New Delhi Nov 26 PTI The Centre informed the Delhi High Court on Friday that it has translated the draft Environment Impact Assessment EIA notification in all the 22 vernacular languages in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution A bench headed by Chief Justice D N Patel consequently directed that 60 days be given from the date of online publication of the translated versions of the draft for filing of objections by stakeholders The bench also comprising Justice Prateek Jalan was hearing the Centres review petition against the order directing the Environment Ministry to translate the draft EIA notification in all the 22 languages within 10 days of the order and publish the same of official websites The courts order had come on June 30 2020 on a PIL by environmental conservationist Vikrant Tongat petitioner seeking publication of the notification in all vernacular languages and also extension of deadline for receiving public comments on it Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma told the court that in compliance of the order the draft notification has been translated Counsel for the petitioner informed the court that while the translation has taken place the documents were yet to be published online in order to facilitate to the process of filing of objections The procedural part is in the hands of some officer It will be uploaded the court observed as it stated that the main task of translation has already been completed However it added We expect from the Union of India and the agencies of Union of India that the order of the court shall be complied with in true spirit and letters The court also allowed the petitioners application seeking 60 days to file objections to the draft policy after the same is uploaded Now respondent Centre has already translated the notification in all languages as stated in the order dated June 302020 We therefore direct Union of India to grant 60 days from the date of uploading of documents for filing of objections by concerned stakeholders the court ordered In January the court had said that it could not understand why the Centre was vehemently resisting its order to translate the draft Environment Impact Assessment in all 22 languages in the Eight Schedule of the Constitution It had stated that the government would have to understand the objections in local languages to the draft EIA and therefore what was the harm in translating it in all the 22 languages In February the court had observed that its view that the draft EIA be translated in all 22 languages should not be taken so combatively by the central government People in remote areas are our citizens who need to be heard and may not understand the draft if published only in English and Hindi the court had said to the Environment Ministry which had initially raised objections in respect of translating the draft EIA in the vernacular languages The June 2020 order was initially challenged by the ministry in the Supreme Court which allowed the government to withdraw its appeal and instead file a review before the high court The apex court also put on hold the proceedings in the contempt plea filed by Tongad for non-compliance of the June 30 2020 direction Subsequently the ministry filed a plea seeking review of the June 30 order on the grounds that official documents are required to be published only in Hindi and English The petition by Tongad had claimed that the draft EIA 2020 completely supersedes and replaces the existing environmental norms along It stated that the new policy provided for post facto approval of projects and does away with public consultation in some cases This draft notification proposes significant changes to the existing regime including removing public consultation entirely in certain instances reducing the time for public consultation from 45 days to 40 days and allowing post facto approvals for projects it had said PTI ADS SA

New Delhi [India], November 11 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition moved by Lok Insaaf Party, a Punjab political party, seeking direction to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to quash the allotment of issued 'Letter Box' as a common symbol to it and direct the commission to allot the common symbol of 'Tractor Chalata Kisan'.

New Delhi Oct 23 PTI The Delhi High Court has refused to allow a doctor who is pursuing a super-specialty course to sit for his end-term examination by condoning his excessive leaves on account of contracting COVID-19 while treating patients saying that the requirements of training and attendance in professional courses of this nature are beyond its remit Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed the petitioner-doctors plea for condonation of leaves and said that the courts decision did not emanate from a lack of gratitude for the service rendered by doctors during the pandemic but from the limitations under the regulations governing the course The petitioner was working with the burns and plastic surgery department of a medical institute here and pursuing the three-year MCh degree course Since a candidate was permitted to take only a total of 102 days as leave during the three years the petitioner was rendered ineligible to sit for the end-term examination after he availed 226 days of leave 194 days being medical leave due to COVID-19 The institute told the high court that the applicable regulations that is the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 by the Medical Council of India as well as its own ordinances do not provide for any condonation of excess leaves The judge said that the petitioner is a senior resident seeking a super-specialty qualification which is principally earned by participating in clinical activity and therefore the training requirement cannot be divorced altogether from the question of excessive leave The petitioner was compelled by reason of his illness to take approximately six months leave from July 2020 to January 2021 which is much higher than the permitted maximum Where the training is largely achieved on the job the training requirement cannot be divorced altogether from the question of excessive leave To the extent that the petitioner availed of excessive leave howsoever legitimate the cause his super-specialty training remains yet incomplete in terms of the Regulations and the Ordinance the court said The court added that a balance has to be struck between the petitioners predicament and the assessment of the academic institutions concerned that he is not properly qualified under the applicable regulations The requirements of training and attendance particularly in professional courses of this nature are generally beyond the remit of the writ court Academic institutions are generally best placed to adjudge these issues and their assessment is vulnerable to interference only if vitiated by manifest unreasonableness or arbitrariness The view taken by the University in the present case cannot be so characterised it stated Despite much sympathy with the situation in which the petitioner finds himself I have come to the conclusion that he cannot prevail This conclusion does not emanate from any lack of gratitude for the service rendered by doctors and other health-care professionals in the course of this pandemic but from the limitations of the writ court in the face of expert opinion regarding the conditions which the Regulations and the Universitys Ordinances impose it said PTI ADS SMN SMN