Supreme Court panel to visit Kolleru today, tomorrow
Speaking on the occasion, Collector Vetriselvi said that the committee will examine four related issues from a humanitarian perspective: how many residential areas are there in Kolleru, Jirayati lands, D Form patta lands, and how the 2006 Supreme Court orders have been implemented. In this regard, she said that a field visit was conducted on Monday to prepare a plan for the areas to be visited by the empowered committee on Tuesday and Wednesday. She said that after the two-day visit, the Eluru Collectorate will receive requests related to Kolleru on Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
41 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
US Supreme Court sides with Trump administration in controversial deportation case
The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan, a war-ravaged country where they have no ties. The Supreme Court majority wrote that their decision on June 23 completely halted Murphy's ruling.(Bloomberg) The decision comes after the court's conservative majority found that immigration officials can quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger. The court's latest decision makes clear that the South Sudan flight can complete the trip, weeks after it was detoured to a naval base in Djibouti, where the migrants who had previously been convicted of serious crimes were held in a converted shipping container. It reverses findings from federal Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who said his order on those migrants still stands even after the high court lifted his broader decision. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the flight would be completed quickly, and they could be in South Sudan by Friday. The Supreme Court majority wrote that their decision on June 23 completely halted Murphy's ruling and also rendered his decision on the South Sudan flight 'unenforceable.' The court did not fully detail its legal reasoning on the underlying case, as is common on its emergency docket. Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, saying the ruling gives the government special treatment. 'Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,' Sotomayor wrote. Justice Elena Kagan wrote that while she disagreed with the original order, it does countermand Murphy's findings on the South Sudan flight. Attorneys for the eight migrants have said they could face 'imprisonment, torture and even death' if sent to South Sudan, where escalating political tensions have threatened to devolve into another civil war. 'We know they'll face perilous conditions, and potentially immediate detention, upon arrival,' Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said Thursday. The push comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by Trump's Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. The Trump administration has called Murphy's finding 'a lawless act of defiance.' McLaughlin called Thursday's decision 'a win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people." Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities can't quickly send them back to their homelands. The eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of crimes in the US and had final orders of removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have said. Murphy, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, didn't prohibit deportations to third countries. But he found migrants must have a real chance to argue that they could be in danger of torture if sent to another country, even if they've already exhausted their legal appeals. The men and their guards have faced rough conditions on the naval base in Djibouti, where authorities detoured the flight after Murphy found the administration had violated his order by failing to allow them a chance to challenge the removal. They have since expressed a fear of being sent to South Sudan, Realmuto said.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Sexual harassment at workplace is antithetical to constitutional values: SC judge
Sexual harassment at workplace is antithetical to the core constitutional values of equality, liberty, justice and dignity of individual, Supreme Court judge N Kotiswar Singh said on Thursday, while mooting for creation of a conducive work environment for women. Sexual harassment at workplace is antithetical to constitutional values: SC judge The judge was speaking at the launch of a dedicated portal for workplace sexual harassment complaints by the Delhi high court. The portal was launched in the presence of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Prathiba M Singh, chairperson of Delhi high court's internal complaints committee (ICC). 'Any such act which negates the conducive atmosphere of the workplace has to be forbidden or prohibited. Sexual harassment demeans women, acts as a barrier to her creativity, slows down the efficacy causing immense mental and physical trauma, which is completely antithetical to the enabling principle of equality, liberty and justice– which forms the core values of the Constitution,' he said. He added, 'This menace, has to be taken head on and it is from this perspective that lies the significance and importance of this act and also assumes importance of the fact that today large number of women are joining and becoming partners in nation building exercise and are contributing meaningfully in all walks of life, which were exclusively reserved for men. There is a paradigm shift that is taking place, therefore it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the workplace remains safe, secure, encouraging and not plagued by these insidious practices.' In his speech the judge also laid emphasis on some of the aspects that act as hurdle in ensuring a safe workplace for women including the cultural resistance in acknowledge certain acts of sexual harassment, mindset that women's role is confined to domestic sphere. 'One of the greatest challenge is the deep rooted cultural resistance in acknowledging certain acts of sexual harassment. In fact many organisations consider these complaints of sexual harassment as a threat of their reputation, rather than providing opportunities of growth. There is a need to sensitise the people that there are certain acts which are prohibited, which cannot be tolerated,' he said. Justice Singh said that it is important for men to understand what makes a female counterpart uncomfortable and to extend help or cooperation in case they face inappropriate behaviour. 'It is also equally important for men to extend help or cooperation whenever such a woman faces any such kind of inappropriate behaviour from the men. Not only cooperation but empathetic attitude. Certainly not sympathy. Because what women require is not an act of charity, but it is a solemn obligation on all of us to ensure the dignity of women,' he said.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
