SC orders Lucknow medical college to pay Rs 10 lakh each to 150 students who were illegally admitted

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed a medical college in Lucknow to grant compensation of Rs 10 lakh each to the 150 students it had admitted in the MBBS course without formal permission from the government.

The court also told the college to refund the students’ fees and pay a fine of Rs 25 lakh to the Supreme Court registry, and barred it from admitting students for the 2018-’19 academic year.

The college, run by the GRCG Memorial Trust, was one of the 32 institutions that the Medical Council of India had barred from admitting medical students till 2019 because of substandard facilities and not fulfilling other criteria.

The college had moved the Allahabad High Court against the medical council’s order. In September, the High Court had allowed the college to admit the 150 students despite the medical council concluding that it had indulged in “unethical and callous” practices.

A Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud rebuked the High Court and said this was a case of “judicial indiscipline and impropriety”.

“It is most unfortunate, which may cause [an] institutional problem,” the bench said. The lawyers appearing for the medical council said that the High Court failed to consider that the college had poor infrastructure, clinical material and faculty.

The top court also reprimanded the GCRG Medical Trust, and said that it had jeopardised students’ careers by illegally admitting them. The college must compensate them for “playing with their careers” and “polluting young minds”, the court said.

UIDAI orders probe against Bharti Airtel

Authority of India (UIDAI) has ordered an investigation against Bharti Airtel for alleged violations of the Aadhaar Act and is threatening to slap a financial penalty for opening Airtel Payments Bank accounts of customers surreptitiously while carrying out Aadhaar verification of their mobile numbers. The probe against the company was ordered after complaints of prima facie violations were found to be valid, sources told TOI.

"The lapses are serious in nature. Prima facie, it is a criminal breach of trust and contract, and there are violations of provisions of the Aadhaar Act," said a source, who did not wish to be identified. The matter came to the fore when payments related to cooking gas subsidy landed into the Airtel Payments Bank account for some customers, and not in their pre-designated savings bank accounts with other banks.

Most of them complained against the transfer and said that they were unaware of Airtel Payments Bank accounts, which they alleged had been opened without their authorisation or knowledge. The subsidy amount — sent under the central government's Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme — is estimated at over Rs 40 crore. After being tipped off, UIDAI had initially served a showcause notice to Airtel as complaints of violations against the company's ground staff were highlighted.

When contacted, UIDAI CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey said that the authority has received complaints of wrongdoing against "certain telecom companies" during the Aadhaar verification process. "We have ordered an investigation into the matter. If the allegations are found to be true, after a thorough investigation. 

BMC razes ‘illegal’ cabins in Anil Kapoor’s office

The BMC demolished "unauthorized" glass-and- wood cabins and cubicles built inside veteran actor Anil Kapoor's 2,500-square-foot office in Santacruz West last week.

In all, the BMC's H-West Ward staff razed unauthorized interior work allegedly carried out at four premises in Savoy Chambers, including the actor's office, on Friday. The six-storey commercial building is situated on Dattatray Road in Hasmukh Nagar, Santacruz.

September 8, a notice was served on the four offices under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (MRTP) 1956, over the interior works. Thereafter, on October 16, an order was issued to the four occupants, stating that they had not replied to the notices or submitted any documents to prove authorization of work. The order stated that while inspecting the premises, civic staff had observed "that you have still not reinstated the work as per the approved plan".

SC refuses to quash Rakesh Asthana's appointment as CBI special director

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to quash the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as CBI special director.

The apex court said there was no violation of any rules and regulations, and upheld the Centre's decision.

The court dismissed the plea by NGO Common Cause that had challenged the elevation of the Gujarat-cadre IPS officer, on the grounds that it was "illegal" and "arbitrary."

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan, said Asthana's appointment was illegal as his name had surfaced in a diary recovered during a raid conducted by the Income Tax department.

Bhushan said the diary showed that Asthana received illegal gratification from a company. The CBI recently registered an FIR for money laundering against the firm and some public servants.

Wife Not Personal Possession, Husband Cannot be Guardian, Supreme Court Tells Hadiya

Wife is not a chattel and the husband cannot be her guardian, the Supreme Court said on Monday after interacting with Hadiya, the 25-year-old Kerala resident, whose conversion to Islam and subsequent marriage had started the whole ‘love jihad’ debate.

