- HC rejects the plea of army personnel seeking withdrawal of policy of banning Indian Army from using social networking platforms
The Delhi HC in, LT. COL. P.K. CHOUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. upheld the policy of the government which provided for a ban on social networking platforms for the army personnel and observed that it was not in violation of the fundamental rights as Article 19 provided for reasonable restriction to free speech that included interests of sovereignty and integrity of India.
Petitioner’s Contention
The petitioner, who was posted in Jammu and Kashmir, here contended that it was inevitable for him and other army personnel posted at different parts of India, living in extreme and adverse conditions to use such social networking platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and 87 others to be in touch with their families. Such extreme conditions take a toll on the mental health of the army men. Social media, he contended worked as a socializing mechanism for them. He further contended that he used his Facebook account responsibly, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Indian Army from time to time. The petitioner even claimed that the policy violated the fundamental rights like the right to freedom of speech and expression and right to privacy and went on to say that the same can’t be violated by the executive authority under Article 33 of the Constitution of India and Section 21 of the Army Act, 1950 and Army Rules, 1954. Lastly, he concluded by saying that in the 15 years of existence of Facebook, there have been hardly any cases of honey trapping of army officials.
Respondent’s Contention
With the issue concerning the ‘Army Act’, the counsel for respondents placed their reliance on 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. Vs. Union of India to contend that the same lays down the test of judicial interference with the subjective satisfaction of the government. They further relied on Defence Services Regulations, Special Army OrderIII issued on 9th April 2001 to show that the expression “service information and service subject” in Rule 21 of Army Rules is all-embracing and would encompass within its meaning any information relating to the services and to show that the expression “press” includes all non-military audiovisual, visual print electronic media, internet, non-military e-mail, non-military Wide / Local Area Networks and the general public. Furthermore, with the growing national security threat, such a ban was consequential. Also, some apps like Whatsapp, etc are allowed with restricted usage, the respondents said.
- SC rejects plea to reconsider decision to set up Smog Towers in Delhi
On Monday, the Apex Court rejected a petition to reconsider its earlier decision of setting up of smog tower in the national capital to deal with or control the air pollution in Delhi.
Senior Lawyer Gopal Shankarnarayanan, appearing for a petitioner against the installation of smog towers, submitted before the court that it will lead to money for Chinese companies & that it has no scientific basis.
A bench of the Top Court, headed by Justice Arun Mishra, rejecting the plea & said that "the prayer is meritless. We are not recalling our orders. Dismissed."
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Central Govt informed the Apex Court that work for setting up of the tower has started. Mehta said that a joint affidavit has been filed by the Centre & the Central Pollution Control Board.
Mehta said that "On Aug 8, site survey work was over. Collection of soil samples is underway & geo-technical investigation is going on for the circle design... this is because it needs a structural stability. We are on the process of appointing an architect to make site drawing, etc".
Mehta said that IIT Bombay & TATA projects have also tied up with University of Minnesota as it is a patent protected innovation & the University has agreed to share the technology. "University of Minnesota will also release the supply schedule," he said.
The Supreme Court, which was hearing matters rising out of a PIL filed by environmentalist MC Mehta in 1985 on the issue of air pollution in the Delhi-NCR, then posted the matter for further hearing on Tuesday as it did not have a copy of the affidavit by the Central Govt.
Meanwhile, the Punjab Govt submitted that it is facing financial problem due to Coronavirus & not in a position to provide subsides to farmer to purchase machinaries to deal with stubble burning problem.
The Court ordered Delhi Chief Secretary to file an affidavit on the present status of 13 pollution hotspots in the city & steps taken to control the pollution level.
The Bench asked, "What steps have been taken. We wanted affidavit on all issues, not just stubble burning... We want involvement of center on formulation of rules/law to prevent & confiscate vehicles running on kerosene".
The Supreme Court observed that Kerosene run vehicles cannot ply on roads. "It's a sinister thing. These vehicles should be confiscated. If it's allowed things will never approve," it added asking the Centre, Delhi government & Environment Pollution (Prevention & Control) Authority to file report on air pollution aspect.