No independent member in key environment panel: Experts
The Constitutional Conduct Group, a group of former civil servants who have served in various capacities in the central and state governments, have written to the Supreme Court to point out that the court-appointed Central Empowered Committee on environmental matters has been functioning without any independent members. No independent member in key environment panel: Experts The outcome of a petition on the Forest Conservation Amendment Act 2023 'may possibly be compromised considering the conflict of interest' of the CEC, the group has claimed in a letter to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India. 'In 2023, since Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) seemingly had complete autonomy in choosing the members of the CEC, it nominated in all the four posts of members, four former government officers, three of whom are retired Indian Forest Service officers and one, a retired scientist, who had also worked for many years until his retirement in the MoEFCC. There are no independent experts.' HT had reported on September 8, 2023 that the Union environment ministry has issued a notification constituting a permanent authority to be known as 'Central Empowered Committee' in response to a Supreme Court order, dated August 18, which said instead of an ad hoc body, CEC should be instituted as a permanent statutory body on environmental issues. The permanent CEC now replaces an ad hoc body that the Supreme Court had directed to be created at the national level in 2002 for monitoring the implementation of top court's orders related to forests, wildlife and conservation and to place the non-compliance of cases before it, including those related to encroachment removals, implementation of working plans, plantations etc. But the structure of CEC is vastly different from the previous CEC. It is far more centralised leaving no space for independent members. The CEC was constituted in 2002 by MoEFCC on the directions of the Supreme Court for monitoring and ensuring compliance with the orders of Supreme Court on matters of forests and wildlife and to provide technical advice. It consisted of three former officers of the ministry, and two independent members, the first, an expert on forests and wildlife and the other, an advocate of the Supreme Court who is also an environmentalist. Two of the current members of the CEC have held the topmost forest and wildlife posts under the government of India, that of Director General and Special Secretary and have retired recently. CEC members include chairman, Siddhant Das, former DG, forests; CP Goyal, former DG forests; Sunil Limaye, former principal chief conservator of forests; JR Bhatt, former lead climate change negotiator for India and Bhanumathi G, Assistant Inspector General of Forests (AIGF) at National Tiger Conservation Authority. Previously, CEC has had independent members such as tiger expert Valmik Thapar and Supreme Court advocate Mahendra Vyas. They were appointed in 2002 with a five-year tenure as per the 2002 notification. Thapar completed his tenure and moved on, while Vyas continued to be an independent member till 2022. A CEC which is comprised of officers who had held the highest positions in the MoEFCC, and were closely involved in policy making, can hardly be expected to give independent advice to the Supreme Court, advice that is different from what they gave while they were in the government. In 2023 a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court by a group of individuals challenging the Forest Conservation Amendment Act (FCAA), 2023, as, according to them, the Act would hasten the decline of forests in India, already greatly reduced since a decade or two earlier. In hearings in this case, so far, the Supreme Court has given four landmark orders, upholding the definition of forests as per the Godavarman order of 1996 and directing that such forests be identified and georeferenced as per the SC orders of 1996 and 2011 (Lafarge case),' the officers wrote. 'The case is pending for a final hearing and decision in the Supreme Court. However, we fear that the outcome of this case, as well as those of others filed against the FCAA 2023, may possibly be compromised considering the conflict of interest of the CEC, and the likelihood that the Supreme Court may give weight to the advice of the CEC before taking a final decision in the matter,' they added. 'We would like to point out that the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill 2023 was prepared and defended before the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) by a CEC member then at the helm in the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change. The Forest Conservation Amendment Act (FCAA) 2023 which is being challenged in the Supreme Court, was also notified at that time, as were the rules under the Act and the consolidated guidelines,' the letter cautioned. The letter pointed to the SC's recent order on 'zudpi' forests (scrub forests) of Maharashtra that relied heavily on the CEC's advice which recommended the untrammelled use of such forests for 'compensatory afforestation' considering 'zudpi' forests as ecologically inferior forests as they cannot support thick stands of forest trees. HT reported on May 24, 2023 that the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill 2023 could jeopardise vast tracts of ecologically important forests and leave out several so-called unclassed forests that cover around 15% of India's total forest cover, citing a report by a high-level working group constituted by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy on the bill . The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, exempts 'unrecorded deemed forests' from being recognised under the modified law on forest conservation. The objective of the act was to review and limit a Supreme Court verdict in the TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Others case on December 12, 1996, which directed that 'forests' would not only include those understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in government records irrespective of the ownership. In 2023, 11 retired government officials, including some from the forest and environment departments and two environmental activists challenged the new amendment in the Supreme Court. The apex court gave an interim order on February 19, 2024 upholding the order of the 1996 Godavarman judgement which defined forests as per the dictionary meaning of the word irrespective of ownership. HT reached out to MoEFCC and CEC chairman Siddhant Das, but did not get any responses to requests for comments.
