LawLoveLegal

Introduction In a strong indictment of executive overreach, the Bombay High Court has stayed the Maharashtra Housing Department’s decision appointing a new developer for a long-stalled slum rehabilitation project in Borivali East , terming the move a “gross abuse of power” and a clear violation of binding judicial orders . The Court warned that such actions undermine the authority of constitutional courts and render judicial pronouncements meaningless. The ruling raises serious concerns about rule of law, administrative arbitrariness, and the erosion of housing rights of slum dwellers . Background of the Borivali Slum Rehabilitation Project The dispute relates to the redevelopment of slum land occupied by members of Haribar Krupa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Borivali East . Key facts include: • In 2003 , Yash Developers was appointed as the project developer through a development agreement dated 20 August 2003 • Despite nearly 18 years , the project failed to commence • The la...

Introduction In a decisive intervention aimed at ending prolonged democratic paralysis, the Supreme Court of India has fixed June 30, 2026 as the outer and non-extendable deadline for completing civic elections in Bengaluru. The ruling brings much-needed clarity and finality to elections for the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and the newly created municipal corporations under the Greater Bengaluru Area (GBA) , which have remained without elected representatives since 2020. Supreme Court’s Directions and Timelines A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued binding directions to the Karnataka government and the State Election Commission (SEC) to adhere strictly to a phased election schedule. Key Deadlines Set by the Court February 20, 2026 : Final publication of ward-wise reservation March 16, 2026 : Publication of final electoral rolls Post-May 26, 2026 : Polling to be conducted after completion of board examinations June 3...

Background of the Suo Motu Proceedings The Supreme Court is currently hearing a suo motu case initiated on July 28 last year following media reports highlighting a sharp rise in stray dog bites and rabies cases , particularly affecting children in the National Capital Territory of Delhi . The proceedings stem from public health concerns and the apparent failure of authorities to effectively implement existing statutory mechanisms for stray dog management. Constitution of the Special Bench A three-judge special bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N V Anjaria is hearing the matter. The hearing on Thursday remained inconclusive and has been scheduled to continue on Friday, indicating the complexity of balancing public safety, animal welfare, and statutory compliance . Supreme Court’s Clarification on Removal of Stray Dogs The Supreme Court categorically clarified that it has not directed the removal of all stray dogs from public streets . Justice Sa...

Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India has delivered a strong message against unauthorised constructions, holding that courts must not legitimise illegal structures merely because municipal regulations allow compounding on payment of fees. The observations were made while dismissing a petition challenging the demolition of unauthorised constructions in Secunderabad, Telangana. The appeal arose from a judgment of the Telangana High Court which had ordered the removal of illegal constructions raised without permission from the Secunderabad Cantonment Board. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasised that post-facto regularisation of illegal constructions defeats the rule of law and encourages rampant encroachment on public and private land. Supreme Court’s Observations: Rule of Law Cannot Be Compromised The apex court categorically held that demolition is the correct legal course where unauthorised constructions are raised, a...