Live
- Former Zimbabwe cricketer Guy Whittall injured by leopard
- Fatal Fire Erupts In Hotel Near Patna Junction, Claims Six Lives
- Congress Challenges PM Modi's Allegations: Calls Out "Falsehoods" Amidst Electoral Rhetoric
- CPI(M) leader seeks Calcutta HC’s attention over Bengal CM's anti-judiciary comments
- Aparna Yadav Challenges Akhilesh Yadav's Candidacy In Kannauj: No Longer A Smooth Ride For Samajwadi Party
- A constable who helped an old woman in a very dangerous place
- WBSSC Claims Eligibility For 19,000 Dismissed Staff Amidst Teacher Recruitment Scandal
- Tollywood’s shifting landscape: The growing influence of OTT platforms
- YSR Congress Party MLA candidate KK Raju campaigns in 23rd Ward Priyadarshini Colony
- Leaders and Residents Welcome TDP Candidates Pulivarthi Nani and Daggumalla Prasada Rao in Tirupati
PIL filed on VIP movement
The Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court on Friday recused himself while hearing a public interest litigation filed against the “Very Important Person Movement” in the State.
The Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court on Friday recused himself while hearing a public interest litigation filed against the "Very Important Person Movement" in the State.
The petitioner, Vaddi Somasekhar, through his petition submitted to the court that the deterrence of vehicles for ensuring Very Important Persons' movement in the State is causing immense trauma and agony to common commuters.
The petitioner also questioned the legal sanctity of the VIP Movement process and urged the court to seek a copy of the Government Order or relevant law which authorised the traffic police department to deter vehicles during VIP Movement.
The petitioner submitted through this petition the verdict of the Madras High Court which restricted the time for stoppage of vehicles for 5 to 10 minutes in case of a VIP movement of Chief Minister, Governor or Chief Justice of the State.
The petitioner averred that during rainy and summer seasons the problem was getting aggravated as it will have a heavy toll on commuters' health and thereby violating their right to life guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 21.
The petitioner further contended that for ensuring seamless movement of Very Important Persons vehicles common commuters are confined on roads for hours due to subsequent congestion and also as they exposed themselves for more time to sun and rain the vulnerability for attracting to several ailments such as sunstroke and cold.
The petitioner also submitted that when the traffic personnel are deployed for Very Important Person movement duty, it deprives them to discharge their other statutorily or constitutionally mandated obligations and therefore such a practice militates against the very purpose for which their services are to be utilised.
When the petition come up for hearing, the Chief Justice informed the counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the interests of fairness he must recuse himself from this cause as VIP movement is also granted to Chief Justice of the State. The CJ directed the registry to post the PIL before another bench.
