HC Junks PIL Against Lloyds' Iron Ore Expansion In Gadchiroli, Flags Petitioner's Bona Fides
2
3
4
Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court recently dismissed two clubbed public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the expansion of iron ore mining by Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited in Gadchiroli.
The court pointed out that the petition was filed by a person with no stakes in the matter, lacked locus standi and was acting without bona fides.
A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Abhay Mantri rejected the pleas filed by Samarjeet Chatterjee, resident of Raipur, Chhattisgarh, and co-petitioner Vishesh Bhatpalliwar from Gadchiroli. The bench stated there was no substantive connection between the petitioners and affected population.
It also noted no local resident or tribal community had objected to the environmental clearance (EC) and questioned the motive and timing of the PIL.
"Merely claiming to be a social servant does not give the petitioner the locus standi to filed a PIL as he has not shown any nexus with the cause of such people, who live almost 300km away from his place of residence and that too in another state (Chhattisgarh)," the bench noted.
The judges added the fact that the petitioner did not question the earlier public hearing, conducted at the district headquarters in 2005-06, and is now questioning the subsequent public hearing, sufficiently demonstrates he lacks bona fides in the matter of preferring the PIL.
The HC also observed that it failed to understand the petitioner's source of funds for carrying out the legal battle, especially if he has an annual income of Rs4-5 lakh.
The court noted that the petitioner claimed he gave up his profession as a mine contractor and travelled all the way to Maharashtra from Raipur in Chhattisgarh, where he is based. Aheri, where the plant is located, is more than 200 km from his place, said the court.
Chatterjee, a former mining contractor, challenged the environmental clearances (EC) granted to Lloyds Metals in two stages — from 3 metric tonnes per annum (MTPA) to 10 MTPA (2023) and then to 16 MTPA (2024).
He alleged violations of EIA norms, improper public hearing, and non-compliance with environmental regulations. He sought to quash the terms of reference and clearances issued in 2022 and 2023 on grounds of procedural lapse under office memorandums dated April 2022 and July 2021 SOPs.
However, the court noted the public hearing at the Gadchiroli district headquarters on October 27, 2022, was legally valid, widely publicised, and attended by a large number of local representatives and citizens.
It also cited the Maoist threat in the mining zones for not conducting the hearing at the actual site.
The bench acknowledged that Lloyds earlier operated without a fresh environment clearance post-2011, but later complied fully with the 2021 standard operating procedure, paid a ₹5.48 crore penalty, furnished a ₹26.64 crore bank guarantee. The environment clearance for 10 MTPA was then granted on February 24, 2023, followed by the terms of reference for 16 MTPA on November 26, 2024.
Calling such PILs "a tool for personal vendetta" and not a genuine public interest action, the court invoked Supreme Court rulings to underscore the need to curb misuse of PILs.
Lloyds, through counsel Raghav Bhandakkar, argued it created 2,000 jobs and contributed ₹2,000 crore in royalties to the District Mineral Fund, and 80% project execution was already complete. Finding no merit in the plea, the court refused to interfere with the environmental approvals and dismissed both PILs.
**Key Takeaways from HC Verdict**
- Petitioner had no local standing or public interest.
- Lloyds Metals paid ₹5.48 crore penalty for prior EC lapse.
- Environmental clearance for 10 MTPA upheld as per SOP
- Public hearing held as per guidelines, no irregularity found.
- 2,000 jobs and ₹2,000 crore royalty cited as development impact.
- Relied on SC rulings to warn against "luxury litigation."
- No locals objected to project
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
OpenAI Gears Up for GPT-5 Launch in August, Open-Source Model Arriving This Month
OpenAI is set to take another big leap in the AI race with the launch of its highly anticipated GPT-5 language model this August. Adding to the excitement, the company is also planning to release an open-source model by the end of this month, offering developers a glimpse into the next evolution of generative AI. The announcement was confirmed by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman during a recent podcast appearance. While Altman refrained from disclosing too many details, he did hint that GPT-5 will showcase advanced reasoning capabilities that outshine current models. Sharing a personal anecdote, Altman recalled how GPT-5 managed to solve a difficult problem that even he couldn't crack, describing it as a 'here it is' moment. The comment has only fueled the buzz surrounding the upcoming release. Insiders close to OpenAI's roadmap have indicated that GPT-5 will officially roll out in early August. The upcoming launch is part of OpenAI's broader strategy to merge its existing GPT and o-series models into a unified system. This integration aims to make the AI experience more seamless for both developers and everyday users by reducing the complexity of choosing between different models for tasks that demand reasoning. Although OpenAI has yet to share official specifications, reports suggest the company will introduce GPT-5 in multiple versions: a standard version, a compact 'mini' variant, and an even smaller 'nano' edition. All three versions will be available through OpenAI's API, but only the main and mini models are expected to be directly accessible within ChatGPT. The nano version will likely stay exclusive to API integrations. Notably, GPT-5 is expected to inherit reasoning enhancements from OpenAI's o3 model, tested earlier this year. This step marks a clear progression toward the company's ambitious vision of developing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)—a system capable of performing tasks at or above the human level. As the AI space heats up, OpenAI's upcoming launches could set new standards for innovation and accessibility in the world of artificial intelligence.
