Latest news with #SupremeCourt
Hans India
an hour ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Now, Kavitha rivets eyes on irri projects to take on Revanth govt
Hyderabad: Telangana Jagruthi President Kalvakuntla Kavitha has now focused on the irrigation front to target the Revanth Reddy led government in the state, raising issues concerning projects like Bollapalli in Nallamala and the oustees of the Polavaram submergence area, among others. According to Jagruthi leaders, Kavitha has been keenly studying the irrigation sector with the aim of cornering the current administration. Along with opposing the Banakacherla project, Kavitha has been vocal against the proposed Bollapalli project in the Nallamala Forest area. During a recent press conference, Kavitha stated that the forest area faces submergence due to the Bollapalli project, proposed by the Andhra Pradesh government. She also challenged the narrative that Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu was never opposed to Telangana projects, recalling his past letters and petitions filed in the Supreme Court against them. She criticised the Chief Minister's 'paper tiger' stance, asserting that although he calls himself the 'Nallamala Tiger', he has failed to act against projects like the proposed 150 TMC Bollapalli reservoir, which threatens to submerge the Nallamala forest. Kavitha is organising a roundtable meeting on Friday to discuss submergence in Telangana due to the Polavaram project. Jagruthi General Secretary Naveen Achari confirmed that leaders of various parties, public organisations, and flood victims would participate and speak at the roundtable meeting, scheduled from 10 am to 2 pm on Friday.
GMA Network
an hour ago
- Health
- GMA Network
Baby born to brain-dead US woman kept alive due to abortion law
A brain-dead pregnant Black woman who was kept alive in the southern US state of Georgia due to local abortion restrictions has given birth, officials said -- with the mother then removed from life support. Adriana Smith had captivated attention across a country where access to abortion has changed radically since the Supreme Court overturned the federal right to terminate a pregnancy in June 2022. "On Friday, June 13, 2025, her infant son, named Chance, was born prematurely at approximately 4:41 am via emergency Cesarean section," three Democratic congresswomen said in a statement. "Chance weighs about 1 pound, 13 ounces and is currently in the NICU," the statement said, adding that Smith was removed from life support on Tuesday. Smith, a registered nurse, was suffering serious headaches in February when she was nine weeks pregnant. An initial hospital visit ended with only a prescription for medication. The next morning, when the then 30-year-old was taken to the hospital where she worked, doctors found multiple blood clots in her brain, and she was declared brain dead. Georgia law bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy -- one of the country's so-called 'heartbeat' laws, referring to the approximate first detection of a fetal heartbeat. As Smith was nine weeks along, doctors were hesitant to do anything that could contravene the law, according to her mother, April Newkirk. "This decision should've been left to us," she told local NBC broadcaster WXIA-TV in mid-May. "I'm not saying that we would have chosen to terminate her pregnancy, what I'm saying is: we should have had a choice," Newkirk said. In June 2022, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 case that established federal protections for abortion access. Since then, more than 20 out of 50 states including Georgia have imposed strict limits on abortions, or even outright bans. The three congresswomen -- Nikema Williams, Ayanna Pressley and Sara Jacobs -- are pushing for better protections of the rights of pregnant women, "particularly Black women, who are disproportionately impacted by systemic medical neglect and restrictive anti-abortion laws." "The lack of a formal legal opinion or prosecutorial guidance leaves families and doctors in limbo," said the lawmakers, who have presented a congressional resolution on the issue. — Agence France-Presse
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
MMRDA to re-tender twin infra projects for Thane-Bhayandar
MUMBAI: Two big ticket infrastructure projects to improve road connectivity between Thane and Mira-Bhayander will soon be re-tendered by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA). The development authority on June 10 had sought detailed financial estimates, rate justifications and supporting documents from Larsen & Toubro (L&T) for the projects. L&T's bid for the two projects combined - ₹3,130 crore - was less than the lowest bidder declared by the MMRDA. Hence, the engineering company had moved the Bombay high court as well as the Supreme Court, challenging the decision to award the contracts to Hyderabad-based Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Limited (MEIL). During the hearing of the petition challenging its disqualification in the two high-value tenders, L&T had asserted before the Supreme Court that it had quoted ₹6,498 crore for the Gaimukh to Fountain Hotel Junction Twin Tunnel and ₹5,554 crore for the Fountain Junction to Bhayander Elevated Road. 'We gave L&T seven working days to respond, a deadline that has now passed. As of June 19, no reply has been received. This silence raises questions about the seriousness of L&T's courtroom claims,' shared an MMRDA official. 'When a firm makes financial claims in the Supreme Court, it has the responsibility to back those up. Especially when it involves public money and a government agency formally requests it for details.' The apex court dismissed L&T's petition as 'infructuous' after MMRDA voluntarily chose to cancel and re-tender the projects. MEIL had submitted quotes of ₹9,019 crore for the elevated road and ₹6,163 crore for the tunnel project, a total sum of ₹15,182 crore as against ₹12,052 crore by L&T. 'With the tender process set to restart now and the bids legally sealed under tendering rules, MMRDA has asked L&T to share the estimates it had openly mentioned in court (even though it has been disqualified). The intent is to allow the MMRDA's Tender Review Committee, which has members from IIT and finance backgrounds, to objectively assess if L&T's figures can serve as benchmarks for more competitive base rates,' said the official. An email sent by HT to L&T for a comment on this development did not elicit any response.
