Telangana objects to Centre asking A.P. to submit DPR of Banakacherla project by month-end
The Telangana government has strongly opposed the Centre's move asking the Andhra Pradesh government to submit the detailed project report (DPR) of the Polavaram-Banakacherla Link project proposed by the latter, despite it contravening the provisions of the AP Reorganisation Act (APRA) and the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (GWDT).
In a letter addressed to Jal Shakti Minister (MoJS) C.R. Patil on the issue on June 13, Minister for Irrigation and Civil Supplies N. Uttam Kumar Reddy said the Centre's move would adversely impact the riparian rights of Telangana within the basin as the A.P. was planning to divert 200 tmc ft Godavari water to the non-basin areas of Krishna and Penna.
In a response to a letter addressed to Mr. Patil and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharama on January 22 on the Banakacherla project, the MoJS had replied on May 28, which he (Uttam) received in the first week of June, stating that A.P. did not send any DPR to the Central Water Commission (CWC). Accordingly, a meeting was convened here on June 12 on the project and later postponed to discuss it as part of the interlinking of rivers project in New Delhi.
Recently, the CWC had stated that it had received a pre-feasibility report on the project, Mr. Uttam Reddy said. The Minister told The Hindu on Saturday that a meeting was held by MoJS on June 2 and was attended by A.P. officials. When enquired by the Telangana officials, the CWC officials informed that the pre-feasibility report (PFR) of A.P. was under active consideration. In the same meeting, a Ministry of Finance official had asked the A.P. officials to submit the DPR by June-end.
'Usually, the DPR of any project/scheme by any State could be submitted to the CWC only when the underlying PFR is initially approved by the agency (CWC). Does the Centre asking A.P. to submit the DPR mean that the PFR of the project is deemed to have been approved by the CWC? We strongly object to the Centre asking A.P. to submit the DPR of the Banakacherla project,' Mr. Uttam Reddy said.
He made it clear that the proposed project had no assured water allocation by the GWDT. 'It's a matter of grave concern to Telangana as the MoJS has asked A.P .to submit the DPR of Banakacherla project by June-end, and it technically implies that the PFR of the project is deemed to have been approved,' the Irrigation Minister of Telangana said.
Mr. Uttam Reddy requested Mr. Patil to direct the CWC to reject the PFR of the Banakacherla project, presently under review by the CWC and also prevent A.P. from taking up any further action, including calling for and awarding tenders.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
14 minutes ago
- Hans India
Congress chides BJP over BC reservation remarks
Hyderabad: The ruling Congress party has vehemently criticised the state president of the BJP following his comments suggesting it was 'impossible' to increase Backward Classes (BCs) reservation to 42% and include it in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. BC Welfare Minister Ponnam Prabhakar, Government Whip Aadi Srinivas, MLA Beerla Ilaiah, and numerous other Congress leaders condemned the remarks as an attempt by the BJP to obstruct progress on the reservation issue at both national and state levels. Minister Prabhakar asserted that the newly appointed BJP state president was 'revealing his true colours' shortly after assuming office. He expressed strong reservations over the claims, demanding an explanation for the assertion that a 42% increase in BC reservation and its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule were unachievable. Prabhakar reminded critics that similar action was successfully undertaken in neighbouring Tamil Nadu in the past. He challenged BJP MPs representing Telangana to resign if they truly believed the reservations could not be implemented, stating, 'We will see why the reservations are not implemented.' Pointing to the successful completion of the caste census, the Minister suggested that with credible state-level information, such a move was indeed possible. 'That is why the state government has conducted the survey and is awaiting Centre's decision for constitutional amendments and President's approval,' he stated. The Minister emphasised that the decision ultimately rests with the central government, reiterating the state government's commitment to 42% reservations. He urged all BC communities and caste groups in Telangana to 'observe the true nature of the BJP' and actively participate in safeguarding the reservation process. Prabhakar also noted that according to credible reports, the information regarding reservations is currently before the Supreme Court. He expressed a lack of faith in the BJP delivering justice to BCs, citing the party's failure to appoint a BC as its own state president. He concluded that 'social justice is possible only with the Congress.'
