Orissa High Court issues notice over ban on tribal ritual in Similipal Tiger Reserve
Deputy director of STR had issued the prohibition order on January 22, 2025. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice MS Raman issued the notice on a writ appeal and fixed July 21 for hearing on the matter along with reply to the notice.
The appeal was filed by Nandu Ho and two other residents of Jamunagarh against a single judge's order on March 3, 2025 declining to entertain a petition on the same issue. During the hearing on Monday, advocate Afraaz Suhail appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Munda tribal community have been performing their sacred rituals in Jamunagarh area for generations.
During the hearing of the petition before the single judge Justice SK Panigrahi, the counsel for the government of India and state government advocate had submitted that since 'Tiger Supplementation Programme' is going on in STR, the authorities, in order to save the life of the humans, have not given permission to the petitioners to perform their rituals at Jayara.
While disposing of the petition, Justice Panigrahi had observed that the concern raised by the authorities was genuine.
'However, considering the request of counsel for the petitioners, this court makes it clear that after the tiger supplementation programme in and around the Similipal Tiger Reserve gets over, the petitioners may be permitted to perform their rituals at the sacred place,' Justice Panigrahi had ordered.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
14 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Centre to collect signatures of MPs for motion to remove Justice Varma
He said the government is yet to decide whether the motion would be brought in the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha Press Trust of India New Delhi Prominent opposition parties have given their in-principle approval to support the motion to remove Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma and the process of collecting signatures could begin soon, Union minister Kiren Rijiju said on Thursday. He said the government is yet to decide whether the motion would be brought in the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. For Lok Sabha, signatures of a minimum 100 MPs is required. For the Rajya Sabha, the requirement is the support of at least 50 MPs. He said the signatures will be collected after the government decides on the House where the motion will be brought. The Monsoon session will commence from July 21 and end on August 21. According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a "distinguished jurist." Rijiju said since the matter involves corruption in the judiciary, the government wants all political parties to be on board. On being asked about the report of the in-committee which proved the cash discovery incident at Justice Varma's official residence here, he said the report of the three-judge panel had not indicted Justice Varma and was meant to recommend future course of action as Parliament can only remove a judge A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of banknotes in the outhouse. Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. Then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna is believed to have prodded him to resign but Justice Varma dug in his heels. The apex court has since repatriated him to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Justice Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister, recommending the removal, which is the procedure for axing members of the higher judiciary from service.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Justice Varma case: House to set up a probe panel, reduce three-month timeframe
AN INQUIRY committee will be set up by the presiding officer of the House concerned to probe charges against Supreme Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma during the coming Monsoon Session of Parliament. Sources said the timeline for the panel to submit its report will be crunched from three months, so that action against the judge, from whose residence stacks of currency notes were allegedly recovered, is not further delayed. 'Matters related to the judiciary must be beyond politics, so the government has reached out to all the prominent parties and the process (of removal of Justice Varma) would be a unified stand. The government will start collecting the signatures of MPs – after deciding which House should initiate the process – next week,' Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said on Thursday. 'The Chair will then constitute a committee as per the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, and the committee will table the report, following which the discussions will take place,' Rijiju said. Sources in the government said it is exploring 'special provisions to do away with the three-month tenure of the committee'. Incidentally, sources also indicated that the government was in no hurry over the Opposition's demand for the removal of Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Yadav, over a controversial speech made by him at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event last year. While admitting that more than 50 Opposition MPs had signed on the papers required to initiate the process for the removal of Justice Yadav, and that their signatures had been verified, a source said the case could not be compared to Justice Varma's. 'There is a stark difference between the charges of corruption and others. The Opposition has initiated the move against Justice Yadav in the Rajya Sabha, and Chairman Jagdeep Dhankar is expected to give a ruling on the notice in the Monsoon Session. Earlier, the government as well as some Opposition parties had also suggested dispensing with a probe committee of the House in the case of Justice Varma since a three-member committee appointed by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had already indicted him. Rijiju said Thursday that the government, however, decided on holding a House probe too. 'We would like to go by established rules in this.' The Monsoon Session of Parliament, which was earlier scheduled from July 21 to August 12, has now been extended till August 21. A government official said, 'We hope the removal process (of Justice Varma) will be over in this session itself.' Asked about the extended session, Rijiju said the government has 'legislative business to finish' and that it would come out with the agenda soon. An all-party meeting to discuss the business of the government is expected to be held on July 20. The panel set up by the Supreme Court in the Justice Varma case had submitted its report upholding allegations that wads of currency notes were discovered at his official residence on March 14, by authorities called to the spot due to a fire. As per the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, a complaint against a judge requires as a first step a resolution signed by at least 100 members if moved in the Lok Sabha and 50 members if initiated in the Rajya Sabha. Once the MPs submit the motion, the presiding officer of the House can either accept or reject it. In the case of Justice Varma, the government is yet to decide which House will take up the motion first. But since it is the government initiating the action, and seeking to build political consensus, it is expected that the presiding officer will accept it. After a motion for impeachment is adopted by either House, the Speaker / Chairman constitutes a three-member committee of inquiry, headed by the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, and including a Chief Justice of any High Court, and a person who is in the opinion of the Speaker/ Chairman, a 'distinguished jurist'. If the committee renders a guilty finding, the report of the committee is then adopted by the House in which it was introduced, and the judge's removal is debated. For an impeachment motion against a Supreme Court or High Court judge to go through, at least two-thirds of those 'present and voting' in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha must vote in favour of removing the judge – and the number of votes in favour must be more than 50% of the 'total membership' of each House. If Parliament passes such a vote, the President eventually signs an order for the removal of the judge.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Govt to soon collect signatures of MPs for motion to remove Justice Yashwant Varma
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Popular in India Prominent opposition parties have given their in-principle approval to support the motion to remove Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma and the process of collecting signatures could begin soon, Union minister Kiren Rijiju said on said the government is yet to decide whether the motion would be brought in the Lok Sabha or Rajya Lok Sabha, signatures of a minimum 100 MPs is required. For the Rajya Sabha, the requirement is the support of at least 50 said the signatures will be collected after the government decides on the House where the motion will be Monsoon session will commence from July 21 and end on August to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been committee consists of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a "distinguished jurist."Rijiju said since the matter involves corruption in the judiciary, the government wants all political parties to be on being asked about the report of the in-committee which proved the cash discovery incident at Justice Varma 's official residence here, he said the report of the three-judge panel had not indicted Justice Varma and was meant to recommend future course of action as Parliament can only remove a judgeA fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of banknotes in the the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his Sanjiv Khanna is believed to have prodded him to resign but Justice Varma dug in his apex court has since repatriated him to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister, recommending the removal, which is the procedure for axing members of the higher judiciary from service.
