Kangana bungalow: Did you act in other cases with same speed, High Court asks BMC
A bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and R I Chagla was hearing Ranaut's petition against the demolition carried out at her Pali Hill bungalow here by the BMC on September 9.
The Bollywood actor's lawyer, senior counsel Birendra Saraf, told the court that the BMC gave her just 24 hours to respond to its stop-work notice.
The civic body started demolition without giving her adequate time to respond, he said, adding that it also did not make any entry about alleged illegalities at Ranaut's bungalow in its detection report, as is mandatory.
The lawyer also questioned the "timing of the demolition," and claimed that Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut had said in an interview to a news channel on September 8 that "what is law? we need to teach Kangana a lesson".
Ranaut had crossed swords with the Sena, which controls the BMC, earlier with her critical comments.
"Effectively on the same day at 3.30 pm, the BMC officials reached the bungalow for inspection," Saraf said.
On September 9, the order of demolition was passed and pasted at the property's entrance at 10.34 am, but "the officials of the Corporation along with the requisite machinery were present at the site in full force at 10.19 am," Saraf said.
At this the bench asked senior counsel Aspi Chinoy, who appeared for the BMC, if alleged illegalities had been recorded in the detection register.
When the BMC lawyer replied in the affirmative, the bench asked, "We want to know if the demolition has taken place in those cases (other entries in the detection register) with the same swiftness."
Justice Kathawalla then also remarked in jest whether the demolition happened "in the way Advocate Pradeep Thorat's client (Sanjay Raut) wanted".
On September 9 too, when Ranaut first approached Bombay HC and the court stayed the demolition, Justice Kathawalla had questioned the BMC's speedy action.
It had said if the civic body showed the same swiftness in other cases, the city would be a very different place.
The court on Friday asked Ranaut's lawyer to submit photos and other material to show if the portions demolished by the BMC existed prior to January 2020.
The bench said it wanted to find out if the demolished part -- whether legal or not -- was under construction, or if it had been constructed in the past.
This is a key point as the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act's section 354 A empowers the civic body and its officials to stop any "ongoing" illegal construction.
Ranaut has already stated in her amended petition that she had photos from a pooja ceremony conducted in January 2020 and photos from Elle Dcor magazine issue of April-May 2020 which show that demolished portions existed back then.
Therefore, the BMC's allegation that illegal work was going on was false, her plea said.
Advocate Saraf told the bench on Friday that when the civic body served a demolition notice, only some waterproofing work was going on and she had the requisite permissions.
He also pointed out that the photos of `ongoing work' submitted in court by the BMC on Friday did not have any digital time stamp but only a note dating them to September 5.
The court asked Chinoy to instruct the BMC officer who took the photos to submit his phone to the court, so that it can be ascertained when the photos were taken.
The court also noted that the BMC in its affidavit had said that Ranaut had changed the position of the entrance of the ground floor, but many more things on the ground floor were demolished.
"What we are thinking is, how was the ground floor demolished if there is no ongoing work there," it said.
"Whatever they have alleged in the affidavit regarding the ground floor, is all already done (in the past). So how was the ground floor demolished," it asked.
The arguments will continue on Monday.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Trump administration says its war in Iran has been 'terminated' before 60-day deadline
Washington (AP): The Trump administration is arguing that the war in Iran has already ended because of the ceasefire that began in early April, an interpretation that would allow the White House to avoid the need to seek congressional approval.
The statement furthers an argument laid out by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during testimony in the Senate earlier Thursday, when he said the ceasefire effectively paused the war. Under that rationale, the administration has not yet met the requirement mandated by a 1973 law to seek formal approval from Congress for military action that extends beyond 60 days.
A senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's position, said for purposes of that law, “the hostilities that began on Saturday, Feb 28 have terminated.” The official said the US military and Iran have not exchanged fire since the two-week ceasefire that began April 7.
While the ceasefire has since been extended, Iran maintains its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, and the US Navy is maintaining a blockade to prevent Iran's oil tankers from getting out to sea.
Under the War Powers Resolution, the law that sought to constrain a president's military powers, President Donald Trump had until Friday to seek congressional authorisation or cease fighting. The law also allows an administration to extend that deadline by 30 days.
Democrats have pushed the administration for formal approval of the Iran war, and the 60-day mark would likely have been a turning point for a swath of Republican lawmakers who backed temporary action against Tehran but insisted on congressional input for something longer.
“That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement,” said Sen Susan Collins, R-Maine, who voted Thursday in favour of a measure that would end military action in Iran since Congress hadn't given its approval. She added that “further military action against Iran must have a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close."
Richard Goldberg, who served as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction for the National Security Council during Trump's first term, said he has recommended to administration officials to simply transition to a new operation, which he suggested could be called “Epic Passage,” a sequel to Operation Epic Fury.
That new mission, he said, “would inherently be a mission of self-defence focused on reopening the strait while reserving the right to offensive action in support of restoring freedom of navigation.”
“That to me solves it all,” added Goldberg, who is now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank.
During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Hegseth said it was the administration's “understanding” that the 60-day clock was on pause while the two countries were in a ceasefire.
Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel at the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert on war powers, said that interpretation would be a “sizeable extension of previous legal gamesmanship” related to the 1973 law.
“To be very, very clear and unambiguous, nothing in the text or design of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the 60-day clock can be paused or terminated,” she said.
Other presidents have argued that the military action they've taken was not intense enough or was too intermittent to qualify under the War Powers Resolution. But Trump's war in Iran would certainly not be such a case, Ebright said, adding that lawmakers need to push back against the administration on that kind of argument.
