New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought Delhi University’s response on a plea filed by St Stephen’s College against the varsity’s notification insisting on admission under minority quota solely on the basis of common university entrance test (CUET) score without an interview.
A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad issued notices to DU as well as UGC on the college’s plea and asked them to file their replies.
The court orally remarked that the DU notification was “contrary” to a judgment passed by it last year in connection with the admission process. Based on this judgment, it observed the college can issue prospectus.
The judgment last year had allowed St Stephen’s College to admit minority students by additionally conducting interviews but upheld 100 per cent weightage to CUET score for non-minority students.
“The (earlier) judgment is in existence. We will issue notice,” the court said.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the respondent, sought time from the court to file a reply to the college’s plea, saying there was no urgency in the matter at this stage.
The petitioner, represented by advocate Romy Chacko, has said it was a minority educational institution and its right to select students for admission and administer educational institution under the Constitution cannot be interfered with or taken away by the Delhi University.
It has contended that DU’s decision insisting on 100 per cent weightage for CUET score for admission under minority quota is ultra vires (beyond the powers) to Article 30 of the Constitution and unconstitutional.
“The Delhi University has now resolved that for admissions during the current academic year (2023), even in regard to 50 per cent Christian quota of seats admission shall be only on the basis of CUET score and no interview and addition of 15 per cent marks for interview will be permitted,” the plea said.
“The impugned decision of the University denying the petitioner college its right to conduct interviews for admission to undergraduate courses in the minority category is contrary to the judgment of this Honble Court dt. 12.09.2022 in W.P. (C) No. 8814/2022 in St, Stephen’s College Vs, University of Delhi which recognized the Petitioner’s right to select students of minority category by conducting interviews,” stated the petition.
Last year, St Stephen’s College filed a petition challenging DU’s letter asking it to withdraw its prospectus which gave 85 per cent weightage to CUET and 15 per cent weightage to college interview for admission to its unreserved seats in UG courses.
Holding that the rights accorded to a minority institution under the Constitution cannot be extended to non-minorities, the court in September 2022 directed St Stephen’s College to give 100 per cent weightage to the CUET 2022 score when giving admission to non-minority students in its undergraduate courses.
It said the college has the authority to conduct interviews in addition to the common university entrance test (CUET) for the admission of students belonging to the minority community but it cannot force the non-minority candidates to additionally undergo an interview.
New Delhi: While hearing a batch of petitions seeking legal sanction to same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court on Tuesday orally observed that there is no absolute concept of a man or a woman and it cannot be only about the genitals, rather it is far more complex.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, submitted before a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud that there is a legislative intent that a marriage can only happen between a biological man and a biological woman, including Special Marriage Act.
Chief Justice Chandrachud told Mehta, “Very important judgement you are making. That very notion of a biological man is absolute and the notion of biological woman is also absolute…” Mehta said a biological man is a biological man and it is not a notion.
The Chief Justice said, “There is no absolute concept of a man or a woman at all…it cannot be the definition of what your genitals are, it is far more complex. Even when the Special Marriage Act (SMA) says man and woman, the very notion of a man and notion of a woman is not an absolute, based on what genitals you have….”
During the hearing, Mehta stressed that his preliminary objections against the maintainability of the petitions seeking same-sex marriage should be decided first and added that all states should be issued notices before a decision is made by the top court.
Mehta submitted that the institution of marriage affects personal laws. The Hindu Marriage Act is a codified personal law and Islam has their own personal law, and part of them is not codified. The bench – comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha – replied that it is not getting into personal laws.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing one of the petitioners seeking recognition of same-sex marriage, submitted that his clients seek a declaration that “we have a right to get married.” The counsel said the state will recognise that right under the Special Marriage Act and the marriage will be recognised by the state after the declaration of this court.
Rohatgi contended that this is because even now we are stigmatised, and this is even after the Article 377 judgment, and that the Special Marriage Act should mention ‘spouse’ instead of man and women.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for one of the parties in the matter opposing same-sex marriages, argued that marriage between man and woman is not a gift of law, but existed since time immemorial and marriages are necessary to perpetuate the human race itself. Dwivedi contended that even SMA has provisions reflective of personal laws and talks about different marriageable age for a man and a woman. How would one reconcile with these (who is man and who is woman)?
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that he is all for such relationships but is concerned about the societal severe consequences, which may follow after declaration and questioned, what happens if they adopt a child and later want to separate? Who gets maintenance?
Sibal stressed that if piecemeal arrangement is done then it will create more complications, which will hurt the community and in other countries where same-sex marriages were recognised, they overhauled the entire legal framework.
The arguments in the matter will continue after 2 p.m. The Centre has told the Supreme Court that the demand for same-sex marriage is a “mere urban elitist views for the purpose of social acceptance,” and recognising the right of same-sex marriage would mean a virtual judicial rewriting of an entire branch of law.
