New Delhi Apr 25 PTI The Supreme Court on Monday came to the rescue of over 1000 slum-dwellers by staying the Centres proposed demolition for a week of around 200 jhuggis at Sarojini Nagar here saying they should be dealt with humanly and cannot be simply thrownA bench of Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy took note of the submissions of senior advocate Vikas Singh appearing for two minor residents including Vaishali whose 10th board examinations are starting on April 26 that thousands of people will be ousted without any other rehabilitation scheme in placeDeal with them humanly when you deal with them As a model government you cannot say you would not have a policy on rehabilitation and simply throw them away You are dealing with families the bench saidNo coercive steps be taken till the next date of hearing the bench told Additional Solicitor General K M Natraj appearing for the Centre and posted the matter for hearing on May 2The interim stay on demolition granted by the Delhi High Court earlier was ending on MondayThe law officer who wanted the protection against demolition to be confined to the two petitioners who have come to the court assured the bench that no coercive steps would be taken against all the residents till the next date of hearingAt the outset Singh assisted by lawyer Aman Panwar said that the residents who are over one thousand cannot be banishedWhere do you expect thousands of people to go Some rehabilitation scheme has to be there Even in the Haryana matter the rehabilitation was directed to take place the senior lawyer said adding that the names of over 172 families are there and they have records like Voter ID cards in support of their claimsHaving some documents where for election they have been enrolled does not confer the right the law officer saidThe Board examinations are starting from Tuesday and at this moment they cannot be allowed to be ousted he saidThe bench asked the Centre not to precipitate the matter till the bench hears and decides the caseLook at your notice what we have found in the impugned notice is that you have said hand over the government land People from all over India go occupy lands something they do not have a choice with They cannot afford the rates Justice Joseph saidThe bench did not agree to the submission of the Centre that protection against demolition be confined to those who have come to the court onlyWe are looking at documents which say they have been there since 1996 Should it be that only these people be protected and not the others When the court is examining the matter we cannot let the issue be precipitated the bench saidOn Friday a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana had taken note of the submissions that the plea needed an urgent hearing in view of the imminent threat of demolition of jhuggis shantiesThe apex court however had refused to extend the stay without hearing from authorities last FridayThe Union ministry of urban development on April 4 issued evictiondemolition notices to all residents of the jhuggis asking them to vacate the place within one weekThe plea said that the slum dwellers have been living there since 1980 and they do not want to stall any government project at the siteHowever the residents besides deferment of a proposed demolition for the time being wanted rehabilitation and relocation of their jhuggis as per the provisions of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board DUSIB ActThe DUSIB Act casts an obligation on government authorities to frame a scheme for rehabilitation and relocation of jhuggis before any action of eviction is undertakenThe Delhi government had taken a plea before the Delhi High Court that the jhuggis in question was not notified under the DUSIB Act and hence the residents were not eligible for rehabilitationThe single judge and the division benches of the high court had relied upon the submissions of the DUSIB and dismissed the plea of residentsThe appeal filed in the apex court referred to a response received under the Right to Information Act and said that the city government and its authorities have not notified any Jhuggi in Delhi under the DUSIB Act and have only prepared a list of 675 jhuggis PTI SJK MNL RKS RKS

New Delhi Apr 25 PTI The Supreme Court on Monday stayed for a week the proposed demolition of around 200 jhuggis shanties at Sarojini Nagar in the national capitalA bench of Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy took note of the submissions of senior advocate Vikas Singh appearing for minor Vaishali a jhuggi resident whose 10th board examinations are starting on April 26 that thousands of people will be ousted without any other rehabilitation scheme in placeNo coercive steps be taken till the next date of hearing said the bench and posted the matter for hearing on May 2The interim stay on demolition granted by the Delhi High Court earlier was ending on MondayOn Friday a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana had taken note of the submissions that the plea needed an urgent hearing in view of the imminent threat of demolition of jhuggis shantiesThe apex court however had refused to extend the stay without hearing from authorities last FridayThe union ministry of urban development on April 4 issued evictiondemolition notices to all residents of the jhuggis asking them to vacate the place within one week PTI SJK RKS RKS

New Delhi Sep 25 PTI Judges occupying the highest moral ground go a long way in building public confidence in the justice delivery system and the perception of common man about the credentials and background of a judicial officer is vital the Supreme Court has saidThe apex court said that post of a judicial officer at any level involves applying the most exacting standardsA bench of Justices K M Joseph and P S Narasimha observed this in a judgement delivered on a plea challenging the Rajasthan High Court verdict allowing a petition filed by a man against the decision which had found that he did not deserve to be appointed to the civil judges cadreThe top court said that the judges discharge one of the most important functions of the State that is resolution of disputes involving citizens and post of the civil judge or magistrate is of highest importance as the highest volume of litigation instituted in the country takes place at the lowest levelThe post of a judicial officer at any level of the hierarchy involves applying the most exacting standards This is for reasons which are obvious The incumbent of a judicial post discharges one of the most important functions of the State that is the resolution of disputes involving the people of the country Judges occupying the highest moral ground go a long way in building public confidence in the justice delivery system the bench said in its judgement delivered on September 16Referring to the facts of the case it noted that some FIRs were lodged earlier against the man and he was acquitted on the basis of compromiseThe bench said that in two of the FIRs final reports were filed and in the absence of an honourable acquittal the alleged involvement of an officer in criminal cases may undermine public faith in the systemIn two FIRs we notice that the matter progressed further and the investigating authorities filed chargesheets However it is true that the first respondent man stood acquitted The acquittal is certainly not on the basis that there was no evidence whatsoever against the first respondent We are unable to describe the acquittals as honourable or acquittals based on there being a complete absence of evidence it said while setting aside the high court verdictIt said the high court is duty bound to recommend the most suitable persons to occupy the post The post of a civil judge or a magistrate is of the highest importance notwithstanding the fact that in the pyramidical structure of the judiciary the civil judge or the magistrate is at the lowest rung it said adding Character cannot be understood as being limited to a mere certifying of the character by the competent authorityIt said not many of the cases finally reach the highest court and it is through the civil judge or magistrate that the common man has the greatest interfaceMost importantly the perception of the common man about the credentials and background of the judicial officer is vital We have only highlighted these aspects as a prelude to consider the facts of the case further it saidThe Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur had issued a notification in November 2013 inviting applications for filling up the post of civil judge junior division and the man had applied to the sameWhile allowing the plea filed by the high court through its registrar general the apex court noted in its verdict that when the matter was taken for verification the man had volunteered with the information with regard to his being implicated in certain criminal casesIn July 2015 the committee of the high court which was tasked by the chief justice to consider the case of 12 candidates including the man resolved to not recommend himAfter the matter was referred back to the committee regarding these candidates the panel again did not recommend the case of the man and later the full court accepted the sameThereafter the man had filed a petition in the high court which granted him liberty to file representation before the registrar of the Rajasthan High Court JodhpurLater the matter was again considered by the lower judiciary committee of the high court which resolved to reject his representationThe man then filed another petition before the high court which allowed it while noting that admittedly no criminal case was pending against him when the online application form was submitted by him for recruitment to the postThe high court had also noted that out of four cases lodged against him two cases were found to be false after investigation and in two other cases offences were of simple injuries in which compromise was arrived at between the parties and he was acquittedThe high court while noting that the man belonged to the Scheduled Caste category had referred to an apex court verdict and said that decision of the committee was not in consonance with the spirit of the judgment PTI ABA ABA TIR TIR