River Ganga pollution: SC stays NGT order imposing Rs 50,000 cost on Bihar
New Delhi, Mar 29 (PTI): The Supreme Court has stayed the National Green Tribunal order that imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the Bihar government for non-compliance of its directives and not properly assisting it in a matter relating to the prevention and control of pollution of river Ganga.
In its order passed on October 15 last year, the tribunal had also directed Bihar's chief secretary to remain present before it virtually to apprise it about the progress made for the prevention and control of pollution in river Ganga.
The state government's plea challenging the tribunal's order came up for a hearing before a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih.
The bench issued notice to the Centre and others seeking their responses on the plea within four weeks.
"Until further orders, there shall be stay of the impugned order," the bench said in its order passed on Friday.
The tribunal is considering the issue of prevention and control of pollution of river Ganga and the matter is being taken up state-wise, covering all the states and districts from which the river and its tributaries flow.
The tribunal had noted in its order that it had earlier considered the issue of water quality of river Ganga and its tributaries in Bihar.
It had directed the state authorities to submit water sample analysis report by taking samples at the point where the tributary merges with river Ganga and also at the point of entry and exit of the river in Bihar.
"The above directions have not been complied with, and no report by the state of Bihar or all the districts of the state of Bihar from which river Ganga and its tributaries are flowing has been filed till now," the tribunal had said in its October last year order.
It had directed the state's chief secretary to remain virtually present on the next date to apprise the tribunal about the progress made for prevention and control of pollution of river Ganga and compliance of the directions contained in the River Ganga (Rejuvenation, Protection and Management) Authorities Order 2016.
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.
SC refuses to adjourn hearing on pleas against EC law, says this matter is more important
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to accede to the Centre's request to adjourn the hearing on pleas challenging the constitutional validity of a 2023 law that removed the CJI from a committee responsible for appointing the chief election commissioner and the deputies, saying the matter is "more important" than the Sabarimala case.
A nine-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant is currently hearing petitions regarding discrimination against women at religious sites, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, as well as the scope of religious freedom across various faiths.
A bench comprising justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma turned down the request by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to adjourn the hearing on the ground that he was currently occupied before a nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala reference case.
Referring to the gravity of the current challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, Justice Datta said, "This matter is more important than any other matter."
"Let your (solicitor general's) associates take notes today. Let the petitioners start. All matters are important. We read in the newspapers that there is an observation that the PIL in Sabarimala should not have been entertained by the court. So, with due respect to the judges, nine judges are occupied in a matter where there is an observation that it should not have been entertained in the first place," Justice Datta said.
ALSO READ: Girl mauled to death by stray dogs in Punjab's Hoshiarpur
The bench then directed the petitioners to conclude their arguments by Thursday, allowing the Centre to present its submissions on a subsequent date. The bench then proceeded with the hearing which is underway.
Earlier on March 20, CJI Surya Kant recused himself from hearing the petitions. "I will be accused of conflict of interest. There is a conflict of interest," the CJI had said. The law, enacted by Parliament in December 2023, came months after a landmark verdict by which the apex court directed that election commissioners be appointed by a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the Opposition, and the chief justice of India.
The bench had said that the system will remain in force till a law is enacted.
Under the 2023 Act, the selection committee consists of the prime minister, a Union minister nominated by the prime minister and the leader of Opposition (or leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha).
The PILs said the exclusion of the CJI from the panel undermines the independence of the appointment process.
The law has been challenged by multiple petitioners, including Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Association for Democratic Reforms.
Earlier, the Centre defended in the Supreme Court the appointment of two new election commissioners under the 2023 law that excludes the chief justice of India from the selection committee, saying the independence of the Election Commission does not arise from the presence of a judicial member on the committee.
In an affidavit filed in the apex court, the Union law ministry rejected the petitioner's claim that the two election commissioners were hastily appointed on March 14, 2024, to "pre-empt" the orders of the top court the next day, when the matters challenging the 2023 law were listed for hearing on interim relief.
The apex court also refused to stay the appointment of new election commissioners under the 2023 law.
A five-judge constitution bench had in March 2023 ruled that the chief election commissioner and election commissioners shall be appointed on the advice of a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the chief justice of India.