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud hearing the ‘love jihad’ case, now being investigated by the NIA, interacted with her for nearly half-an-hour and posed questions on her life, ambition, studies and hobbies.

Hadiya told the apex court that she wanted 'freedom' to live with her husband, Shafin Jahan, profess her faith in Islam and that she very well understood what she was doing.

When the bench asked Hadiya to name any relative or any near acquaintance to be named as her local guardian in college at Salem in Tamil Nadu, she said her husband could be her guardian and she does not want anyone else in that role.

"A husband cannot be a guardian of his wife. Wife is not a chattel. She has her own identity in life and society. Even I am not guardian of my wife. Please make her understand," Justice Chandrachud said.

The bench posed questions to Hadiya in English while she answered in Malayalam, which was translated by senior advocate V Giri, who appeared for Kerala government.

When the bench asked Hadiya what your dreams are for the future, she replied she wanted freedom and to live with her husband.

The bench then asked whether she was comfortable in professing her faith and studying simultaneously and told her that being a good citizen, she can profess her faith and be a good doctor.

Hadiya replied she wanted freedom to profess her faith and she fully understood what she is doing. The bench asked her whether she wanted to continue her studies and pursue internship in house surgeonship at the expense of the state government.

The woman said she wanted to pursue her studies but not at the state's expense as her husband will take care of her. 

She further requested the court that she be allowed to visit her friend before being taken to Salem, to which the court agreed and directed the state government to provide her security.

The court asked Kerala police ensure that she travelled at the earliest to Salem in Tamil Nadu to pursue homeopathy studies at Sivaraj Medical College there and appointed dean of the institution as her local guardian. 

NEW PASSPORT RULES, YOU NEED TO KNOW

Recently, the Ministry of External Affairs declared new rules for applying for a passport. And here we have rounded up some of the major changes that these new rules have bought in.

• DOCUMENTATION FOR PROOF OF BIRTH

As per old rules, submission of a birth certificate was compulsory for all applicants born on or after 26th January 1989. But the new rules have bought in some relaxation in this regards. Now, any of the following documents containing the Date of Birth (DOB) of the applicant will suffice:

• Birth Certificate (BC) issued by the Registrar of births and deaths or the Municipal Corporation or any other approved authority to register the birth of a child born in India
• Transfer/school leaving/matriculation certificate issued by the school last attended/recognized educational board
• PAN card
• Aadhar card/E-aadhar
• The copy of the service record of the applicant’s (of govt. servants) or the pay pension order (of retired govt. employees), duly attested/in-charge of the administration of the concerned ministry/certified by the officer/ department of the applicant
• Driving license
• Election Photo Identity Card (EPIC) issued by the Election Commission of India
• A copy of policy bond issued by the public life insurance companies

• DETAILS OF PARENT/LEGAL GUARDIAN:

In a welcome move, the new passport rules has done away with the mandate requiring names of both parents at the time of application. An applicant now only needs to provide the name of either one of the parents or the legal guardian. This makes it easier for children with single parents or orphans to apply for a passport. For spiritually oriented people like Sadhus/Sanyasis, there have provisions made for them to mention the name of their spiritual leader in place of their biological parents.

• ANNEXES

The total number of annexes has been reduced from 15 to 9. Annexes A, C, D, E, J, and K have been eliminated and some of them have also been merged. Lesser annexes means less worry for people to collate documentation.

• ATTESTATION

While all annexes needed attestation from a Notary/Executive Magistrate/First Class Judicial Magistrate previously, henceforth all these annexes can now be in the form of a self-declaration from the applicant on plain paper. This means no running around for attestation that one had to do previously.

• MARRIED/DIVORCED PERSONS:

The need for a marriage certificate has been discontinued (along with annexure K). Also, in case of a divorce the applicant will not be required to provide the name of their spouse. This is another interesting change that has been made taking into consideration changing societal norms.

• WORK RELATED URGENT PASSPORTS:
  In case of urgent passports, if a government employee is not able to procure the NOC (no objection certificate) or identity certificate from their employer’s side, they can submit a self-declaration stating that they have given a prior intimation letter to their employer informing that they are applying for an ordinary passport to a passport issuing authority.

To view the press release from the Ministry of External Affairs with regards to the new passport rules, you can visit their website to gain detailed information.

Overall, this move is set to make the application process easier and hassle-free for everyone. A welcome move, we say!

