Homeless people should also work for the country. Everything cannot be provided by the state: Bombay High Court

State can’t provide everything to homeless, beggars: Bombay HC

On Saturday, the Bombay High Court ruled that even homeless people and beggars must work for the country since they cannot expect the state to provide everything for them.

This was stated by a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G S Kulkarni while dealing with a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by one Brijesh Aarya, requesting the court for directing the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to provide nutritious meals thrice a day, potable water, shelter and clean public toilets for beggars, homeless persons, and poor people in the city.

According to the submissions made by the BMC before the court, the BMC with the help of NGOs, has been distributing food packets to such people all over Mumbai, and women from this section of the society were being provided sanitary napkins.

The bench while accepting this submission of BMC observed that, "They (homeless persons) should also work for the country. Everyone is working. Everything cannot be provided by the state. You (petitioner) are just increasing the population of this section of the society”.

The court also questioned the petitioner, saying it would be "inviting people to not work" if all prayers sought in the petition were granted. In addition, the bench noted that the petition did not disclose specifics about who a homeless person is, the number of homeless people in the city, etc.

However, in its order, the division bench directed the state government to consider allowing homeless persons to use public toilets free of charge, “We direct the state government to look if the homeless persons can use these toilets free of charge,” the bench said.

Comments

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another. Also Read: Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.” The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...

Lawgic Simplified

Search This Blog