Punjab Speaker seeks Sushma's intervention
Chandigarh, July 28 : Punjab Assembly Speaker Rana K.P. Singh has written to External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj over Canada declining entry to two AAP legislators.
"All legislative bodies of India and Canada are branches of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) and members of the legislative bodies in both the countries are members of CPA," the Speaker wrote.
"On the one hand, we strive for increasing CPA activities and, on the other, our MLAs or public representatives are treated differently and humiliated," he said.
The Speaker said when the public representatives had disclosed their identity at the Ottawa Airport, the Canadian authorities must have facilitated them.
"I request you to take cognizance of this incident and take up this matter with the appropriate authorities of the Canadian government so that public representatives from our country are not subjected to such type of untoward and humiliating incidents in future."
Refused entry to Canada, both Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) legislators Kultar Singh Sandhwan and Amarjit Singh Sandoa returned home this week.
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.
Supreme Court condemns 'bulldozer justice,' says executive cannot replace judiciary
Issues guidelines against demolition of properties over criminal allegations
New Delhi: In a significant judgement on Wednesday, 13 November, the Supreme Court emphasised that properties cannot be demolished solely based on criminal accusations or convictions. The Court asserted that such actions contravene the rule of law and infringe upon the principle of separation of powers, as only the judiciary has the authority to determine a person's guilt.
"The executive cannot pronounce a person guilty. If the executive demolishes the property of the person merely on the basis of accusation, it will strike at the rule of law. The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building reminds one of lawlessness, where might was right. Such high-handed and arbitrary actions have no place in a constitutional democracy. Our constitutional ethos do not permit such a course of action," the Court stated.
The judgement, delivered by a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, came in response to a series of petitions, including one filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, seeking to halt the use of demolitions as a punitive measure against those accused of crimes. The Court directed that public officials who engage in such actions be held accountable.
"Public officials who take the law into their own hands and act in a high-handed manner must be held accountable," the Court observed, underlining the importance of respecting due process.
Further, the Court noted that demolitions often impose "collective punishment" on the families of the accused or convicted, and therefore outlined specific guidelines to prevent misuse of such actions. Key directives included:
Authorities must issue a show-cause notice before proceeding with demolitions, giving owners at least 15 days to respond.
Property owners should be notified via registered post, and the notice must detail the nature of the unauthorised construction and grounds for demolition.
The designated authority must allow for a personal hearing, with proceedings duly recorded.
Demolition actions should be videographed, with reports sent to the Municipal Commissioner.
Even after issuing a demolition order, affected parties should be given time to challenge it legally. In cases where individuals do not wish to contest, adequate time must be allowed for vacating the premises.
The Court highlighted the adverse impact of such demolitions on vulnerable groups, observing, "It is not a happy sight to see women, children, and aged persons dragged to the street overnight. Heavens will not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period."
However, the Court clarified that these guidelines would not apply to cases of unauthorised structures on public land, such as roads, footpaths, railway lines, or water bodies, or where a Court order for demolition exists.
This judgement builds upon previous stays on demolitions, including an interim order on 17 September, which prohibited demolitions across the country without Court permission except in cases of public encroachments.