So don’t use your lack of passport as an excuse not to travel anymore. Apply for one now, and get going. Don’t forget to visit our website to get insured before you leave on your next adventure!

Cannot Be Exempted From Maintaining Child Even If Other Spouse Earns Sufficiently Well: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court recently reiterated the  principle that a spouse cannot be exempted from contributing towards maintenance of a minor child even if the other spouse, with whom the child stays, earns sufficiently well.

“It is a settled principle of law that both the parents have a legal, moral and social duty to provide to their child the best education and standard of living within their means. The mere fact that the spouse with whom the child is living is having a source of income, even if sufficient, would in no way absolve the other spouse of his obligation to make his contribution towards the maintenance and welfare of the child,” Justice I.S. Mehta observed.

The Court had been petitioned by the husband, challenging an order passed by the Single Judge who had upheld an order of interim maintenance of Rs. 40,000 per month to the wife in an application filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The wife had complained against her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, alleging that they were harassing her for dowry. The Petitioner had now submitted that this amount was too high and that the impugned order was rendered in a mechanical manner. He had further brought to the notice of the Court that his wife was earning sufficiently well and was capable of maintaining herself and her minor child. The wife, on the other hand, had challenged the Petition, contending that the Petitioner was under a legal obligation to maintain her and her minor child. Agreeing with such contentions, the Court observed, “Since the respondent and her minor child are to be maintained by the petitioner, in the absence of denial of existence of the marriage and denial of paternity of the minor child, the petitioner cannot shy away from his statutory obligation of maintaining his legally wedded wife and his minor child.” It, thereafter, dismissed the Petition and directed the Trial Court to dispose of the wife’s Application under Section 12 of DV Act as soon as possible, preferably within a period of six months.

Notification Gujarat High Court for Exercise of power

Bhopal gangrape: HC takes suo motu note on ‘junked’ medical report

Taking a suo motu cognizance on media reports related to the "junked" medical examination report in the Bhopal gangrape case which said the sexual act on the girl was committed "with her consent and will", the Madhya Pradesh high court has registered a case and issued notices to the chief secretary (CS) and the director general of police (DGP). Chief justice of Madhya Pradesh high court Hemant Gupta has desired to put up the matter suo motu.

Apart from the CS and the DGP, the principal secretary (home), principal secretary (public health and family welfare), IG and SP of Bhopal police have also been made respondents in the case (referred to as WP 1932/2017).

Meanwhile, DGP R K Shukla has asked the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to submit its report at the earliest. The Madhya Pradesh Human Rights Commission (MPHRC) too had recommended penal action against policemen found accountable for the delayed FIR in the case.

Earlier on Friday, the Madhya Pradesh administration served show-cause notices to two women doctors over the medical examination report which said the sexual act was committed "with the girl's consent and will".

The report, prepared by the doctors at Sultania Lady Hospital, termed the 19-year-old UPSC aspirant as an "accused" instead of "survivor". Bhopal divisional commissioner served notices to two doctors — Dr Khushbhu Gajbhiye and Dr Sanyogita — asking them to furnish their replies within three days notwithstanding their claim that it was an "inadvertent" mistake.

Investigating officers said the "junked" report had errors, but also confirmed that the woman was sexually assaulted.

No Compulsion For Any Legal Heir Of Deceased Predecessor To Apply For Heirship Certificate: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court recently allowed a miscellaneous petition that sought revocation of a Legal Heirship Certificate granted under Section 2 of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 to respondents.

Justice SC Gupte heard the petition filed by one Kusum Chandrakant Shankardas and her two daughters. The petitioner is the widow of Chandrakant Shankardas, a retired Army officer who died intestate (without making a will) in August 2013.

In 1969, Chandrakant Shankardas married Rajeshri, the petitioner’s sister. They had two daughters together, but in 1982, they started living separately. It was the case of the petitioners that there was a customary divorce between the deceased and Respondent No.1 (Rajeshri) in 1983, after which they started living separately, and on May 25, 1984, the deceased married the petitioner as per Hindu rites and customs. The couple had two daughters, one was born in 1986 and the second daughter was born in 1993. The four were living in a tenement that was being redeveloped by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). After the death of Chandrakant in 2013, the petitioner started receiving Rs 14,000 from the developer, which continue till March 2016. In March 2016, the petitioners filed an application under RTI and learnt that the respondents (Rajeshri and her two daughters) had obtained a legal heirship certificate through a miscellaneous application in 2015. On the basis of the said certificate, the collector had added the name of Rajeshri in the redevelopment project. When the petitioners raised an objection before the SRA, it was rejected. Thus, the petitioners filed the present petition for revocation of the heirship certificate.