The Govt of Delhi also told the Court that action plans have been created for all the pollution hotspots in Delhi, to which Justice Mishra said that they have seen some hotspots have reduced in size but pollution not reduced in entirety.
Delhi Chief Secretary told the Court that "We have taken several steps to reduce traffic congestion, open waste etc. District commissioners made individually responsible. Right now due to lockdown air pollution is down, AQI is at 100. But we will continue taking action in the coming days".
- NI Act: Court reiterates that if one of the ingredients of offense u/s 138 is not made out, there is no requirement to dwell upon the existence of other ingredients
A Delhi Court in, M/s Aiets.Com Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shardha Gupta, reiterated the findings in K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and stated the above-mentioned conclusion. The court in this court also rejected the claims of the accused who failed to produce enough evidence upon reverse onus clause.
Facts
The complainant was in the business of preparing and providing books. The accused became a regular customer of the complainant and a running account was made and a sum of Rs.3,85,184/ was due and payable by the accused as on 20.10.2017. It was specifically agreed between the accused and the complainant that the accused shall make payment with regard to supplied material within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. For discharge of liability, a cheque dated 20.10.2017 for an amount of Rs.3,85,184/ was issued. Upon presentation on 15.11.2017 the cheque was dishonored. Upon legal demand notice being served, the accused returned some books and Rs.1,81,681.50/ is yet to be paid. The accused failed to pay the same too and the complainant was registered.
Accused’s Defence
The cheque in question, accused said, was paid as security and Rs. 1.5 lakh was paid by her to the complainant and also some goods were returned. Further as per accounts only Rs. 30,000 was due. She revealed that though the signature was hers, other details were not filled by her.
Arguments
While the complainant was of the view that all requirements u/s 138 of NI Act were met, the accused claimed that the complainant could prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Points for determination and reasons for the decision
The prime question of determination was whether the accused issued the cheque in question to the complainant for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability?
Though the liability of proving lies with the complainant, but u/s 118 and 139 of NI Act, 1881, the reverse onus clause comes into being. However, if a probable defense is created by the accused, the onus shifts back to the complainant.
The complainant failed to prove how the accused owed them the amount when the statement of account didn’t mention the same and it also didn’t mention the time when books were supplied. Further, no more evidence was presented by the complainant and there was also no written agreement. There was also no proof of the 4 credit notes that were issued by the complainant to the accused. Also inconsistency in the statements further degenerated the case of the complainant who earlier claimed Rs. 3.85 lakh but later claimed Rs. 4.85 lakh. Lastly, the contentions of the complainant that the cheque was for payment of debt failed miserably when the backside of the cheque had the words ‘ it is a security cheque and is not intended for payment’. The court also reiterated that if one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 is not made out, therefore, there is no requirement to dwell upon the existence of other ingredients. The accused was thus acquitted.
- No Degrees without Exams, UGC tells Supreme Court
On Monday, India’s higher education regulator, the University Grants Commission (UGC), told the Apex Court that degrees cannot be conferred on students without final year examinations being held & that it alone is empowered to take a call on whether or not the exams can take place or should be cancelled.
State Govts can't cancel examinations, that power lies with the UGC, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the UGC, told the Supreme Court in response to the stance of the Delhi & Maharashtra Govts that they have cancelled final year/ terminal semester examinations because of COVID -19.
“How can states cancel exams when UGC is empowered to confer degrees? Students cannot get degrees without exams. Such degrees will not be recognized by UGC. That is the law,” Solicitor General told a 3-Judge bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan.
The bench, which also comprised Justices R Subhash Reddy & MR Shah, was hearing a batch of petitions by students & organizations challenging the July 6 guidelines issue by UGC on holding final year examinations by September 30.
The petitioners have demanded that the apex court consider scrapping online/offline tests & instead direct the UGC to declare results by July 31 based on the past performance of students or internal assessment.
“It’s not just about a couple of students. Any decision regarding exams impacts a large number of students,” said Mahesh Verma, vice chancellor of Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University-- a state government-run institution in Delhi that has promoted students based on their performance in the last semester & internal tests.
