Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Delhi Government Petitions Supreme Court Over Water Crisis

By

Delhi Government Petitions Supreme Court Over Water Crisis


In a significant move addressing the severe water crisis, the Delhi government has approached the Supreme Court, seeking the release of additional water from neighboring states such as Haryana. This plea comes in response to the acute water shortage exacerbated by the current heatwave that has gripped the capital city.


The petition filed by the Delhi government emphasizes the dire situation faced by its residents. The severe heatwave has led to an unprecedented demand for water, straining the existing water supply infrastructure. The Delhi government contends that immediate intervention is necessary to mitigate the crisis and ensure an uninterrupted water supply to its population.


The petition outlines several key arguments. Firstly, it highlights the shared river water agreements between states, urging compliance with these agreements to ensure equitable distribution of water resources. Secondly, it stresses the need for neighboring states to release their surplus water to Delhi, given the extraordinary climatic conditions and the resulting humanitarian concerns.


In addition to the legal arguments, the petition also outlines the practical challenges faced by the Delhi government in managing the water crisis. The city’s water treatment plants are operating at full capacity, and the demand far exceeds the supply. The government has implemented water rationing measures, but these are insufficient to address the needs of all residents, especially in densely populated areas.


The Delhi government has also highlighted the impact of the water crisis on critical services such as hospitals and emergency services. The lack of adequate water supply is hampering the functioning of these essential services, putting lives at risk. The petition urges the Supreme Court to consider the broader public interest and the potential humanitarian fallout of the water shortage.


The Supreme Court’s response to this petition will be crucial in determining the immediate measures to be taken to alleviate the water crisis. The court may issue directives to the neighboring states to release additional water or facilitate negotiations between the states to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution.


The Delhi government’s move to seek judicial intervention underscores the severity of the water crisis and the need for a coordinated response from all stakeholders. This case also highlights the broader issue of water management and the challenges faced by urban centers in securing adequate water resources amidst changing climatic conditions.


The outcome of this petition will have significant implications not only for Delhi but also for other states facing similar challenges. It will set a precedent for how inter-state water disputes and water management issues are addressed in the face of environmental and climatic changes.


In the meantime, the Delhi government continues to implement immediate measures to manage the crisis, including increasing the efficiency of water distribution systems, repairing leakages, and promoting water conservation practices among residents. However, the resolution of the current crisis will require a collaborative effort from all states involved, guided by the Supreme Court’s directives.


The legal and environmental communities are closely watching this case, as it underscores the urgent need for sustainable water management practices and the role of the judiciary in addressing environmental challenges.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more