ON
← Nazaj na pregled
Vlada Tamil Nadu se je obrnila na vrhovno sodišče, ker je vrhovno sodišče odreklo službo žrtvam stampeda v Karuru
India🏛️ PolitikaSredinapred 15 urami

Vlada Tamil Nadu se je obrnila na vrhovno sodišče, ker je vrhovno sodišče odreklo službo žrtvam stampeda v Karuru

Vlada v Tamilnaduju, ki jo vodi Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), se je pritožila na vrhovno sodišče proti sodbi višjega sodišča v Madrasu, ki je preklicala dodelitev vladnih služb družinam žrtev stampeda v Karuru. Vrhovno sodišče je razveljavilo odločitev države, ki trdi, da morajo takšne sočutne imenovanja slediti uveljavljenim smernicam in spoštovati obstoječe čakalne sezname na podlagi starostnosti in ne nujnosti. Sodišče je poudarilo, da bi izogibanje tem postopkom lahko kršilo ustavna načela enakosti in pravilnega postopka. Vlada v Tamilnaduju je svoja dejanja zagovarjala kot humanitarni ukrep in navedla izvršna pooblastila v skladu z ustavo.

The Tamil Nadu government has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court challenging a recent ruling by the Madras High Court that nullified the state's decision to offer government jobs to family members of victims of the Karur stampede. The move comes after the Madurai Bench of the High Court struck down the appointments made on compassionate grounds, citing constitutional principles related to equality and procedural fairness. The appeal was submitted following the High Court's July 27 decision, which deemed the state's actions unconstitutional. The incident dates back to September of last year when a tragic stampede occurred during a political rally organized by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). The event was addressed by current Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Joseph Vijay, who also serves as the party president. The stampede resulted in multiple casualties, prompting the state government to take swift action to provide relief to affected families. In response to the tragedy, the Tamil Nadu administration initiated a program offering government employment to the relatives of the deceased. These positions were intended as a form of compassionate relief, aimed at supporting the families emotionally and financially. However, this initiative faced legal scrutiny soon after implementation. On July 27, the Madras High Court issued a ruling that invalidated the appointments, emphasizing that such decisions must adhere strictly to established guidelines governing compassionate appointments. The court highlighted concerns regarding potential misuse of such provisions, warning that allowing exceptions could lead to widespread abuse of the system. It stressed that adherence to existing protocols was essential to maintain fairness and prevent arbitrary decisions. The High Court further underscored the importance of maintaining order in the appointment process by pointing out the existence of extensive waiting lists across all government departments for compassionate appointments. According to the court, appointments should follow strict seniority rules rather than being influenced by urgent humanitarian considerations alone. This approach aligns with constitutional protections ensuring equal treatment and due process under Articles 14 and 21. The Tamil Nadu government defended its actions, arguing that the appointments were made using its executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the High Court maintained that even executive discretion must operate within constitutional boundaries. The court emphasized that while the state has the authority to act compassionately, it must do so without violating established legal frameworks. The Supreme Court will now review the case, considering both the state's arguments and the High Court's interpretation of constitutional mandates. The outcome of this appeal could set a precedent affecting future compassionate appointments nationwide. As the situation unfolds, attention remains focused on how the judiciary balances humanitarian gestures with legal integrity.

Kako je poročala vsaka stran

Isti dogodek, razvrščen po političnem nagibu medijev, ki so o njem poročali.

Kako je poročala vsaka stran

Podprite neodvisne novice z zavedanjem pristranskosti in odklenite družbeni utrip, glasovanje skupnosti in svoj prilagojen pregled Zame.

Postani podpornik

Poročanje po svetu

Isti dogodek, kot so ga poročali v drugih državah.

Poročanje po svetu

Podprite neodvisne novice z zavedanjem pristranskosti in odklenite družbeni utrip, glasovanje skupnosti in svoj prilagojen pregled Zame.

Postani podpornik

Preverjanje trditev

Ključne dejanske trditve in koliko virov jih potrjuje oz. zavrača.

Preverjanje trditev

Podprite neodvisne novice z zavedanjem pristranskosti in odklenite družbeni utrip, glasovanje skupnosti in svoj prilagojen pregled Zame.

Postani podpornik

1 poročil

The Hindu logoThe HinduNeodvisenSredinaDejstva 85Objektivnost 80pred 15 urami
Vlada Tamil Nadu se je obrnila na vrhovno sodišče, ker je vrhovno sodišče odreklo službo žrtvam stampeda v Karuru

Vlada v Tamilnaduju, ki jo vodi Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), se je pritožila na vrhovno sodišče proti sodbi višjega sodišča v Madrasu, ki je preklicala dodelitev vladnih služb družinam žrtev stampeda v Karuru. Vrhovno sodišče je razveljavilo odločitev države, ki trdi, da morajo takšne sočutne imenovanja slediti uveljavljenim smernicam in spoštovati obstoječe čakalne sezname na podlagi starostnosti in ne nujnosti. Sodišče je poudarilo, da bi izogibanje tem postopkom lahko kršilo ustavna načela enakosti in pravilnega postopka. Vlada v Tamilnaduju je svoja dejanja zagovarjala kot humanitarni ukrep in navedla izvršna pooblastila v skladu z ustavo.

Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): V članku so predstavljeni stališča vlade Tamil Nadu in razlogi višjega sodišča, ne da bi se očitno zavzemali za katero koli stran.

Zakaj dejstva (85): The article accurately reports the legal dispute between the Tamil Nadu government and the Madras High Court regarding job grants to Karur stampede victims' families. It provides details of the High Court's ruling, including constitutional references and the reasoning behind the decision. While no p

Zakaj objektivnost (80): The article presents the facts in a neutral manner, explaining both sides of the argument without evident bias. However, it slightly leans toward portraying the High Court's decision as more legally sound, which could be seen as subtle editorializing. The tone remains professional but not entirely i

Ohranimo novice poštene.

ObjectiveNews financirajo bralci in je brez oglasov – pristranskost vam pokažemo, ne skrijemo. Podprite neodvisno novinarstvo za 5 €/mesec.

Postani podpornik

Povezane zgodbe