“Many of them are living in far-flung areas amid the pandemic & have no access to devices & the internet. They did not get opportunities to attend online classes. How can we take exams of students who could not be taught? ... We just hope the UGC realises the present challenges & ensure that students are not impacted by their decision.”
Delhi & Maharashtra governments invoked powers under the Disaster Management Act of 2005 to scrap the exams. The Disaster Management Act is a law intended to ensure effective management of disasters & it empowers central & state governments to take measures to mitigate disaster situations. Both are among the worst affected by the pandemic.
“The powers under it {Disaster Management Act} are sweeping as we saw when the central government & states imposed lockdowns bringing life to a standstill & effectively curtailing various fundamental rights of citizens like right to move freely. If fundamental rights can be curtailed in exercise of that law, then postponing examinations is also reasonable. Hence, in my opinion the power of states under the Disaster Management Act will trump the powers of UGC,” Supreme Court advocate Haris Beeran said.
Maharashtra announced its decision on June 19 & Delhi on July 11.
The Maharashtra government told the apex court that it took the decision to scrap the final-year exams after the State Disaster Management Authority, constituted under the Disaster Management Act, recommended this against the background of the Covid-19 pandemic. It was submitted by Maharashtra that a majority of university vice chancellors from the state were against holding final-year examinations because of an exponential rise in Covid-19 cases in the state.
Maharashtra has been hit the hardest among Indian states by the viral disease, reporting over 500,000 cases & 17,757 deaths till Sunday night.
The Delhi Govt also adopted a similar stance, pointing out that not all students were able to attend online classes, citing a digital divide that made online teaching inaccessible to less privileged students.
The affidavit by the Delhi Govt said that “During this extremely tough period, regular physical classes got completely interrupted. The students had no access to study material & the college libraries were closed, although getting access through online mode in such peculiar circumstances, the students did not get the kind of preparation needed to attempt a full-fledged examination".
Delhi reported over 145,000 cases & 4,111 deaths till Sunday night.
All colleges have been shut since later March on account of Covid-19 & the lockdown imposed to fight it. In all, India imposed a 68-day lockdown between March 24 & May 31. Since then, some activities have been allowed, although educational institutions have not been allowed to reopen.
Apart from Maharashtra & Delhi, states including Odisha, Punjab, Haryana & Madhya Pradesh have cancelled university exams including final-year exams. Tamil Nadu & Karnataka had cancelled university exams except for final year/ terminal semester students.
SG said that “The affidavits by Maharashtra & Delhi are against UGC guidelines. It is the UGC which confers degrees".
“But will the Disaster Management Act override the UGC directive?” the bench queried him, asking Mehta to respond in an affidavit.
The matter was adjourned to enable the UGC to file its response & will be heard again on August 14.
A government official said the matter was “sub-judice” & added that the regulator’s move was keeping in mind the UGC Act & regulations related to exams & degrees.
At an event earlier in the day, education minister Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank said the decision on exams was taken to ensure that the shadow of COVID did not fall on the degrees of students & their careers were not affected. The minister was asked a question about the opening of schools, to which he replied that a decision would be taken keeping in mind the safety of students & staff.
The UGC filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court on July 30 defending its July 6 directive that examinations be held by September-end. stating that the academic future of students will be irreparably damaged if the examinations are not held.
The final-year/ terminal semester examinations were initially scheduled to be held in July. This was based on April 29 guidelines issued by UGC based on the recommendations of an expert committee headed by Chairperson of Central University of Haryana, RC Kuhad.
Keeping in view the evolving COVID-19 situation, UGC, in June, requested the expert committee to revisit the guidelines. Based on the expert committee’s recommendations, fresh guidelines were then issued on July 6, directing that examinations be held by the end of Sept.
The guidelines say that universities could conduct the examinations in the online or offline mode & by ensuring adherence to social distancing norms.
A Coronavirus positive student was one of the petitioners raising the demand for the exams to be cancelled. Shiv Sena’s youth wing, Yuva Sena, was also a petitioner before the Court.