The Centre’s response came on a batch of petitions challenging certain provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, Foreign Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act and other marriage laws as unconstitutional on the ground that they deny same-sex couples the right to marry or alternatively to read these provisions broadly so as to include same-sex marriage.
Krueger’s experience is just one small piece of a fiercely competitive process involving the most powerful politicians in New York. Those officials will soon have a hand in deciding who will win the opportunity to build what could become one of the most expensive — and profitable — casinos on Earth. The competitors seem to be sparing no expense to influence anyone and everyone with the ability to boost their bids.
Lobbying firms behind 10 New York City metro area casino proposals have made at least $7.2 million over the past 14 months speed dialing decision-makers on behalf of gaming operators like Bally’s and Caesars and their real estate partners, according to a POLITICO analysis of public records. Some even worked for competing clients.
And that is a fraction of the money being spent. The contestants are shelling out unreported sums for consulting, political strategy and public relations — contracts that are not required to be made public, unlike lobbying deals. Good government groups worry the mix of big money, fierce competition and political signoff creates a breeding ground for corruption.
“It seems like every lobbyist in town is eventually going to have a casino client,” Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine said in an interview. “Even one of these bids will probably be amongst the hardest-fought public campaigns, and to have ten happening at the same time in New York City is just totally unprecedented. I don’t think New York City has ever seen anything like what we’re about to witness as the bids heat up.”
The state opened the bidding process in January to operate three downstate licenses. Two existing “racinos” in Queens and Yonkers are considered frontrunners for two of the licenses to expand their limited operations, with another eight, and potentially more, competing for the likely one remaining permit. Each bidder is offering the state at least $500 million — a mandatory entry fee for access to the nation’s largest untapped gaming market. The selection process could last several years.
For now, it’s the lobbyists who are cashing in.
The Malaysian-based Genting Group has spent at least $2.7 million on firms to lobby for the expansion of the Resorts World facility it operates at the Aqueduct Race Track in Queens since last January — the most any bidder has shelled out, according to reports with the state’s Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government.
Genting is well-positioned: key Queens politicians have declared their support and unionized workers in the politically-influential Hotel and Gaming Trades Council are already employed at Resorts World and would likely benefit from its expansion. Competitors consider Genting and MGM Resorts International, which runs a gaming site in Yonkers, likely to win two of the licenses, though it’s not guaranteed. That leaves a third license for one of the other bidders.
One of Genting’s lobbyists, Moonshot Strategies — which launched after its co-founders backed Eric Adams’ mayoral campaign — has made $350,000 on the process, records show. Adams is among the elected officials with input in the selection process, but does not have the final say.
Moonshot’s Jason Ortiz and Jenny Sedlis, who raised $7 million to support Adams’ 2021 election, are also lobbying for a dueling casino project from New York Mets owner Steve Cohen, and have profited from two others — a proposal from the Bally’s Corporation in the Bronx and an existing Rivers Casino & Resort in Schenectady.
Moonshot has made $182,000 lobbying for Cohen since last January, according to public records. Cohen is expected to partner with Hard Rock International on the prospective casino next to Citi Field.
They’re one of seven firms lobbying for Cohen, who has spent at least $685,390 trying to win over politicians and other officials with sway over the city’s nascent gambling industry.
Other firms working for Cohen include Hollis Public Affairs and Dickinson & Avella, which previously lobbied for Genting. Hard Rock, which would operate the prospective casino, has hired Actum LLC — which is also doing public relations for Genting — and Green Book Strategies. Tusk Strategies is also consulting on the project.
The vast lobbying apparatus behind the different bids has touched nearly every conceivable political and governmental player that would be involved in reviewing the proposals or evaluating local investments bidders might make to win support. The firms behind Cohen’s bid, for example, have lobbied members of the state gaming commission, numerous state legislators and City Council members, top aides to Mayor Eric Adams, Queens Borough President Donovan Richards, Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, the Department of City Planning, the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
“Massive amounts of money are pouring into the political system to try to influence these siting decisions. It’s an absolute petri dish for pay-to-play corruption and influence peddling,” said John Kaehny, executive director at the watchdog group Reinvent Albany.
To be sure, no one has suggested corruption has taken place as part of the ongoing process in New York, but the legalization of casinos in other states has often presaged pay-to-play scandals.
In Louisiana, which sanctioned riverboat gambling in 1991, former Gov. Edwin Edwards went to jail about a decade later for racketeering, conspiracy and extortion related to the awarding of licenses. In Alabama, four state senators, three lobbyists and two casino owners were indicted in 2010 for taking part in a scheme to trade campaign donations for favorable votes on a bill to allow gambling. In Illinois, impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich was convicted in 2011 of crimes including an attempt to extort a horse-racing track owner in return for his signing a bill favored by the racetrack industry.
