Lake protection: Kerala HC proposes formation of Ashtamudi wetland authority
The bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji was considering a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Adv Boris Paul and others, which highlighted that the depletion and deterioration of the Ashtamudi wetlands are due to multiple factors, including pollution from drainage discharge and encroachments.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The petitioners emphasised the need for an authority other than the State Wetland Authority of Kerala (SWAK) to oversee the conservation and protection of the lake. Initially, the state govt opposed the suggestion, contending that the constitution of a separate authority other than SWAK may not be necessary. However, considering the current condition of Ashtamudi Lake, which is a notified Ramsar site, the court concurred with the petitioners' suggestion.
A Ramsar site is a wetland identified as being of international importance under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands which is an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands.
The court, meanwhile, also took note of the petitioners' point that the indiscriminate discharge of sewage and solid waste from residential areas and commercial establishments into the lake has been a major concern.
HC observed that, in addition to the general supervision by the state wetland authority, specific attention through a dedicated authority or committee for the Ashtamudi wetland is necessary. It further directed the state govt to clarify whether an integrated management plan has been prepared for the Ashtamudi wetland, as envisaged under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, and the guidelines of the Ramsar Convention.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
It was also suggested that the members of ALWA may be drawn from various departments. The court stated that the environment department principal secretary shall finalise the composition of the committee and recommend one expert each in wetland ecology, hydrology, fisheries, landscape planning and socio-economics, along with two experts in wetland management, preferably with expertise related to the Ashtamudi wetland.
The principal secretary shall file an affidavit indicating the procedure by which the Authority will function. Accordingly, HC adjourned the petition to July 1.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘No national security, privacy involved in Bengaluru cricket stampede report,' Karnataka HC says while rejecting state government's plea for sealed cover status
The Karnataka High Court last week ruled that a report presented by the state government to the HC regarding the June 4 stampede at the Bengaluru cricket stadium – where 11 fans of the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) were killed during a celebration of the team's Indian Premier League (IPL) championship victory – does not have to remain a sealed cover document as sought by the government. The Congress government in Karnataka had presented a report to the HC in a sealed cover on June 12 about the stampede after the HC took up a suo motu case on June 5 and posed nine questions to the government regarding the responsibility for the tragedy. The state government had argued against revealing the contents of the sealed cover report to several litigants, who also filed petitions in the HC regarding the tragedy, on the grounds that the revelation of the preliminary findings may influence three separate inquiries – a judicial probe, a magisterial probe and a Criminal Investigation Department (CID) police probe initiated by the state. After hearing arguments, including the version of an amicus curiae appointed to assist the court in the case, a division bench of the Karnataka High Court ruled that the state government's report on the stampede tragedy does not involve national security, public interest or privacy rights and that it does not warrant consignment to a sealed cover. The HC division bench of Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi ruled in an oral order that the case of the Bengaluru stampede deaths does not fall in the category of cases where the Supreme Court has ruled that sealed cover reports can be given. The HC rejected the plea of state Advocate General K M Shashikiran Shetty and special counsel Uday Holla for retaining the state report on the stampede in a sealed cover in the HC. 'Having noted the position of law, it must be stated that, in the facts of this case, the plea of Sri. Shetty and Sri. Holla does not appeal to the Court. This we say so because, the law governing the sealed cover is no more res integra (untouched matter in law) in view of the judgments referred to above and the same will not help the plea advanced by Sri. Shetty and Sri. Holla,' the bench noted. The HC said that the argument that the magisterial inquiry/judicial commission may get influenced by the facts in the status report is without merit because 'surely a retired High Court judge and an all India service officer' dealing with the inquiries 'cannot be susceptible to influences emanating from the status report of respondent No.1.' 