Delhi HC lays down how a judgment should be delivered

The Delhi High Court, while setting aside a verdict of a lower court that had dismissed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, made important observations on how a judgment is to be delivered.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Valmiki J Mehta observed that,

“A reading of the impugned judgment shows that the court below has simply held that the Arbitrator has considered the evidence before him and accordingly passed an Award…”

The Bench further stated that it is not enough for a court dealing with objections under Section 34 of the Act to say that the Arbitrator has given a reasoning which has to be accepted as correct.

“It is not enough for a Court dealing with objections under Section 34 of the Act to say that the Arbitrator has given a reasoning which has to be accepted as correct.”

Justice Mehta referred to relevant paragraphs of his own ruling in a similar case titled Harbhajan Kaur Bhatia Through Her Attorney Charanjit Singh Bhatia Vs. M/s Aadya Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., wherein he had observed that,

“The impugned judgment dismissing the objections, I am forced to note, is an apology for the expression judgment. In an impugned judgment what are the respective cases of the parties and the issues to be decided have to be mentioned. Thereafter how the issues are decided is discussed.”

The Bench, in the present case, held that the lower court’s judgment is not one in the eyes of law, and therefore, has to be set aside. He proceeded to remand the matter for a fresh decision.

…does not state what were the issues between the parties, how those issues are rightly or wrongly decided by the Arbitrator and which is a sine qua non for a judgment to be a judgment in the eyes of law…

The Court directed the lower court to decide objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act in accordance with law and the observations made in the case of Harbhajan Kaur Bhatia Through Her Attorney Charanjit Singh Bhatia Vs. M/s Aadya Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

SC declines plea to declare Hindus as minority in eight states

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition seeking its direction to Centre to grant minority status to Hindus in eight states.

A bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that issue needed to be decided by National Commission for Minorities and asked the petition to approach the commission.

The public interest litigation (PIL) sought minority status to Hindus in eight states- Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Lakshadweep, Mizoram, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur.

The PIL, filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, has said that Hindus are minority in these states but their legitimate benefits are being siphoned of arbitrarily to the majority, because of non-identification and non-notification of minorities at the State level.

"The Union Government offered 20,000 scholarships in field of technical education for minority students. In J&K, Muslims are 68.30% and government allotted 717 out of 753 scholarships to Muslim students, but none to Hindu students," the petition said.

As per a 1993 notification by the Centre, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis were granted minority status in India and Jains were added in the list in 2014.

Citing the 2011 Census, the petition says that Hindus are minority in eight States i.e. Lakshadweep (2.5%), Mizoram (2.75%), Nagaland (8.75%), Meghalaya (11.53%), J&K (28.44%),Arunachal Pradesh (29%), Manipur (31.39%) and Punjab (38.40%).

It further says that Muslims are majority in Lakshdweep(96.20%) and Jammu & Kashmir (68.30%), and there is significant Muslim population in Assam (34.20%), West Bengal (27.5%), Kerala (26.60%), Uttar Pradesh(19.30%) and Bihar (18%).

SC dismisses petition against Padmavati's release, says 'can't take over duties of Censor Board'

 The Supreme Court today dismissed a petition against the release of the film 'Padmavati', saying that it cannot take over the duties of the Censor Board, the body certifies the film for release.

The top court further said to the petitioner that if they have any issues with the film they can take it up with the concerned appeals body, the film certification appellate tribunal.

'Padmavati', being made in Hindi by director Sanjay Leela Bhansali, is a film based on the life of Queen Padmini. No one knows if she was a real person or just a figure from literature.

A section of people believes she was a real and opposes the film. These people believe the filmmaker has distorted history as the film, some say, shows a romantic relationship between the Hindu Padmini from Chittor and a Muslim ruler from Delhi, Allauddin Khilji. Some literature says Padmini set fire to herself when Khilji captured Chittor, to evade being taken into custody by him.

Black money crackdown: Rs 200 cr surrendered by CGHS supplier after I-T dept raids premises

In a shocking incident, a Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) medicine supplier ‘surrendered’ as much as Rs 200 cr of black money after the Income Tax department launched raids on his premises. The crackdown against illicit wealth has been continuing since the announcement of demonetisation of Rs 1000 and Rs 500 notes last November 8 in an effort to stop corruption, terror funding and more.

