Live
- South Korean govt appears to shelve punitive measures against mass walkout by doctors
- Annual anti-Semitism report finds worst outbreak since World War II
- Driver dies after vehicle crashes into White House gate
- Delhi Police bust fake spices manufacturing units, three held
- Many discrepancies in Rohith Vemula case probe: Venugopal
- K'taka obscene video scandal: Three more victims approach SIT
- Bangladesh, India, Australia drawn in Group A for Women's T20 World Cup
- Amit Shah seeks support to NDA alliance, assures of development in AP
- BJP Leading in First Two Phases of Lok Sabha Polls: Amit Shah in Andhra Pradesh
- Cong govt in Karnataka to give financial assistance to Prajwal rape victims
Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea For State Boundary Changes And Capital Relocation
- 1. Read about the Delhi High Court's decision to reject a petition seeking changes in the borders of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana, as well as relocation of capitals and high courts, citing constitutional limitations.
- 2. The bench further commented that Singh's focus on North India alone was narrow, suggesting he should have considered nationwide implications.
The Delhi High Court rejected a petition on Thursday that aimed to alter the borders of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana, as well as relocate the capitals and high courts of Haryana and Punjab.
The bench, led by acting Chief Justice Manmohan, stated that courts lack the authority to modify state boundaries, which falls solely under Parliament's jurisdiction as outlined in Article 3 of the Constitution.
The petitioner, JP Singh, a retired chief engineer, had filed a public interest litigation seeking to merge Meerut Commissionerate, Sonepat, Faridabad, and Gurugram with Delhi, and Chandigarh with Haryana. Singh also proposed relocating the capitals of Punjab and Haryana to Kurukshetra and Jalandhar, respectively, along with advocating for separate high courts for each state.
However, the court emphasized that such decisions are beyond its purview, highlighting Singh's oversight of constitutional provisions. The bench further commented that Singh's focus on North India alone was narrow, suggesting he should have considered nationwide implications. In its ruling, the court concluded that the petition demonstrated a lack of understanding of constitutional principles outlined in Article 3.
