Bar&Bench News Network
The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government regarding the construction of the statutes of Mayawati and Kanshi Ram on government sites. The Mayawati government on Tuesday undertook to immediately stop all construction of public memorials in Lucknow. The Supreme Court has directed that this undertaking also apply in respect of the petitions pending before the Allahabad High Court.
The petition was originally filed before the Allahabad High Court in October 2007. The High Court stayed the demolition of public buildings, and the matter went on appeal to the Supreme Court. In May 2008, the Supreme Court vacated the stay, but later re-imposed the order on demolition of all existing buildings after February 27, 2009.
When it was pointed out by the petitioner that there had been a rash of demolitions just before the 2009 stay was passed, the Court gave a dressing down to the UP government, and threatened to initiate contempt proceedings against the government.
The Mayawati government was represented by Senior Counsel, Satish Chandra Mishra, who is an aide and close personal friend of Mayawati. Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared on behalf of the applicants, NGO Gomti Nagar Jan Kalyan Maha Samiti. Abhishek Manu Singhvi is also the spokesperson for the Congress Government at the Centre. The estimated cost of the memorial-building project is a whopping Rs. 2,600 crores, in a state that has a GDP of 2%, as the court pointed out.
|
- 1. "The estimated cost of the memorial-building project is a whopping Rs. 2,600 crores, in a state that has a GDP of 2%, as the Supreme Court pointed out and hence it has come down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government regarding the construction of the statutes of Mayawati and Kanshi Ram on government sites are mutually reciprocative. Initially though this Court stayed yet after thorough observation re-imposed the order on demolition of all existing buildings after February 27, 2009. Installation of monument of one's ownself particularly of a party leader, a celebrity or elite of any field or organisation by no stretch of the imagination is an offence under any provision of law. But the implicit reason and object of propagating one's personality or implanting the cult of hero worship among one's camp followers on public property and investing public fund are not permitted by law.Keeping in view that memorials or statues are not the sufficient medium to present and perpetuate one's personage the profligate use of public property within political tenure ought to be put an end to.". Pradeepta Mishra, HC Of Orissa, Cuttack
- 2. "may i requested sir/madamplease required the job Typist.". Sonia Khadai, New Delhi (khyala)
Related Stories
- 'Office of profit' amendment is constitutional, says Supreme Court
- Supreme Court adds 5 to strength
- Cipla scores victory in the Supreme Court
- Karanjawala represents Jaswant Singh in the Supreme Court
- Delhi MMS Clip: Luthra & Luthra, Harish Salve, Sidharth Luthra represent Avnish Bajaj; obtain stay in Supreme Court
- Supreme Court says no beard rule is absurd
- Good news for India as Legal Outsourcing gets formal support from Ohio Supreme Court
Other News
- Linklaters Managing Associate Pranav Sharma to rejoin Amarchand Mangaldas as Partner
- Re-Upped Round up May 17
- Recruitment Tracker: Luthra top recruiter followed by Amarchand and AZB for NALSAR Class of 2012
- Siddharth Wahi joins JSA as Of Counsel; Former Baker Mckenzie SA to focus on Energy Sector
- Re-Upped Round up May 16
- Bombay HC taking proactive steps to fight pendency; Special committee to examine pending civil suits for speedy disposal
- CLAT Booze Bills: NUJS defies providing information under RTI Act
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (2)










