South Delhi MP welcomes Delhi govt plan to eliminate Okhla landfill by 2026
'This was the biggest problem in my Lok Sabha constituency (South Delhi). I am happy to know that the Municipal Corporation officials told Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa and the Delhi Mayor that before 2026, this landfill will be eliminated and this area will be developed as a green area,' Bidhuri told reporters.
'This is the dream of PM Modi and Delhi CM Rekha Gupta,' he added.
Earlier in the day, after visiting the landfill site, Delhi Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa said that by October 2025, the government will remove 20 lakh metric tonnes of legacy garbage from the site.
'Just as dinosaurs became extinct, these landfills are also disappearing from the country. This is PM Modi's vision, which CM Rekha Gupta is working on. By October 2025, we will remove 20 lakh metric tonnes of legacy garbage from here. After that, this mountain will almost disappear. Our target is to eliminate all the mountains of garbage from Delhi by 2028. After that, these landfills will only remain in photos,' Sirsa told ANI.
Delhi Mayor Raja Iqbal Singh mocking Pakistan stated that the landfills were similar to them and spread filth everywhere and had made the lif in adjacent residentials area a pain.
'We conducted a joint inspection today... We had promised cleanliness to the people of Delhi... Soon this landfill will be removed... These landfill sites are like Pakistan. They spread terrorism, and it spreads filth. These landfills and their pungent smells have made life in adjacent residential areas a pain. Soon, this area will be beautified, and a park will be built once the landfill is removed,' Singh told ANI.
The area of the Sanitary Landfill (SLF) is about 63 acres. Garbage has been coming here since 1996. Following the instructions of NGT, in 2019, the initiative to remove the garbage by biomining was started here.
In 2023, then Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal announced that his government would make the national capital free from all three 'mountains of garbage' by December 2024. He was referring to the Okhla, Ghazipur and Bhalswa landfill sites. But his government failed to fulfil this promise. (ANI)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
5 minutes ago
- Indian Express
As war of words turn ugly, reunion plans of Ambedkar brothers fizzle out
Anandraj Ambedkar, president of Republican Sena, had said on May 18 that he was willing to set aside differences with his elder brother and president of Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi, Prakash Ambedkar. Anandraj Ambedkar had said, 'If they (Raj and Uddhav Thackeray) can come together, why can't the Ambedkar family unite?' Exactly two months later, Prakash and Anandraj, grandsons of Dr B R Ambedkar, are caught in an ugly war of words with no signs of reconciliation. Anandraj Ambedkar's decision to form alliance with the Shiv Sena led by Deputy CM Eknath Shinde last week has not gone down well with VBA. In an internal meeting of VBA, Prakash Ambedkar directed his followers to unite and fight all Dalit outfits which are using B R Ambedkar's name and are directly or indirectly aligning with right wing BJP/RSS. Prakash Ambedkar has taken strong objections to younger brother Anandraj dismissing any threat to Constitution under ruling BJP-led NDA. While alleging that Republican Sena has ideologically compromised its core principles by aligning with Shinde's Shiv Sena, which is in alliance with BJP-led Mahayuti in Maharashtra, Prakash Ambedkar said, 'The Republican Sena's alliance with the BJP ally Shiv Sena is not only against the movement's fight against BJP/allies to save Constitution, but also against the ideology of Phule-Shahu- Ambedkar.' 'It is now up to the followers of Phule, Shahu, Ambedkar whether they want to stand with a puppet of RSS/BJP whose core ideology is to replace Constitution with Manusmriti, or stand with someone whose ideology is to uphold and defend the Constitution,' said Prakash Ambedkar. The sharp attack by Prakash against Anandraj indicates that the differences between the two factions are getting bitter. With Anandraj taking the decision to ally with Shiv Sena, the possibility of a reunion between the Ambedkar brothers is now a closed chapter. Countering the charges, Anandraj said, 'Republican Sena has forged an alliance with Shiv Sena. We have done this alliance underlining the common agenda of welfare of oppressed and backward classes. In any case, Republican Sena has not joined BJP/ RSS. So, where is the question of compromising ideology. We are committed to Ambedkar's teachings and principles.' Though Prakash and Anandraj have been working separately for past three decades, this is first time their differences are being played out in public. A senior VBA leader known to Ambedkar family said, 'The Dalit leaders championing the cause of social justice and welfare of oppressed have failed to unite and work as a team. Unfortunately, everyone wants to become a leader. And it becomes easier for established parties, both ruling and opposition, to exploit this weakness to its advantage.'
