Kasargod, Feb 16: An electrician died of electrocution when he was installing decorative lights for the temple fair in Kasargagod district.
The deceased has been identified as Dinesh (30), son of late Pakeera Moolya of Paivalike Bayarau Pelathadka.
He was working as an electrician with an electric contractor from Maroli in Mangaluru for over a decade.
Dinesh is survived by two brothers and three sisters. He had planned to get married soon.
Udupi, Nov 11: A traveller reportedly lost ₹4.1 lakh after attempting to book a cab online in Udupi.
At around 1:30 PM on November 7, the man from West Bengal searched for car rentals on Google and selected a website named "Shakti Car Rentals." Shortly after, he was contacted by someone claiming to be "Rohit Sharma," who directed him to pay a registration fee of ₹150 on the site.
After unsuccessful payment attempts via both his Canara Bank debit card and SBI credit card (without receiving an OTP), "Rohit Sharma" instructed him to pay the driver directly. But at 1:47 PM, he received messages showing deductions of ₹3.3 lakh from his SBI credit card and ₹80,056 from his Canara Bank debit card, totaling ₹4.1 lakh.
The complainant alleges fraud through a deceptive link disguised as a booking token fee. A case has been registered at Udupi Town Police Station.
Udupi, Nov 7: In a tragic turn of events, a young woman, Prasanna, aged 29, allegedly died by suicide on Wednesday, struggling to cope with the demands of work and motherhood after the birth of her daughter, according to police reports.
Prasanna had married on December 2, 2022, and was the mother of a 10-month-old baby girl. Her husband works in Bengaluru, while she lived with her in-laws, who, according to her family, treated her kindly.
In a complaint, Prasanna's mother revealed that her daughter often called her, expressing deep concerns over her readiness for motherhood. Despite receiving supportive care from her family, Prasanna felt unprepared and overwhelmed by the balance of work and home life that early motherhood required.
Her family shared that she had been undergoing treatment, but between 10 a.m. and 1:45 p.m. on Wednesday, she allegedly took her own life at her husband’s residence. The Karkala Rural Police Station has registered a case and is conducting further investigations.
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.
Comments
Add new comment