First case of assisted suicide in Italy
the Uttar Pradesh government be restrained from any further demolition of properties of people allegedly involved in any protest or riots in the aftermath of certain contentious statements made by BJP leaders, urged the state government and its authorities to “act with sensitivity”.
The court’s observations are significant: over the past few years, the governments of several states have bought into the trend of demolishing properties of those believed to be involved in riots, violent protests, or unlawful activities. In some cases, the demolitions have been carried out even before proof of guilt has been established, but experts say even the properties of those proven guilty can be demolished only if they flouted building or property laws.
In this case, at least four properties were demolished by authorities in Kanpur, Prayagraj and Saharanpur after violent protests, against now suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur
Sharma and expelled BJP leader Naveen Jindal for their remarks on Prophet Mohammed, rocked these cities on June 3 and June 10. Forty-nine people, including 20 police personnel, were injured in the violence; over 350 people have been arrested so far.
“Demolitions can only happen in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not as a measure of retaliation... We are sensitive to this issue and we are saying they (authorities) should also be sensitive to this,” the bench told solicitor general Tushar Mehta and Harish Salve, representing UP government and the municipal bodies of Prayagraj and Kanpur respectively.
Mehta and Salve maintained no particular community was targeted in the demolition, and prior notices were issued in each case. They said due process was followed when action was taken against one property in Prayagraj and two in Kanpur, which formed the basis of the Jamiat complaint before the court.
The lawyers further urged the court not to pass any generic order against demolitions, especially when the pleas before the Supreme Court were not filed by the individuals affected by the action but by an “omnibus organisation” that does not have any personal knowledge of showcause notices or the procedure followed in each case.
The bench retorted it may not be possible for all to approach the apex court, and that it would not let the technicalities stand in the way of the issues concerning the due process. “We also keep seeing...we are also parts of society... In someone’s case of grievance, if this court doesn’t come to rescue, that wouldn’t be proper. Everything should look fair...ultimately, when someone has a grievance, he has a right to have it addressed,” it added.
Senior advocates CU Singh and Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for Jamiat, requested the bench to issue some interim orders to ensure authorities refrain from employing bulldozers as a part of criminal action against those involved in protests or named in the cases of violent protests. The two lawyers called it a “curious coincidence” that demolitions were carried out against those named in cases related to the recent protests. Singh claimed there were statements by high constitutional functionaries, including UP chief minister Yogi Adityanath, that bulldozers will be used to teach lessons to such protesters.
Salve, at this point, assured the court that the judges’ concerns over demolition action before the next date of hearing have been duly noted. “Allow us to bring everything on record through an affidavit within three days. There are three instances they (Jamiat) have cited in their applications. In the first case relating to Prayagraj, the showcause notice was issued on May 10... which is much before the riot. The demolition order was passed on May 25 and the property was fairly valuable. So, this cannot be a case where the individual concerned was not able to approach the court,” he said.
Defending the demolitions in Kanpur, Salve contended that a show-cause notice was issued to one of the property owners in August 2020 while a boundary wall was partly brought down in the second case after serving notice. “Media picks this up and connects it to something else and hype is created. But we will place everything on an affidavit. Why should a generic order be passed?” he argued.
Mehta added that someone who contravened laws in raising structures should not get refuge under any order of the court and that procedure was followed in every case of demolition in UP. The SG too resisted issuance of any generic order at this stage.
Even as the bench observed that it would want to ensure safety in the meantime, it said it cannot pass an order staying demolitions across the country. “At the same time, when the issue is before this court, there should be some respect shown by the authorities,” it added.
ROME: An Italian man, paralysed 12 years ago in a traffic accident, died on Thursday in Italy’s first case of assisted suicide, according to an association that has long campaigned for legal euthanasia.
Federico Carboni, 44, died with his family at his bedside after administrating the lethal medicines himself via a specially
SC DEMOLITIONS
designed machine.
“I don’t deny that I regret saying goodbye to life,” he was quoted as saying by the Luca Coscioni Association, which helped him overcome resistance from courts and Italian health authorities.
“I did everything I could to live as best as I could and try to make the most of my disability, but I am now at the end of my tether, both mentally and physically,” Carboni said.
Italy’s Constitutional Court opened the way for assisted suicide in 2019, in the face of fierce opposition from conservative parties and the Roman Catholic Church, but said local health authorities had to review and approve each request.
Carboni finally obtained permission to receive the lethal medicines last November, after winning two court cases and overcoming an initial refusal by health officials.