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Himachal tribal woman marries 2 brothers: What the law says on polyandry
The Trans-Giri region in Himachal Pradesh witnessed a centuries-old customary practice recently, when a woman, Sunita Chauhan, married two brothers, Pradeep and Kapil Negi. This polyandrous tradition is locally known as 'Jodidaran'.The Hatti tribe has seen five such marriages in the past six years. Notably, the community was granted the status of Scheduled Tribes (STs) by the Centre in 2022. Their practice of polyandry has roots in the desire to preserve undivided family land, particularly agricultural land. According to supporters of the tradition, it has also served as a means to reinforce familial bonds between brothers and provided more security to women. Is polyandry legal in India? Polyandry and polygamy are outlawed by the Special Marriages Act, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and criminalised under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. While religious personal laws specifically govern marriage, the Constitution also recognises the relevance of prevailing customary laws among STs. The Constitution, under Article 342, recognises STs and accords them a distinct legal status. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, governs marriage applicable to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. Section 2(2) of the Act includes a carve-out stating that its provisions do not apply to STs 'unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.' In the absence of such a notification, the Hattis continue to be governed by laws laid down under their customs, which are undocumented and uncodified. The Act defines 'custom' under Section 3 as a rule that has been 'observed for a long time, has obtained the force of law.' But for a customary law to be valid, it must also hold the standard of certainty, reasonableness, and consistency with public policy. When challenged, these laws do not automatically gain legal recognition; courts have to be provided with proper evidence that such customary laws prevail. Much debate surrounds the applicability of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to such situations. In 2024, the Uttarakhand government, by enacting UCC, provided a legal framework for inheritance, marriage, divorce, and adoption. The UCC mandates the registration of marriage, establishes equal rights of spouses across religions and communities and prohibits polygamy. However, it does not apply to STs, following a Constitutional pattern of upholding their customary practices. Section 2 of the Uniform Civil Code Rules, Uttarakhand, 2025 states that 'these rules shall not be applicable to the members of any Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 read with Article 342 of the Constitution of India and the persons and group of persons whose customary rights are protected under Part XXI of the Constitution of India.' What has the court said on the issue? Increasingly, courts have read customary laws prevalent among STs with the rights to equality, dignity and life and liberty as enshrined under the Constitution. Any law that is in conflict with fundamental rights is struck down as unconstitutional. For example, the Supreme Court declared the practice of triple talaq as customary and therefore unconstitutional under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. It was deemed arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality, dignity and the right to life. Similarly, in 2018, the SC ruled that the customary practice of prohibiting women of menstruating age from entering the Sabrimala temple in Kerala was unconstitutional. The apex court held that this restriction violated the fundamental rights of women, including the right to equality and the freedom of religion under Articles 14,15 and 21 of the Constitution. On July 17, the SC in Ram Charan & Ors. Versus Sukhram & Ors, a case related to succession rights for tribal women, reaffirmed this principle. It held that when a custom is silent on inheritance, there is no restriction in law that women should be prevented from inheriting ancestral property. The apex court observed that 'customs too, like the law, cannot remain stuck in time and others cannot be allowed to take refuge in customs or hide behind them to deprive others of their right.' The ruling affirmed that excluding female heirs solely based on customary male preferences violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Centre appoints three judicial officers as Delhi high court judges, raising strength to 43
The Centre on Tuesday notified the appointment of three judicial officers—Vinod Kumar, Shail Jain, and Madhu Jain—as judges of the Delhi high court, taking its working strength to 43 against the sanctioned 60. Tuesday's notification comes a day after six judges—justices V Kameshwar Rao, Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, Vivek Chaudhary, Anil Kshetrapal, Arun Kumar Monga, and Om Prakash Shukla—were sworn in by chief justice DK Upadhyay as judges of the Delhi high court. (Shutterstock/representational image) Union law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal announced the appointments on X. 'In exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution of India, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the President is pleased to appoint the following as judges of the Delhi High Court: Shri Vinod Kumar, judicial officer; Smt Shail Jain, judicial officer; and Smt Madhu Jain, judicial officer,' Meghwal posted. The three officers, who joined the Delhi Judicial Service in 1992, were serving as principal district and sessions judges at various trial courts prior to their elevation -- Kumar was posted at Karkardooma court, Madhu Jain at Tis Hazari court, and Shail Jain at Saket court. The Supreme Court collegium headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on July 1 had recommended the names of judicial officers Shail Jain and Madhu Jain as judges of the Delhi high court. A day later, the collegium had also recommended judicial officer Vinod Kumar's name. Tuesday's notification comes a day after six judges—justices V Kameshwar Rao, Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, Vivek Chaudhary, Anil Kshetrapal, Arun Kumar Monga, and Om Prakash Shukla—were sworn in by chief justice DK Upadhyay as judges of the Delhi high court. Among them, justice V Kameshwar Rao was repatriated to Delhi from Karnataka, justice Nitin Sambre was transferred from the Bombay high court, while justices Vivek Chaudhary and Om Prakash Shukla came from the Allahabad high court. Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Arun Kumar Monga were transferred from the high courts of Punjab & Haryana and Rajasthan, respectively. The induction of the six judges resulted in a significant shake-up in the administrative, judicial, and collegium structures of the court. It altered the seniority hierarchy, led to a major reshuffling of the judicial roster—the allocation of case types to individual judges—and gave a much-needed boost to the court's depleted strength. The induction of three additional judicial officers will not only further bolster the strength of the high court but also enhance the representation of women on the bench. The Delhi high court currently has nine women judges and the swearing-in of Madhu Jain and Shail Jain will take that number to eleven. .
