BJP leader arrested after 200 cows starve to death at his gaushala in Durg

The UN humanitarian coordinator for Lebanon has warned that the “picture of life in Lebanon remains grim,” highlighting an "alarming" level of human suffering and significant humanitarian consequences due to the ongoing Israeli carnage.

Imran Riza, the UN Deputy Special Coordinator and Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Lebanon (UNSCOL), provided a stark overview of the Arab country's dire circumstances in a statement released on Monday.

“The current picture of life in Lebanon remains grim. Yesterday, airstrikes reportedly killed 23 people, including seven children, in the village of Aalmat in Mount Lebanon,” Riza said on X.

An airstrike in the city of Tyre on the same day resulted in the tragic deaths of five siblings from a single family, all of whom had special needs, according to his statement.

He added that in the last week, Israeli airstrikes have killed at least 241 individuals and left 642 others injured in Lebanon, as reported by the Ministry of Health.

“In the past month, more than 185,000 people have fled their homes in their search for safety within the country, bringing the total to over 870,000 people internally displaced,” Riza said

The UN official highlighted that numerous individuals, including the elderly and those with health issues, are staying behind while witnessing the ruins of their ancestral homes.

He urged for the swift safeguarding of civilian people and infrastructure, emphasizing the necessity to uphold international humanitarian law and end the ongoing violence.

Lebanon’s National News Agency reported that Israeli forces bombed a house in the town of Maydoun in Bekaa on Monday night, killing three people and destroying the house.

Earlier, Israel bombed the northern town of Ain Yaaqoub, killing at least 14 people.

The killings came as Israeli military continued to pound Lebanon, bombing shops selling electrical appliances in the southern city of Tyre and carrying out air raids on the towns of Shamshtar in eastern Baalbek and Roumine in southern Nabatieh.

Lebanon’s Ministry of Health said Israeli attacks killed at least 54 people across the country on Monday.

Israel’s merciless attacks continue despite calls from the UN Security Council for an immediate ceasefire and directives from the International Court of Justice urging measures to prevent genocide and alleviate the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza and Lebanon.

In Lebanon, at least 3,243 people have been killed and 14,134 others wounded in Israeli attacks since the war on Gaza began on October 7, 2023.

The Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah opened a support front for Palestinians in Gaza only a day after the Israeli regime unleashed its genocidal war on the besieged territory.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.