Kerala High Court upholds ban on single-use plastic items
A Bench of Justice Viju Abraham upheld the orders while dismissing petitions filed by Kerala Plastic Manufacturers' Association challenging them.
The banned plastic items included plastic carry bags of varying thickness, plastic sheets, single-use utensils like cups, plates, dishes, spoons, forks, straws, and bowls, PET bottles less than 300 ml, flags, and non-woven bags. The petitioners questioned the State government's competence to issue the orders without corresponding Central rules.
The State contended that the orders were issued under the Environment Protection Act, a power that the Supreme Court had upheld. On the petitioners' challenging fines imposed on them for illegal manufacture and storage of single-use plastic, the High Court said, 'It is for the petitioners to work out their remedy in appropriate proceedings.'
The court further added that the government was duty-bound to implement the directions in government orders as well as rules framed by the Centre.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
SC quashes FIR against Telugu actor Mohan Babu and his son in 2019 student protest case
In a major relief to Telugu actor-producer Mohan Babu and his son Vishnu Manchu, the Supreme Court on Thursday quashed a criminal case registered against them in a 2019 student protest in Tirupati over fee reimbursement. 'A reading of the FIR (First Information Report) and the charge-sheet neither discloses any act committed or illegal commission that caused common injury, danger, annoyance to the public or any section of the public or interference with their public rights, nor do they disclose any voluntary obstruction to a person that prevents them from proceeding in any direction that they have a right to proceed in," said the two-judge bench of the top court, headed by Justice BV Nagarathna and including Justice KV Viswanathan, in their verdict. The SC quashed the FIR against the father-son duo after finding that the offences invoked against the accused were not made out in the case. "The appellants (Babu and Vishnu) were exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully," the court said. As per the prosecution case, ahead of the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections in Andhra Pradesh in 2019, Babu and his son along with others had held a rally along the Tirupati-Madanapalli road and raised slogans against the state government for not granting student fee reimbursements. They were booked on a complaint made by the person in charge of the Model Code of Conduct Team-IV, Chandragiri assembly constituency. In January this year, the Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to quash the proceedings in the case, forcing the father-son duo to knock the doors of the top court seeking relief in the case.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Are Rohingya people in India refugees or illegal migrants? Supreme Court to decide
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will examine whether Rohingyas staying in the country were refugees or illegal migrants before going ahead with hearing a batch of petitions filed on their behalf challenging their deportation and seeking basic amenities during their stay in refugee camps. IA Rohingya woman holds her baby boy's hand at a refugee camp in Bangladesh. (AP FILE/REPRESENTATIVE IMAGE) 'The first major issue is whether they are refugees or illegal migrants. Rest is consequential,' a bench of justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh said. 'If they are refugees, they are entitled to certain protections under law. If not, they are illegal migrants and should be deported back to their country.' The four questions framed by the court in the Rohingya batch of cases included, 'whether Rohingya entrants are entitled to be declared as refugees and if so, what protection emanates from the rights they are entitled to; whether Rohingyas are illegal entrants and if government of India and states are obligated to deport them in accordance with law.' There were two consequential issues also that were framed by the court. These were: 'Even if Rohingya entrants are held to be illegal entrants, can they be detained indefinitely or they are entitled to be released on bail subject to conditions.' Lastly, it said, 'Whether Rohingya entrants who are not detained but living in refugee camps have been provided with basic amenities like drinking water, sanitation, education, etc.' The court had taken up 22 cases involving the deportation of Rohingya who were either in detention camps or claimed refugee status. Among these, the bench sought to segregate cases related to Rohingya migrants as a single batch. The other cases involving other foreigners were directed to be grouped into a separate batch to be handled separately. As the batch of cases got listed together, the bench expressed a practical difficulty in proceeding with the hearing, as some petitions spoke about the deportation of foreigners in general, while others specifically related to the condition of foreigners in detention camps. Advocate Kanu Agarwal, appearing for the central government, submitted a list of cases pertaining to Rohingya people and urged the court to decide this batch of cases first. The non-Rohingya matters, he added, seek interpretation of the Foreigners Act. The bench agreed, saying, 'The issues that arise in the other batch of cases will be determined separately on another date.' Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who was appearing in multiple petitions, said that the genesis of these cases began with cases filed by Rohingya people in 2013. He said 15 out of the batch of 22 cases pertained to Rohingya refugees and the need to provide them facilities in their camps on par with refugees recognised under the UN Convention on Refugees. India is not a signatory to this convention and has not considered granting refugee status to them. Senior advocates Ashwani Kumar and Colin Gonsalves, appearing in other matters, pointed out that the Rohingya people who hail from Myanmar have fled to India seeking asylum as they were being persecuted in their country. Gonsalves further referred to a case filed by the wife of a foreigner facing detention in Assam which concern Rohingya and non-Rohingya foreigners. In that case, Gonsalves showed orders passed by the court to expedite the deportation process despite the fact that Myanmar was unwilling to take these persons back. In May this year, while hearing an application filed by Rohingya people in Delhi, the top court refused to adopt a piecemeal approach in deciding individual cases and called for all cases pending on the issue to be listed together. The Centre has been opposing the maintainability of these petitions, citing the Supreme Court's order passed in April 2021. This order permits the Centre to take deportation measures as required under law and held that while the right to life and liberty is available to even non-citizens, the right not to be deported is ancillary but concomitant to the right to reside or settle in any part of India, which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e) only to citizens.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Kerala HC grants time to submit comprehensive audit report on K-Smart
Expressing dissatisfaction over an audit report submitted before it regarding complaints registered through the K-Smart (Kerala Solutions for Managing Administrative Reformation and Transformation) platform, the Kerala High Court has said that the report did not meet the standards set by the court. The Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran said this while considering petitions on the proliferation of unauthorised banners and bill boards in public places. The K-Smart is an e-governance platform for local bodies, which could also be used to redress grievances. 'A list, not a report' The court said the audit report filed by the Secretary, Local Self-Governments, lacked clarity, including on the actual nature of complaints and the action taken. It only contained the number of complaints received and those resolved. It was more of a list than an audit report and lacked pertinent details, the court said. With the government seeking time to submit a comprehensive audit report, the court allowed it, while stating that the report should include all pertinent details, including the fine amounts collected from rule violators.