I-T dept officers conducted raids at the premises of Delhi based businessman some days ago as there was some evidence that he was evading tax and that too to a huge extent, according to official sources quoted by PTI. An official revealed that the person concerned was one of the biggest suppliers of drugs to the CGHS. However, the fact that he has surrendered this big amount does not mean he has been exonerated. The official said that investigations against the supplier will continue.

The extent of the riches of the businessman were so huge that sources also revealed he was constructing a large mall in Delhi. He is also carrying on a number of other businesses.

Notably, the revelations have come before his bank lockers and financial documents were examined. So the final count of the tax evasion is still to come!

CGHS hospitals are under the aegis of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Their mission is to provide cheap medical care to central government employees, pensioners and all the four pillars of democratic set up in India namely Legislature, Judiciary, Executive and the Press, the official website informs.

Mumbai Metro III line: Bombay HC warns of strict action against MMRCL if construction continues beyond 10 pm

The Bombay High Court on Thursday cautioned the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) against breaching the restrictions imposed by it on construction activity for the Metro III line.

A bench of Chief justice Manjula Chellur and Justice MS Sonak warned that if the MMRCL failed to comply with the court's order of restraining all metro construction activity between 10 pm and 6 am daily, the court will not hesitate to stop its construction work altogether.

The stringent observation from the bench came after the petitioners and the amicus curiae appointed by it for assistance complained that despite the court having passed an order in August this year prohibiting any construction or ancillary work on the metro III line between 10 pm and 6 am, some construction activity went on through the night.

The petitioners also claimed that they had made video recordings of such work continuing at night and that they were willing to submit them before the court.

While the MMRCL said that it will issue directions to all the officers concerned to refrain from continuing any work during the prohibited hours, the bench directed it to place on record the names of all such officers who were in charge of the construction work and were knowingly flouting the court's orders.

"One can still understand if a common man, who is ignorant of the law, unknowingly flouts the court's orders. However, these are responsible officers, who are aware of the law and also of the consequences of breaching a court's orders. They cannot be shown any leniency," the bench said.

"Place their names on record and let them explain why they are insistent on carrying out construction activity at night," it said.

"Till now, we have been polite with you (MMRCL), but do not compel us to pass stringent orders. If the need arises, we can pass orders stopping all Metro construction work," the bench said.

"We can't help you if you don't follow the rules. If your officers breach our orders, serious consequences will follow, and they will have to go behind the bars," Chellur said.

The bench was hearing a plea seeking directions to the MMRCL to stop work on the 33-km long Colaba-Bandra-SEEPZ Metro line III during night hours on account of the inconvenience caused to residents due to the noise hence generated.

Following the plea, the court had passed an order on 12 August, prohibiting the MMRCL from carrying out any construction or ancillary work for the project between 10 pm and 6 am.

The court also directed it to ensure that such construction activity does not flout the prescribed noise pollution norms for the city.

India’s Supreme Court Ruling Takes Major Step in Protecting Child Brides

In 2006, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act set the age of marriage at 18 years for girls, and 21 for boys. As per the law, child marriage is punishable with both imprisonment and a fine, as long as a complaint was filed within one year of the marriage and the marriage itself was considered “valid as performed.” The prevalence of child marriage, however, has continued unabated not only because of poor implementation of the law, but also because of deeply entrenched cultural and societal norms that enable the practice to continue with impunity.

Though the Child Marriage Act addressed the issue of a child marriage more broadly, it did not address sex with minor brides. Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) prescribes the age of consent for sexual intercourse as 18 years, meaning that any person having sexual intercourse with a girl child under 18 would be statutorily guilty of rape even if the sexual activity was with her consent. Unfortunately, the same provision carves out an exception whereby sex with a wife between the age of 15 and 18 years is not considered rape. Therefore, the law implied that, if a girl child between 15 and 18 years of age is married, her husband can have non-consensual sexual intercourse with her, without being penalized under the IPC. As per the Court’s opinion, this effectively “denied such a girl the right to bodily integrity and to decline to have sexual intercourse with her husband.” This was a grave injustice to adolescent girls who were expected to be sexually active before reaching the age of consent.