Indian Express
5 minutes ago
- Indian Express
With process to remove Justice Yashwant Varma now likely in Parliament, how impeachment works
The process to remove former Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma, whose official residence in New Delhi was allegedly found to have wads of currency notes in March, will soon be initiated in the Lok Sabha. The Indian Express has learned that Speaker Om Birla could announce a statutory committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal has been sought. Birla and Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh met on Wednesday (July 23) with officials of both houses to discuss the procedure, with Union Home Minister Amit Shah also joining them. The presiding officers will have to consult the Chief Justice of India for finalising the names, as the statutory committee should have one judge each from the Supreme Court and the High Courts. On the same day, the Supreme Court said it will set up a bench to hear Justice Varma's plea challenging the legal validity of the judiciary's in-house inquiry committee, which confirmed charges of recovery of unaccounted cash. Justice Varma called it 'a parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism'. The developments also follow Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar's surprise resignation on Monday evening. As The Indian Express reported Tuesday, it came hours after his decision, as the ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, to accept the Opposition's notice on the removal of Justice Varma. Sources said the government believed that the move upstaged its own initiative to bring in such a notice. The procedure for the impeachment of a Supreme Court judge is laid down under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, and Article 218 says the same provisions shall also apply to a judge of the High Court. Under Article 124(4), a judge can be removed by Parliament through a laid-down procedure on only two grounds: 'proved misbehaviour' and 'incapacity'. For an impeachment motion to be accepted, at least two-thirds of those 'present and voting' in both 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 will pass an order for the removal of the judge. The detailed procedure for the impeachment of a judge is laid down in the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. Under Section 3, for a motion of impeachment to be taken up, it has to be moved by not less than 100 members in the Lok Sabha, and at least 50 members in the Rajya Sabha. This collection of signatures is the first step. There is no time limit for the Speaker/ Chairman to act on the motion, and they can either admit it or refuse to do so. If admitted, a three-member committee of inquiry must be constituted as soon as may be. The committee is headed by the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court, and has a Chief Justice of any High Court, and a person who is, in the opinion of the Speaker/ Chairman, a 'distinguished jurist'. The committee frames the charges, and can seek a medical test for the judge if the impeachment charge is grounds of mental incapacity. The committee has the power to regulate its procedure, call for evidence, and cross-examine witnesses. The committee will then submit a report to the Speaker/ Chairman with its findings. The Speaker/ Chairman will place the report before Lok Sabha/ Rajya Sabha 'as soon as may be'. If the report finds that the judge is not guilty, the matter will end there. In case of a guilty finding, the report of the committee is adopted by the House in which it was introduced, and then an address is made to the President by each House of Parliament in the same session, seeking the judge's removal. A motion will be put to a vote, and once the process is over, the same will be repeated in the other house. The impeachment process differs from the internal inquiry within the judiciary. The need for an internal mechanism within the judiciary was felt in 1995, after allegations of financial impropriety surfaced against then Bombay High Court Chief Justice A M Bhattacharjee. After the Bombay Bar Association moved a resolution calling for the judge's resignation, a writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court seeking to restrain the Bar. While hearing the case, Justices K Ramaswamy and B L Hansaria of the SC noted the 'hiatus between bad behaviour and impeachable misbehaviour' (C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee). The SC noted there was no process to hold a judge accountable for 'bad conduct inconsistent with the high office', when such conduct did not meet the high bar of impeachment set by Article 124 of the Constitution. Thus, to address such issues, the SC constituted a five-member committee comprising the senior-most HC Chief Justices at the time, to devise the procedure 'for taking suitable remedial action against judges, who by their acts of omission or commission, do not follow the accepted