UGC said that “Final-year/ terminal semester examinations are important because the learning process of a dynamic interaction where the only way to figure out what the students know is to seek evidence of their knowledge. Academic evaluation of final-year students is, therefore, a very important milestone in any education system".
Manoj Khanna, principal of Delhi University’s Ramjas College, agreed. “It would be very difficult to assess students on the basis of internal marks. It cannot be a proper form of assessment & it can be an injustice to students who prepare well for the final exams. Not taking exams won’t be justifiable.” he said.
However, many Students, are against the UGC’s insistence on conducting final-year exams. “Many state universities are promoting their final year students on the basis of last semester & internal assessment & still the UGC is adamant about conducting exams,” Amal K Simon, a final year BSc (Physics) student at Ramjas College in New Delhi, said. “The students are going through a lot of issues amid the pandemic. Families of many students are going through major financial crisis.”
Ex-UGC member Dr Inder Mohan Kapahy said that “It is an incontrovertible fact that as per the Parliamentary Act, UGC is the only agency to lay down rules for the grants of degrees for all kinds of universities: Cental, State, Deemed, Private. It has also the power to derecognise the degree awarded in violation of the UGC guidelines. However, in these unprecedented Covid pandemic times it is desirable that a legal or political fight should not mar the future of millions of final year students or inordinately delay their results. MHRD & UGC should immediately engage in a dialogue with the contending states to reach an amicable & academically sound solution".
- Chart plan to recover AGR dues: Apex Court
On Monday, the Apex Court directed the Govt to prepare a plan to recover adjusted gross revenue (AGR)-related dues from bankrupt telecom operators, including Reliance Communications Ltd (RCom), Aircel Group & Videocon Communications Ltd.
While observing that recovery of dues may not be possible from telcos undergoing insolvency, the Supreme Court asked the Govt whether spectrum can be sold under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The case has been adjourned to Aug 14.
However, the Court didn't mention the order reserved on the staggered payment of dues by Vodafone Idea Ltd, Bharti Airtel Ltd & Tata Teleservices. Both Vodafone & Airtel have sought 15 years to clear the dues, while Tata Teleservices wants 7-10 years. However, recovery of the dues face a major hurdle. The department of telecom (DoT) is classified as an operational creditor, RCom said in its affidavit to the Supreme Court. This would mean DoT will be pushed lower down the pecking order in trying to recover its dues under insolvency proceedings, as financial creditors are prioritised under these proceedings. For instance, the winning bidder for RCom’s spectrum, real estate, enterprise & data centre business UV Asset Reconstruction Co., has offered ₹14,000 crore for these assets.
DoT may recover next to nothing on its outstanding dues of ₹25,199 crore from RCom if this resolution plan is approved.
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
- Consider opening places of Worship for all Faiths: HC to State Govt
On Tuesday, the High Court of Bombay said the Govt. of Maharashtra should consider allowing people of all faiths to visit their respective places of worship, especially when a gathering of 20-30 people was being allowed to attend weddings & funerals amid the raging COVID-19 outbreak in the state, which is the worst affected as far as the contagion is concerned.
“All religions should be allowed to some extent … If you allow people to gather for weddings & funerals, why not allow them in temples?” asked the 2-member HC division bench, comprising Justice SJ Kathawalla & Justice Madhav Jamdar.
The bench suggested that in order to ensure that no crowd gathers at the shrines at any point of time, the State Govt could fix certain time slots & the number of persons to be allowed to enter a temple within the stipulated timeframe.
It recommended that the public might be allowed if they follow the standard operating procedures (SOPs) laid down by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), including maintaining social distancing norms etc.
The bench was hearing a plea filed by Ankit Vora (30), a Bhandup resident, seeking direction to the state authorities to permit opening of Jain temples for the annual holy festival of Paryushana, which will be held between August 15 & 23.
He also sought permission for allowing members of Shwetamber Murtipujak Jain community to perform religious functions & worship during this festive season in Jain temples.
Vora contended that the Central Govt has permitted the opening of places of worship, subject to following maintaining social distancing, and, as a result, the State Govt should also allow religious shrines in Maharashtra to open & come out with necessary guidelines to that effect.
