alleging widespread irregularities and non-compliance of its directives by the state. The TMC government in the state, on the other hand, accused the Centre of withholding the MGNREGA dues for 'political reasons' and said that it has submitted 22 compliance reports to the Centre but to no avail. The Division Bench, also comprising Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), said: 'The scheme of the Act does not envisage a situation where the scheme would be put to cold storage for eternity… The Centre can impose any kind of conditions to prevent corruption… If the Center wants, it can send money directly to the account of a specific person through the central portal. The Centre can carry out necessary surveillance to prevent corruption. In addition, the Centre can continue investigations in all the districts of the state.' The High Court's order came on a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) filed by an outfit of labourers called Paschim Banga Khet Mansoor Samity. The group sought the outstanding wages of workers settled with at least 0.05 per cent interest. BJP MLA and Leader of Opposition in Assembly, Suvendu Adhikari, also filed an application demanding a CBI investigation into the alleged embezzlement of Central funds in the scheme's implementation in West Bengal. Welcoming the High Court's order, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee said the Centre must immediately release the arrears under MGNREGA scheme and other rural development projects before sending further inquiry teams to the state. 'We welcome the High Court judgment. Let them (Centre) restart the programme first. This is not their money, it's public money. It's our right to get it,' Banerjee said at a press conference at Nabanna. 'We did not even go to court; an individual organisation went. From the government's side, we will go for a review to demand the arrears. The Centre is sending teams to Bengal, but first, give us the due money. Not a single rupee has been released for the past few years. This is public money,' she said. TMC spokesperson Kunal Ghosh said that the High Court's order vindicated the state government's stand. 'The order vindicated our stand and our fight for the central funds. The Centre has been blocking Bengal government's dues illegally and in a discriminatory manner. The High Court had on April 10 directed the central government to state why the MGNREGA scheme should not be prospectively implemented in West Bengal, leaving out four districts. It has been stated that there are allegations of defalcation of funds with regard to four districts of Purba Bardhaman, Hooghly, Malda and Darjeeling (GTA area). The Central government on Wednesday submitted its stand in the form of an affidavit on implementing the NREGA scheme prospectively in the state. During the hearing on Wednesday, the court said: 'From beginning, in so many hearings, we are trying to make it clear whether the legal beneficiaries will get their wages. If there are 10 people who have genuinely done the work, what about them?' To this, Additional Solicitor General Ashok Chakraborty, representing the Central government, said: 'Who is to assess whether these people have genuinely worked or not? Since there is factual proof of misappropriation of funds and unless we are satisfied with the State's action taken report, we cannot disburse funds.' The Chief Justice then said: 'Whatever has happened has happened. Now, draw a line and make a beginning. Prospectively implement the scheme from August 1. Impose conditions. Parallelly proceed with your inquiry and recovery of misappropriated amounts.' State Advocate General AG Kishore, representing the West Bengal government, said that nodal officers might not be required anymore for wage distribution as the Centre has come out with a new portal for the electronic disbursement of payments. The matter will come up for further hearing after August 15. Before the Centre had suspended the MGNREGS in West Bengal in March 2022, 75.97 lakh families had availed the scheme in the state in 2021-22. The number was even higher (79.65 lakh) during 2020-21, the year that saw the outbreak of Covid-19. The last allocation, made in 2021-22, was for 27 crore labour days, out of which wages worth Rs 3,500 crore were withheld by the Centre. In the previous year, 2020-21, the allocation had been 41 crore labour days. Responding to a starred question asked by TMC member Jawar Sircar, Rural Development Minister Giriraj Singh on December 06, 2023, informed Rajya Sabha that a total amount of Rs 13,965.91 crore was pending as Central share for two schemes—MG-NREGS and PMAY-G. The West Bengal government sources, however, say that the total dues of about Rs 18,000 crore are pending under three rural development schemes—MG-NRGES, PMAY-G, and PMGSY. In January this year, West Bengal's Rural Development Minister Pradip K Mazumdar had written a letter to the Union Rural Development Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, seeking an appointment for a meeting to urge the latter to release funds. TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee had led two delegations of party MPs to Krishi Bhawan, seeking the release of funds to the states. Recently, the Ministry of Rural Development had informed a parliamentary standing committee that the decision to release funds amounting to Rs 7,888.67 crore to West Bengal under Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana-Gramin (PMAY-G) during the current financial year (2024-25) is pending with 'competent authority'. With inputs from ENS, New Delhi
The Hindu
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Calcutta HC orders interim stay on notification of OBC list in W.B.
In a setback to the West Bengal government, the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday directed an interim stay on the preparation of a new list of Other Backward Caste (OBC) communities. A Division Bench of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Tapabrata Chakraborty issued the interim stay till the next date of hearing on July 31. The order was passed by the Division Bench following a petition seeking intervention of the High Court. The court also put a stay on the State government's decision to open a portal for submission of caste certificates for the purpose of addition of OBC communities in the new list. The Calcutta High Court in May 2024 had cancelled the OBC reservation awarded to 77 categories, highlighting a complete lack of legislative policy within the 2012 scheme to classify any group as OBC. The State government has approached the Supreme Court and the matter is pending before it. On June 10, the West Bengal government tabled a new OBC list in the State Assembly with minor changes compared to the previous list. Question posed During the proceedings in the court, the Division Bench asked why the new OBC list had been finalised by introducing amendments to the 2012 Act. The High Court's order came on a day when the State government opened a portal for admission in colleges and universities based on the new OBC list. There seems to be no clarity on the fate of the admission process particularly for those availing admission under the OBC category. Decision welcomed Leader of Opposition in the West Bengal Assembly Suvendu Adhikari in a social media post welcomed the order 'to stay the inclusion of 76 Muslim classes in the new OBC list prepared by the Mamata Banerjee government'. The Bengal BJP leadership had accused the Trinamool Congress government of 'appeasement politics' for including Muslims in the OBC list. Mr. Adhikari said contrary to the claims of the State Advocate General that the Opposition has not opposed the OBC list tabled in Assembly, he had raised objections to the fresh OBC list tabled by the Chief Minister.