Adding to the confusion is another law addressing the issue of sexual offences against children—the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. This legislation was introduced to address the expanding nature of crimes against children. Under this law, sexual intercourse with a minor girl child (under the age of 18)—regardless of consent—amounts to rape. Therefore, a collective reading of the IPC and the POCSO Act, indicated that a married girl between 15 and 18 years of age could be a victim of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, but not a rape victim under the IPC if the rapist is her husband.

The Court’s latest decision rules that this unnecessary and artificial distinction contained in the IPC between a married girl child and an unmarried girl child was “arbitrary, discriminatory, and not in the best interest of the girl child.” According to the Court, the distinction is contrary to the spirit of the Indian Constitution, specifically Article 15(3) [discrimination on basis of sex, caste race and place of birth] and Article 21 [right to life] of the Indian Constitution. In short, India now explicitly criminalizes sex with a minor girl, regardless of marital status.

Child rights advocates, gender experts, and civil society in general have welcomed the Court’s decision as a step forward toward empowering and protecting girls. However, one must also acknowledge that implementation of such laws is always an uphill battle, particularly when the onus is on the child bride herself to step forward and lodge a complaint against her husband. Even if a child bride finds the courage, is supported by her in-laws or family, and wishes to file a complaint, there is the possibility that local police officers may refuse to file the case, or try to dissuade her and push her into coming to a compromise with the family or community.

It is still too early to tell whether this legal clarification will ultimately impact the alarming rates of child marriage. Legislation alone cannot curb this practice which has existed in Indian society for centuries. Addressing it will also require social change, through the elimination of discriminatory practices against women and girl children, which can only come about through girl’s education, promotion of women’s rights and empowerment, and community-level advocacy.

For now, the judgment should be celebrated for what it is—an acknowledge that things desperately need to change and a long-pending clarification of the misconception about the closure of childhood, and the beginning of adult life. The burden is no longer only on the child bride to step forward and fight for her rights, but also on civil society in India, which must continue its work toward ensuring greater dignity and security for women and girls.

The Delhi High Court recently scorned at the practice of non-payment of minimum wages to workmen and came down heavily on industries which do not grant minimum wages, opining that such industries had “no right to continue”

The Delhi High Court recently scorned at the practice of non-payment of minimum wages to workmen and came down heavily on industries which do not grant minimum wages, opining that such industries had “no right to continue”

Justice C. Hari Shankar explained, “In any event, there can be no dispute that ―’sweated labor’ is an anathema to any civilized society, and is a harkback to the gladiatorial era when slavery and bonded labor were the order of the day. 

All physical contact not sexual harassment: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Thursday said that not all physical contact can be called sexual assault. 

The high court has refused to categorise every unwelcoming physical contact as sexual harassment. 

The court observed this while hearing an appeal challenging clean chit given to an employee of CSIR accused of sexual harassment. 

"The plea seeking better security for women and filling up of vacancies in police force," Delhi HC directed Centre to expedite the process. 

According to news agency ANI, the Delhi HC also expressed concern over non-installation of CCTVs in the police stations. 

Delhi High Court also asked for installation of CCTVs in all 192 police stations in Delhi and sought an update on CCTVs functional since 2003, reports ANI.

Bombay HC rejects plea seeking permission to allow hawking anywhere in city

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday rejected the plea seeking permission to allow hawking anywhere in the city except in authorised areas.

The petition was filed by the associations of hawkers in Mumbai demanding relief against the anti-encroachment and anti-hawking drives of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and other departments.

They sought permission to establish their shops anywhere in Mumbai.

The court, however, has asked the hawkers to put their shops only in permitted hawking zones authorised by different departments.

The HC had categorically made it clear that no shops will be allowed in the 150 meters radius of schools, hospitals, railway stations and religious places.

Earlier in the day, amid the hawkers' rally in Mumbai, the Congress and the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) members clashed with each other forcing the police to resort to lathi-charge.

The Congress came in support of the hawkers at Dadar station when a group of at least 30-40 MNS workers reached the spot and started hurling potatoes at the Congress workers.

The police have arrested workers from both parties for vandalism.

Earlier on October 30, an FIR has been lodged against Mumbai Congress president Sanjay Nirupam for addressing a rally of hawkers in Malad without getting prior permission from the police.

Meanwhile, after the horrific Elphinstone foot overbridge stampede that claimed 23 lives, the MNS has taken up strict action against the hawkers operating outside railway stations.