Prafulla Shah, who represented Vora, submitted that offering prayers at places of worship were more necessary amid the Covid-19 pandemic when the public is striving for mental peace.
Shah complained that places of worship were ordered to remain closed when liquor shops are allowed to do business.
State Govt pleader Purnima Kantharia responded to the plea pointing out that the authorities have been indiscriminate in opening places of worship to all faiths.
Additional Solicitor-General (ASG) Anil Singh responded to the petition pointing out that the Central Govt has permitted the opening of places of worship outside Covid-19 containment zones & on July 29 issued separate guidelines for such places.
“Now, there is no restriction on visiting places of worship outside containment zones,” Singh said. But there can be no gatherings at the shrines, he said.
The offering of common prayers, religious functions, & ceremonies, touching of idols, etc. is prohibited under the guidelines, he added.
However, Singh suggested that the State Govt should take a call on the issue. He supported the Court’s suggestion that the petitioner should be asked to submit representations to the State Govt, which, in turn, should be directed to decide the matter expeditiously.
High Court accepted the suggestion & directed the petitioner to submit representations to the secretary, disaster management department, Maharashtra.
The bench will hear the case next on Aug 13.
- High Court allows Termination of 22 weeks Pregnancy of Woman
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana has allowed a 22 weeks pregnant Chandigarh woman to terminate the foetus.
The termination was allowed after a medical report from Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER) showed non-development of kidneys in foetus, a serious congenital malformation which it said is not compatible with normal life.
The woman has been asked to undergo the procedure at PGIMER within five days.
It was on Aug 6, that the woman had approached the HC seeking termination of her pregnancy. On that day, acting on her petition, the High Court had taken suo motu note & issued a notice to the Centre on ‘flaws’ with the pregnancy termination law.
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, doesn't permit termination of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks. The law allows termination of pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner, where the duration of the pregnancy does not exceed 12 weeks. If the duration is up to 20 weeks, the pregnancy can be terminated on doctors’ opinion that its continuance would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or can cause grave injury to her physical or mental health.
The bench had said the law does not provide any remedy for termination of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks even as science & technology has not been so advance as to prevent the development of any deformity in the foetus after a period of 20 weeks. Due to this, people have to approach courts. Centre has to respond on the issues raised by the HC by Nov 28.
- HC notice to Environment Ministry on Contempt Plea over Publishing of translated EIA notification
On Tuesday, the High Court of Delhi issued notice to the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change on a petition seeking contempt proceedings against it for the alleged "wilful disobedience" of a Court order to publish the translated versions of the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification in all 22 languages of the Eighth Schedule.
A single-Judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva asked the ministry to file a reply & listed the matter for further hearing on Aug 17.
The contempt plea, filed by environmentalist Vikrant Tongad through his lawyer Vanshdeep Dalmia, claimed that the ministry neither published the translated versions of the draft EIA nor sought more time from the Court on this regard.
The plea stated, "Initiate proceedings of contempt against the respondent & pass appropriate directions & orders punishing & penalising the respondents jointly and/or severally for wilful disobedience & deliberate defiance of the order dated June 30, 2020, passed by this Court".
The HC had earlier extended the time granted to the general public to give their suggestions for the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 2020 till Aug 11.
The Court had observed that there was ambiguity in the notification dated May 8 which extended the time limit to give the common public its suggestion for draft notification & also opined that the proposed notification should be translated into other languages too for effective dissemination.
It had noted that such translation may be undertaken by the Indian Govt itself, or with the assistance of the respective state Govts, where applicable.
On June 30, the Court directed that translations should also be published through the website of the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Govt of India as well as on websites of Environment Ministries of all the States as well as those of State Pollution Control Boards, within ten days from the day of the order.
- 'Registrar can’t direct Housing Society to issue NOCs to its member', rules this High Court
The Bombay high court last week stayed an order passed by a deputy registrar of co-operative societies in the city, directing a co-operative housing society at Dindoshi to issue no-objection certificates to one of its members for improvement and change of user of his premises.
“In my prima-facie opinion the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies ex-facie did not have any jurisdiction and authority to issue such a direction to the petitioner society to issue a NOC as contained in the order,” said justice Girish Kulkarni while staying order issued by the deputy registrar, P ward.