Back in New York, Ortiz and Sedlis, while lobbying for Cohen, also made $80,000 in 2022 working for a competing bid from Bally’s, which announced plans last month for a casino on former President Donald Trump’s eponymous Bronx golf course. The contract lasts through the end of March, according to records, but Ortiz said Moonshot terminated it at the end of February.
Moonshot also has a contract with Rivers Casino & Resort in Schenectady, but Ortiz said they will not advise the company on its potential plans to bid on a downstate license. He did not comment further on the arrangement.
Moonshot is hardly alone in double-dipping.
Peter Ward, who ran the hotel workers union before founding his own lobbying firm, is representing both Genting and Bally’s. Genting has paid Ward Strategies $336,000 since last January while Bally’s has shelled out $70,000.
Albany Strategic Advisors, a lobbying firm based in the state capital, has made $420,000 on Genting’s bid and $140,000 on Bally’s during the same time frame.
Neal Kwatra — who spearheaded the robust political operation of the hotel workers union before founding Metropolitan Public Strategies — is also working on both proposals, he confirmed. His earnings are not made public since he is consulting on strategy rather than lobbying elected officials.
Kwatra, Ward and Allison Lee, the head of Albany Strategic Advisors, have worked for Genting for years preceding the bidding process. They all declined to comment.
Lobbying firm Bolton St. Johns has made $120,000 from Genting, while also working for Caesars Entertainment on a bid to open a casino in Manhattan. The Reno-based gambling magnate is partnering with the city’s top commercial landlord — SL Green — and Jay-Z’s Roc Nation to create a casino with a swank, balcony-style bar overlooking Times Square.
Backers of the Caesars proposal are paying four other firms: lobbying companies Connective Strategies and Ostroff Associates, consulting giant BerlinRosen, and Oaktree Solutions, the consulting firm run by Frank Carone, City Hall’s recently-departed chief of staff. So far the bidders have spent at least $736,871 trying to persuade Manhattan politicians like Krueger, who are skeptical about plans for a casino in their borough.
Despite Manhattan politicians’ consternation over gambling, SL Green has stiff competition.
The Related Companies — one of the biggest developers in the country, and the force behind Manhattan’s Hudson Yards — retained Tonio Burgos & Associates to lobby alongside an in-house team including executive Charles John O’Byrne on a proposal its CEO has called “the highest-end casino probably ever built.”
The proposed casino on the far west side of Manhattan would be housed within a 1,500-room resort boasting 20 restaurants, a nightclub and theater.
Public records show Related has paid the Burgos firm $140,000 so far, and its Las Vegas-based partner, Wynn Resorts, has spent $192,000 on lobbyists, including Mercury Public Affairs and Empire Consulting Group. Related also has a robust in-house lobbying operation that isn’t fully captured in public records.
“Casino operators have hired some of the best in the business up in Albany; it’s understandable given how much money is at stake,” said state Sen. Brad Hoylman, whose district includes Hudson Yards and who has voiced skepticism on the prospect of a casino in the area. “In my mind, no amount of hard sell from a lobbyist or a casino operator is going to trump the local opinion of my communities, where several of these casinos have been slated.”
But the hard sell is sometimes too tempting for an influence-peddler to turn down.
Douglas Walker, an economist at the College of Charleston, authored a 2013 paper linking casino legalization to political corruption. He said one contributor is the highly competitive process around winning just a handful of operating licenses, like the one New York has adopted.
“Any time you have a situation where there’s restricted supply and you need the blessing of politicians or bureaucrats, there’s potential for corruption,” Walker said in an interview. “The more valuable the right to operate, the more you would expect those things to go on.”
Just how valuable? A casino in New York City could generate as much as $2 billion in revenue annually, and $600 million in operating profit, according to the commercial real estate services firm CBRE.
Walker noted campaign contributions to politicians and money spent on lobbying by casino operators increased dramatically after commercial casinos expanded beyond Las Vegas and Atlantic City in the 1990s. While lobbying and donating to politicians is not illegal, “Any time you see that, if there are legal contributions to politicians, there’s also the potential that there’s stuff going on under the table,” he added.
As for lobbying by casino bidders in New York, the total spend likely exceeds reports on file with the state’s ethics watchdog, the Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government, Kaehny said. “Maybe half of all the activity is being captured by these disclosures because a lot of people just don’t want to disclose what they’re doing and it’s very unlikely they’ll get in trouble for it,” he added.
[ad_2]
#York #casino #contracts #absolute #petri #dish #corruption
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Price: [price_with_discount] (as of [price_update_date] – Details)
[ad_1]
Detecting Range : 50 to 110 Degree Celsius. Resolution: -9.36404.9 0.1 , other temperature ranges 1 Measuring inputs: NTC (10K 0.5%) Waterproof sensor 0.5M Environmental requirements: -10-60 , humidity 20% -85% Display Type: 0.28 inch three digital display tube Control accuracy: 0.1 Refer to the Product operating instructions for using the productFailing these instruction, may lead to product damage