The Hindu
10-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Amid NEP row, Madras HC tells Centre to consider paying RTE funds to T.N. by delinking it from Samagra Shiksha
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) directed the Union Ministry of Education to consider splitting the disbursal of funds to the Tamil Nadu government under its flagship Samagra Shiksha scheme, so that money needed to reimburse private schools under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act can be disbursed. The RTE component amounts to about ₹200 crore, while the total amount pending to Tamil Nadu under the SSS amounts to ₹2,151.59 crore, amidst a row over the State's refusal to implement the National Education Policy, 2020. The court also told the State government that non-receipt of funds from the Centre cannot be used as a 'reason to wriggle out' of its own obligation to pay the private schools. Concurrent responsibility A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan noted that the Centre had some issues in releasing SSS funds as the State government has not adopted the NEP. However, it has an independent obligation under the RTE Act of 2009, which has nothing to do with non-adoption of NEP, the judges said. 'Section 7 of the RTE Act states that the Central government and the State governments have concurrent responsibility for providing funds for carrying out the provisions of the Act... Therefore, funds payable to the State Government representing the Central Government's share towards discharging the RTE obligations need not be linked to NEP 2020,' the Division Bench observed. Since the Tamil Nadu government had already filed a civil suit before the Supreme Court demanding release of SSS funds of ₹2,151.59 crore, the judges said: 'We are not in a position to issue any binding direction in this regard,' and stopped with issuing a direction to the Centre to merely 'consider' delinking the RTE component from the SSS funds and disbursing the amount accordingly. T.N. cannot 'wiggle out' On the other hand, taking note of various judicial precedents, the Division Bench directed the State government to reimburse the private schools which make admissions under the RTE Act. 'The State government has an obligation to reimburse private unaided schools. Non-receipt of funds from the Union Government cannot be cited as a reason to wriggle out of this statutory obligation,' the court observed. The orders were passed while disposing of a public interest litigation petition which sought a direction to the State government to commence the RTE admissions for the academic year 2025-26 without any delay. Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran told the court that the State government was unable to reimburse the private schools on time due to non-receipt of Central funds. He said the ₹188.99 crore expenditure towards RTE reimbursement for the year 2022-23 was borne in entirety by the State government. In view of such complaints, the judges suo motu impleaded the Union Ministry of Education as one of the respondents to the case and requested Additional Solicitor General (ASG) A.R.L. Sundaresan to obtain necessary instructions. RTE obligations The ASG told the court that SSS was an integrated scheme that envisages education as a continuum from pre-school to Class 12, and that the scheme was aligned with the provisions of NEP 2020. Since the Tamil Nadu government had not agreed to implement NEP 2020, there were issues regarding the disbursement of funds. He also said that it was the primary responsibility of the State government to implement the RTE Act. Disagreeing with him, the judges said that both the Centre as well as the State governments were obligated to implement the Act. Authoring the judgement, Justice Swaminathan quoted former Chief Justice of the United States Earl Warren, saying: 'Today, education is perhaps the most important function of the state... It is doubtful any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of education.'
The Hindu
04-06-2025
- General
- The Hindu
Not every parent is like Justice Leila Seth, who supported same-sex relationships, rues Madras High Court
Our society is still conservative, and not every parent is like Justice Leila Seth (former Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court who openly supported her gay son); however, that should not be a reason for the police to deny security to LGBTQIA+ couples facing threats, the Madras High Court has said. A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan made the observation while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by a 25-year-old woman from Tirupattur against the illegal detention of her partner by the latter's parents at their residence in Vellore district. The judges allowed the detainee, also a major, to go with the petitioner after she confirmed that her parents had confined her at their residence against her will. Justice Swaminathan also gave ₹1,000 from his personal funds for the conveyance expenses of the same-sex couple. Use of word 'queer' The Divsion Bench also expressed reservations over the usage of the expression 'queer' to describe persons whose gender identity or sexual orientation was outside societal norms and said, there was nothing strange or odd about such inclinations and therefore, the usage was not appropriate. 'We feel certain discomfort in employing the expression 'queer.' Any standard dictionary defines this word as meaning 'strange or odd.' To a homosexual individual, his/her/their sexual orientation must be perfectly natural and normal... Why then should they be called queer?' the judges wondered. Censuring the police for having forced the detainee to go with her parents when a complaint was lodged with them, the court held that the government officials, the jurisdictional police in particular, would be duty-bound to respond to complaints of threats or harassment received from members of the LGBTQIA+ community. 'We also restrain the detenu's natal family members from interfering with her personal liberty. We issue a writ of continuing mandamus to the jurisdictional police to afford adequate protection to the detenue as well as the petitioner as and when required,' the judges ordered. Expressing their inability to convince the parents of the detainee to accept the relationship between their daughter and the habeas corpus petitioner, the Bench said, 'But the law is very clear. All individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity, possess the right to universal enjoyment of human rights.' 'Same-sex couples can form family' Authoring the verdict, Justice Swaminathan also wrote: 'Same-sex couples can very well form a family. Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family. The concept of 'chosen family' is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence. The petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family.' They also referred to efforts taken by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court to improve the conditions of the LGBTQIA+ community and said, the judge had approved a deed of familial association that purported to recognise the civil union entered into between LGBTQIA+ partners.