Acting on a complaint lodged by the member, the deputy registrar had on July 9, 2019 directed Shree Raghunandan co-operative housing society to issue necessary NOCs to the member for joining four tenements and converting user of the premises from residential to commercial.
The housing society then moved HC, through advocate Mohit Jadhav, challenging the order on various grounds.
The order was purportedly passed under Section 79(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (MCS) Act, 1960, but justice Kulkarni opined that the deputy registrar had no power to issue such a direction.
In my prima facie opinion, it is clearly a dispute between a member and the society, which would require adjudication before some other forum, said the judge.
The judge said section 79(2)(a) deals with compliances to be made by co-operative societies and confers power on the deputy registrar to issue necessary orders to ensure the statutory compliances like filing of returns etc.
“It is difficult to conceive that the nature of the complaint as made by respondent no. 3 (member) before the Deputy Registrar invoking Section 79(2)(a) for issuance of inter-alia fire NOC and a NOC for improvements can at all fall within the purview of this provision,” said justice Kulkarni.
The judge added that to read such wide powers to issue such directions as contained in the impugned order under Section 79(2)(a) would amount to reading something into the provision which the legislature has not provided for and in fact if so construed would amount to something contrary to the statutory scheme of the MCS Act 1960.
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
- SC asks HC to expeditiously decide on plea to release Dr Kafeel Khan
On Tuesday, The Apex Court directed the High Court of Allahabad to decide & dispose of in fifteen days the petition related to the release Dr Kafeel Khan, who was arrested for his alleged inflammatory statements at the Aligarh Muslim University during a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
A bench of the Supreme Court, headed by CJI SA Bobde, asked the Allahabad High Court to hear & expeditiously consider the matter on merits & to see & consider in 15 days' time whether Dr Kafeel Khan should be released or not.
Dr Khan was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force from Mumbai after he allegedly made inflammatory statements at the Aligarh Muslim University during a protest against the CAA on Dec 12, 2019.
On Feb 14, 2020, he was charged under the National Security Act.
- Plea to take CLAT from home not maintainable as exam postponed: NLU to High Court
The National Law Universities (NLU) consortium told the Delhi High Court on Monday that since the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2020 has been postponed, the plea seeking that candidates be allowed to take it from their homes instead of at exam centres is no longer maintainable.
The petitioner, seeking to pursue a masters degree course in law, should withdraw the plea and file a fresh one, if required, when the new dates are announced, NLU said.
It also said that the petitioner’s plea was premised on the admission test of National Law University Delhi (NLUD), which has its own entrance exam different from CLAT, which too has been postponed.
Justice Jayant Nath, however, simply adjourned the matter to September 10, saying the petitioner in the instant matter is asking that candidates be permitted to take the online exam from their homes in view of the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic.
The court on August 4 had asked the central government to inform the court whether it would be permissible to hold such an exam at physical centres in view of the prevailing pandemic.
It had also issued notices to the central government and the NLU, seeking their stand by August 10 on the petition which has sought that the online CLAT exams be allowed to be undertaken from home.
No response has been filed yet by the central government, its standing counsel Ajay Digpaul said.
CLAT is a centralised exam for admissions to bachelors and masters courses in law in 22 NLUs in the country and is conducted by the consortium.
Under the CLAT 2020 notification, the exam would be held online at notified centres where computers would be set up for candidates to access the test.
The counsel appearing for the consortium, on the last date (August 4), had said the plea was not maintainable in Delhi as the consortium was based in Bengaluru.
He had also said that it was decided not to hold CLAT at home as it would lead to rampant cheating.
- AirAsia India Head of Operations, Air Safety Head suspended over Safety Norms
Two AirAsia India Top officials, Capt Manish Uppal, head of operations and Capt Mukesh Neema, head of air safety have been suspended for a period of 3 months by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) for alleged safety violations.
Director-General of Civil Aviation, Arun Kumar confirmed the development. Under the regulator’s norms, appointments to crucial posts like airline-head of airsafety, head of operations are cleared by the DGCA.