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
OpenAI to unveil GPT-5 in August: Here's how it is different
OpenAI is gearing up to introduce its much-awaited GPT-5 model. While CEO Sam Altman has been hinting at a potential early launch, no reports suggest that the new LLM from OpenAI could arrive as early as August 2025. Reportedly, the new model will be launched along with nano and mini versions and API access for developers. The upcoming AI model has been in the making for a long time and has been delayed multiple times. In February this year, the company introduced GPT-4.5 Orion to ChatGPT Pro users. While the company has launched a number of AI models, the launch of GPT-5 has been repeatedly changed owing to safety tests and refinements. On July 19, when OpenAI's experimental reasoning LLM achieved a gold medal-level performance in the International Math Olympiad, CEO Sam Altman took to his X account to share the news. While lauding the company's efforts, he also said that they would be launching GPT-5 soon. Describing the model, Altman said that it was an experimental model that incorporates new research techniques that the company will be using in its future models. 'We think you will love GPT-5, but we don't plan to release a model with IMO gold-level capability for many months,' he wrote. we achieved gold medal level performance on the 2025 IMO competition with a general-purpose reasoning system! to emphasize, this is an LLM doing math and not a specific formal math system; it is part of our main push towards general intelligence. when we first started openai,… — Sam Altman (@sama) July 19, 2025 Murmurs around GPT-5 were heard earlier this month after 'GPT-5 Reasoning Alpha' appeared in the configuration file as shared on X by Tibor Blaho, an engineer. While earlier, Altman had said that GPT-5 will be arriving in Summer 2025, newer reports now suggest that the model will be arriving next month. When it comes to features, GPT-5 is expected to be a significant leap from its predecessors and would come with unified multimodal capabilities that would integrate text, audio, image, and video processing—all of this into one architecture. The model is also reported to feature advanced reasoning capabilities with hybrid architecture for enhanced logical reasoning and problem-solving. The context window is expected to be extended beyond one million tokens in contrast to GPT-4's 128,000 tokens. Other expected features include native Sora integration and advanced Canvas tools. GPT-5 will also be working towards reducing hallucinations substantially. And, this reportedly will be achieved by implementing a chain of thought (CoT) mechanism.
Scroll.in
5 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Prada's Kolhapuri sandal copies show that law alone can't protect India's cultural capital
Earlier this month, Italian fashion house Prada sparked an uproar in India when its newest collection at the Milan Fashion Week featured open-toe leather sandals that strongly resembled the iconic Kolhapuri chappal. Priced at Rs 1.2 lakh per pair, nearly 300 times their value in Kolhapur, these sandals were showcased by Prada without any mention of their cultural origins or the communities in the subcontinent that have sustained the industry around them. Since 2019, the Kolhapuri chappal has had geographical indication status – meaning that it is protected by an intellectual property rights regime that acknowledges that goods originating from a specific region possess a reputation and distinctive qualities or characteristics inherently linked to that location. A GI tag is a legal stamp that protects the cultural and economic identity of products from a certain place, such as champagne from France or Darjeeling tea from India. The Prada incident put the focus on the limitations of India's GI regime in enforcing the protection of its heritage when it was co-opted on the global stage. For decades, India's intellectual property trajectory in the cultural sector has been one of seeking recognition: mapping traditional knowledge systems, celebrating heritage crafts and filing for geographical indications with the hope that a legal tag would be enough to protect them. But recognition is not the same as enforcement. GI status legally identifies a product as originating from a specific region, and grants exclusive rights to local artisans, manufacturers, or registered associations in that region to use its name. It stops others from misusing the region-based name and lets authentic producers benefit from both cultural identity and direct income. The backlash in India against Prada's sandals accused the firm of cultural appropriation and theft of intellectual property. Yet, legally, the anger went nowhere. A public interest litigation before the Bombay High Court seeking an injunction against Prada was dismissed, largely on procedural grounds: the petitioners were not the registered GI proprietors and public interest was not adequately demonstrated. This signals the limitations of enforcing India's GI regime. Until now, GI registration has been