values of judicial life…' The committee submitted its report in October 1997. It was adopted with amendments in a full court meeting of the SC in December 1999. Process revisited in 2014 In 2014, when a woman additional district and sessions judge from Madhya Pradesh filed a complaint of sexual harassment against a sitting judge of the High Court, the SC revisited its in-house procedure. Justices J S Khehar and Arun Mishra summarised and explained this process through 'seven steps' (Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' v. Registrar General High Court of Madhya Pradesh). Essentially, this process begins when the Chief Justice of a HC, the CJI, or the President of India receives a complaint. The CJ of the HC or the President will forward the complaint to the CJI. This complaint can be dropped at any stage, if not found serious enough by the CJI. However, to test its veracity, the CJI can seek a preliminary report from the CJ of the HC concerned. If the CJ recommends that a 'deeper probe' is warranted, the CJI may examine the recommendation and the statement of the judge facing the accusations. A three-member inquiry, comprising two other HC Chief Justices and one HC judge, can be ordered. This committee has the power to devise its own procedure 'consistent with the rules of natural justice', such as hearing both sides in a case. Once the inquiry has been concluded, the committee will submit its report to the CJI. This report must state whether: If the report finds there is substance to the allegations, it will be sent to the judge concerned as well. If the committee concludes that the misconduct is not serious enough to warrant removal proceedings, the CJI may 'advise' the judge concerned and direct that the committee's report be placed on record. If the committee decides that the allegations are serious enough to initiate removal proceedings, the CJI will advise the concerned judge to resign or retire voluntarily. If the judge does not accept, the CJI will direct the HC Chief Justice not to assign any judicial work to said judge. In Justice Varma's situation, then CJI Sanjiv Khanna asked Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya not to assign any judicial work to Justice Varma. Further, the CJI will inform the President and the Prime Minister of the committee's finding that removal proceedings should be initiated. In June, it was learnt that the inquiry committee in Justice Varma's case spoke of 'implied responsibility' on the part of the judge in the recovery of cash, and held him responsible for 'misconduct'. Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor of The Indian Express in New Delhi. She graduated with a B.A., LL. B (Hons) from Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She joined the newspaper in 2019 and in her current role, oversees the newspapers coverage of legal issues. She also closely tracks judicial appointments. Prior to her role at the Indian Express, she has worked with ThePrint and Mint. ... Read More Have been in journalism covering national politics for 23 years. Have covered six consecutive Lok Sabha elections and assembly polls in almost all the states. Currently writes on ruling BJP. Always loves to understand what's cooking in the national politics (And ventures into the act only in kitchen at home). ... Read More
United News of India
15 minutes ago
- United News of India
Statehood must for progress, development of J&K: Azad
Jammu, July 24 (UNI) Advocating for early restoration of statehood status former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister and veteran politician, Ghulam Nabi Azad today stated that it is a must for the progress and development of Jammu and Kashmir. 'For development and progress, Jammu and Kashmir must get back the statehood status,' Azad, who was on a personal visit to Katra town in Reasi district of Jammu and Kashmir, told reporters. And, he said that it is not an issue of Hindu, Muslim, Kashmiri or non-Kashmiri, but a concern of every party, region and religion. 'Either it is BJP in Jammu, National Conference in Kashmir, Congress or PDP and for all religions, statehood is very important,' he expressed. 'When I was MoS Home, I recommended three Union Territories as states and they became states but in my 50 years of political career, I have seen my own state becoming the UT,' Azad said. 'It was unfortunate but I am thankful to the Prime Minister and the Home Minister that during my discussions in the Parliament, they promised to restore the statehood status to Jammu and Kashmir. I will appreciate it if they fulfil the promise at the earliest,' said Azad. He added, 'Article 370 and statehood are two different issues." However, rebuffing his name doing the rounds as next Vice President of India, Azad said, 'I request everyone not to pay attention to the rumours.' 'We need to address the statehood issue, unemployment and focus on development, so we have no time for any rumours,' he asserted. UNI VBH ARN