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
SC, SHC: JCP extends term of CBs
ISLAMABAD: The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) on Thursday extended the term of the Constitutional Benches of the Supreme Court and the Sindh High Court. The Constitutional Benches of the Supreme Court term is extended till 30th November 2025, while the SHC CB period was extended for six months w.e.f. 23rd July 2025, with the new nominations and replacements i.e. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry (new), Justice Jaffar Raza (new), Justice Agha Faisal (replaced), and Justice Sana Akram Minhas (replaced). The constitutional bench in the apex court and the High Courts were created following the enactment of 26th Constitutional Amendment. In the Supreme Court a committee, set up under Article 191A of the constitution, is led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Ali Mazahar for the selection of judges for different CBs. Three more judges for SHC CB nominated: JCP nominates five more judges for SC CB Presently, the total strength of the SC constitutional bench is 15; out of that four are from Punjab – Justice Aminuddin, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi; four are from Sindh – Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar; three are from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Shakeel Ahmed and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim; three are from Balochistan – Justice Jamal Khan Makdokhail, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and one is from Islamabad – Justice Aamer Farooq Two meetings of the JCP were held in the Supreme Court in the chair of Chief Justice of Pakistan; the agenda of first meeting was; extension in the term of the SC CB; and the policy decision regarding framing of rules for setting up effective standards for annual performance evaluation of judges of the High Courts under Article 175A (20) of the Constitution. While, the second meeting consider the term of the Constitutional Benches of High Court of Sindh. The JCP chairperson has been pleased to constitute a broad-based committee for the Judicial Performance Evaluation of Judges of all High Courts, comprising members from the Judiciary, Parliament, Executive, and the legal fraternity, to prepare draft rules for the Annual Judicial Performance Evaluation of High Court Judges. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC refrains from interfering with ADGP's suspension
The Supreme Court on Thursday refrained from interfering with the suspension of senior IPS officer and additional director general of police (ADGP) HM Jayaram in a kidnapping case involving a minor, even as it set aside the Madras High Court's order that directed his arrest and requested the high court chief justice to transfer the matter to another bench. The top court said the matter now warranted a 'dispassionate' investigation by a specialised agency, prompting the Tamil Nadu government to agree to hand over the probe to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID), which it described as the 'highest investigating body in the state.' A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan passed the directions after senior counsel Siddharth Dave, representing the Tamil Nadu government, informed the court that Jayaram's suspension was not based on any judicial order but on provisions of the All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which allow suspension of an officer against whom a criminal investigation is pending. Jayaram, a senior officer of the 1995 batch, was suspended by the state government earlier this week after he was alleged to have played a part in the kidnapping of a 16-year-old boy in May, reportedly linked to an inter-caste marriage. The Madras High Court directed the state to arrest Jayaram, stating that 'no one is above the law,' triggering the suspension order shortly after his detention by the Tiruvallur district police. However, the Supreme Court, which questioned the suspension order on Wednesday, took note of the state's latest submission on Thursday and clarified that it would not intervene in the suspension, while allowing Jayaram the liberty to challenge it before the appropriate forum. 'Looking into the controversial circumstances under which the impugned order was passed, we are of the view that the investigation of this case may be handed over to CBCID,' the bench recorded in its order, while also directing that 'the direction of the high court to secure arrest and take action against the petitioner is hereby set aside.' During the hearing, the bench engaged in a pointed exchange with the Tamil Nadu government's counsel, expressing concern over the suspension in the absence of any arrest. 'If he has not been arrested, on what basis has he been suspended?' the bench asked Dave. Dave responded: 'Rules provide that an officer can be placed under suspension if there is a criminal investigation pending against him. It was not based on the order of the high court. It is totally under the rules.' To this, the bench suggested the state consider transferring the probe to an independent agency. 'You might consider transferring this investigation to a CID or some other independent agency for a dispassionate probe. You may even seek a transfer of this matter to a different judge,' the court observed. Jayaram's counsel interjected to argue that the high court overstepped its authority. 'The court acted like police and ordered for his arrest. I was not even named in the FIR,' he submitted. The bench, however, refrained from commenting on the merits of the allegations but reiterated that the state was well within its power to suspend the officer, while noting that Jayaram could always challenge the order. 'If the state wants to suspend you in exercise of its power, we cannot come in the way at this stage. You challenge the suspension order under the rules,' the bench said. Dave, upon taking instructions, returned to the bench later and submitted: 'We will entrust this matter to the CBCID, which is the highest investigating body in the state.' In its written order, the Supreme Court recorded that Dave had clarified the suspension was under statutory rules and independent of the high court's direction. The order noted: 'After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the petitioner will have his remedies to assail the order of suspension…We would also request the chief justice of the high court to assign this matter and all connected FIRs to another bench.' Jayaram's suspension followed allegations that he abetted the kidnapping of a minor boy, whose elder brother married a woman from a different caste. The woman's family, allegedly opposed to the marriage, is accused of abducting the younger sibling in an attempt to coerce the couple. According to the complaint by the boy's mother, her home was raided by the woman's family members last month, who used Jayaram's official vehicle in the abduction. The boy was later found injured near a hotel. The case has led to the arrest of five individuals, including the woman's father, a lawyer, and a now-dismissed policewoman. Their statements reportedly implicated both Jayaram and KV Kuppam MLA 'Poovai' M Jagan Moorthy, who has since appeared for questioning in compliance with court directions. Earlier this week, Justice P Velmurugan of the Madras High Court ordered Jayaram's arrest while hearing Moorthy's pre-arrest bail plea, slamming the alleged use of 'Kangaroo courts' and abuse of power.