AirAsia India had come under the DGCA scanner in June after one of its pilots, Captain Gaurav Taneja, posted a 27-minute video on his YouTube channel (Flying Beast), alleging that the airline had been violating certain safety norms in order to cut fuel costs. In a tweet, he claimed that he was placed under suspension by AirAsia India “for standing up for safe operations of aircraft & its passengers”.
The tweet went viral, following which the DGCA began a probe into the allegations & later in June, issued a show-cause notice to Capt Uppal, Capt Neema & the CEO of the airline. Meanwhile, on June 26, Capt Taneja was terminated by the airline. ``He was terminated following an inquiry conducted by officials, including Capt Neema, the very person against whom Capt Taneja had made allegations,’’ said advocate Yeshwant Shenoy, one of Capt Taneja’s lawyers.
AirAsia India spokesperson was not reachable for comment.
"Pilots are always afraid to raise issues, especially in these times of job insecurities due to the COVID pandemic’s impact on the airline industry. I’ve always been telling them that if they stand up for safety violations, it will have to be addressed by the system. This is the best example of that,” said Shenoy.
Speaking about the recent Air India Express Calicut crash that killed 18people last week, Advocate Shenoy added: "Had pilots stood up for safety issues, Calicut could certainly have been avoided. There would be many more to come.”
Capt Taneja’s spokesperson said that the DGCA had suspended Capt Uppal & Capt Neema over safety violations flagged by him.
An Ex-IIT-Kharagpur graduate, Capt Taneja, an A320 commander had joined AirAsia India in May 2019 (he was employed with another airline before that). In his YouTube video, he said that the airline was following certain practices which he found to be detrimental to flight safety. He raised such safety issues regularly on the airline’s official whtsapp group for its pilots & later with higher-ups.
In his youtube clip titled titled "Reason behind suspension from my pilot job” , he spoke about 2 unsafe practices. He claimed that in AirAsia India, pilots who availed of sick leave had to forgo the weekly leave that followed.
He said that "The policy discouraged pilots from calling in sick when they are unfit to fly, especially if they had made plans for the day when their weekly off was scheduled".
The 2nd safety-related issue was about "flap 3" mode landings, which saved about 8 kgs of fuel per landing. AirAsia India pilots had to meet a target of 98 per cent flap 3 landings, he alleged. The other option, landing in full flap mode results in higher fuel burn due to increased drag. But on short runways or say, in tailwind conditions, a full flap landing is the safer option. Capt Taneja said that on runways like Imphal, a flap 3 landing in tailwind condition is unsafe.
- Sooraj Pancholi files police complaint for harassment in SSR and Disha Salian Case
Actor Sooraj Pancholi filed a complaint at the Versova Police Station on Monday, alleging harassment by those who carry unverified news reports that link him to Disha Salian and Sushant Singh Rajput’s deaths without any evidence.
A source close to the actor informed Bombay Times, “Sooraj has been harassed since Sushant and Disha’s deaths, owing to fake news that was carried by sections of media, social media and YouTube. He has filed complaint against certain media houses , Youtubers and certain people who have been spreading fake news and conspiracy theories on Facebook.He wants the rumour mongers to be accountable for the mental harassment caused to him, and also, they must prove the baseless charges levelled against him.”
- SC: Daughters have Right to HUF Property even if their Father died before 2005 amendment to Hindu Succession Act came into force
On Tuesday, in a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of rights of daughters to have a share in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property.
Settling the disputed question of law, a three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, comprising of Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah held that daughters will have a right in the parental property in accordance with the 2005 amendment in the Hindu Succession Act.
The court held that daughters' rights are absolute after the amendment and that she would have the right of inheritance irrespective of whether the father was alive at the time of the amendment or not.
This clarification is important since it sets aside a clutch of previous decisions by the top court that she would have the coparcenary right only if both the father and the daughter were alive as on September 9, 2005 when the amendment was notified.
The bench cited the objective of the amendment to say that daughters were to be given a right in the HUF as a coparcenary, equal to a son, and that such conditions go against the spirit of the amendment carried out.
0 Comments