celebrated as an end in itself, as a badge of honour that marks cultural uniqueness. But what happens when that uniqueness is exploited abroad, stripped of context and sold back to the world as high fashion? The case of the Kolhapuri chappal may be the first real test of how GI protection needs to evolve beyond domestic pride. GI tags In India, GIs are governed by the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which came into force in 2003 following India's commitments under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement. GI protection allows local artisans, manufacturers, and registered associations to register traditional products and prevent others from using the GI name without authorisation. Since the inception of the GI regime, over 400 Indian products have been registered: from Banarasi and Pochampally ikat saris and Mysore silk, to Nagaland's Naga mircha chilli, Kullu shawls and Aranmula Kannadi metal mirrors from Kerala. These registrations confer exclusive rights to artisans, manufacturers, artisans and officially recognised producer associations based in those regions to produce, market, and financially benefit from the GI-labelled goods. For instance, Basmati rice, one of India's leading GI products, generated export earnings of approximately Rs 38,000 crore in the financial year 2022-'23, showcasing the immense commercial potential of GI recognition. Core flaw Under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, enforcement hinges on the use of the GI name itself or instances of consumer confusion. Prada did neither. It did not market its sandals as Kolhapuris nor did it mislead its customer base about the product's origin. The company sidestepped the law's textual boundaries, while arguably trampling on its spirit. That highlights a core flaw in India's GI law: it was not framed to address subtle, stylised forms of imitation in transnational fashion circuits. This is not the first time Indian culture has been borrowed without acknowledgement. In 2018, for instance, Indian design studio People Tree said French fashion house Christian Dior had copied one of its prints. Similarly, H&M's 'Wanderlust' collection, created in collaboration with Indian designer Sabyasachi Mukherjee, was claimed to have used GI-tagged hand-block prints without involving or compensating the artisan communities responsible for them. But two elements make the Kolhapuri chappal episode stand out. First, it comes at a time when Indian policymakers are actively promoting GIs as tools of rural empowerment and soft power diplomacy. Second, its unusual aftermath: Prada, after facing public backlash, agreed to a collaborative, artisan-driven 'Made in India' collection. What the law could not compel, public pressure did. This unintended consequence, where a luxury brand voluntarily enters into a fair-trade collaboration, is worth reflecting on. It suggests that while legal enforcement may have failed, ethical compliance may still be a possibility. However, such goodwill cannot be the cornerstone of a country's intellectual property regime. There is an urgent need to reimagine GI protection through the lens of global commerce. This could include bilateral agreements that create binding obligations on GI, mandatory disclosure of origin clauses in fashion exports and soft law instruments under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and or the World Intellectual Property Organization that link heritage usage to benefit-sharing norms. The Prada controversy exposes another persistent weakness in India's GI law: the limited capacity of registered proprietors to monitor and act. In this case, the two state-run corporations that jointly hold the GI – Maharashtra's Sant Rohidas Leather Industries & Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd and Karnataka's Dr Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd – were silent spectators. It took the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, a trade body with no legal ownership of the GI tag, to intervene and negotiate with Prada. This asymmetry in enforcement resources, where smaller artisan groups rely on third parties or media outrage to defend their rights, must be corrected if India is serious about giving its GIs teeth. But perhaps the most valuable lesson is this: the future of GI protection cannot lie in legalese alone. It will require a cultural and strategic repositioning of India's artisan economy, not just as heritage to be preserved, but as intellectual capital to be globally commercialised on fair terms. Prada's eventual collaboration may offer a working model. It came too late to be legally meaningful but early enough to change the narrative. It brought the artisan into the boardroom. The challenge now is to ensure that this becomes the norm, not the exception. India's GI regime must stop being just about recognition and start being about clear enforcement of rights. Debargha Roy is a practising advocate and managing trustee at Project Saathi. Tejaswini Kaushal is a researcher at Project Saathi and writes on IP. Views are personal.