'In fact, such arguments have no factual basis. That apart, these proceedings have been initiated suo motu by this Court to know the reasons that led to the tragedy; whether it could have been prevented and what measures to be taken to prevent such tragedies in future. The finding on those issues has to be on factual foundation,' the HC stated. 'Moreover, we are of the view that, if the sealed cover is opened and the report is shared with the respondents, they can assist the court to understand the facts in a better perspective including the reasons which led to the incident and also how it could have been prevented,' the high court further noted. The HC said that the report would contain facts as perceived by the Government, which would not change after reports are submitted by the judicial commission/magisterial inquiry. The HC also said that objections raised by the state to the sharing of some documents regarding deployment of police personnel and arrangements made for regulating traffic during earlier events, and on June 4, do not benefit from claims of confidentiality made by the state. 'So we accordingly direct that, the status report dated 12.06.2025 with translations filed by the State shall be part of the file and a copy thereof shall be furnished by the State to the respondents No.2 to 4 within four days from today (July 8),' the HC ruled. The HC posed nine questions to the Karnataka government with regard to the June 4 stampede at the M Chinnaswamy cricket stadium in Bengaluru. Among the questions posed by the HC are – 'When and who has taken the decision to hold the victory celebration and in what manner?' Whether 'any permission was sought to organise the event?' and 'whether any SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) has been formulated to manage a crowd of 50,000 and above in any sports event and celebrations of this nature?' The Karnataka government – which also felicitated the RCB team on June 4 in Bengaluru – has been arguing in the courts that the cause of the stampede tragedy at the Bengaluru cricket stadium was the unilateral decision of RCB to invite fans for an open celebration in Bengaluru on June 4 – through announcements in Ahmedabad on June 3 (including those by key RCB players after the win) and social media posts early on June 4. The government has argued that open invitations were extended to fans without RCB obtaining the official clearances needed from the Bengaluru police for hosting the event. RCB made an announcement on June 3, at Ahmedabad, at 11.30 pm, about hosting celebrations in Bengaluru on June 4 for its first-ever IPL final victory, the Karnataka government has said in a factual narration of events in the report to the HC. 'On factual narration what emerges is that on the evening of June 3, at 11.30 PM, they have stated that they are coming to Bengaluru for celebrations,' Shashikiran Shetty told the division bench of the Karnataka HC last month after providing a report in a sealed cover on the stampede deaths – as sought by the court. 'The pre incident, the incident, the post incident – we have given a factual narration and answered all your queries to the extent possible on the basis of the material that is available,' the Karnataka advocate general told the HC on June 12.
New Indian Express
11 hours ago
- New Indian Express
PDO sent on compulsory retirement for accepting bribe in Karnataka
BENGALURU: Receiving a mere Rs 2,000 bribe for 'E-Swathu' has become costly for a Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) with the state government giving him compulsory retirement. Hanumanthappa Hanchinamane, PDO of Channepura Grama Panchayat in Channagiri taluk of Davanagere District, was trapped by the Lokayukta police while accepting the bribe of Rs 2,000 from the complainant Ranganatha BH, resident of Mavinakatte village, for the grant of 'E-Swathu' for the purchase of a site measuring 14x100 ft with a house from one Mangalabai. The state government entrusted the inquiry against him to Upa Lokayukta Justice B Veerappa, under Rule 14(A) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Regulation and Appeal) Rules, 1957, on July 31, 2023. The Upa Lokayukta, on February 18, recommended the State government to give him compulsory retirement as he conducted himself unbecoming of a public servant as provided under Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Accepting the recommendation, the State government issued a showcause notice to Hanchinamane on March 10. In reply, he denied the allegations, saying that the inquiry officer had not conducted the inquiry properly to examine the charges against him. While rejecting the explanation given by him, the government concluded that the charges of Hanchinamane conducting himself unbecoming of a public servant have been proved when looking into the inquiry report supported by the statements of witnesses.
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Time of India
Govt sits on notifying protected areas cleared years ago
Bengaluru: More than a decade after the State Board for Wildlife (SBWL) cleared several proposals to expand Karnataka's network of protected areas, the govt is yet to officially notify them. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A right to information (RTI) reply from the forest department shows at least six proposals, some pending since 2012, are still awaiting final clearance despite being approved by the SBWL, which is headed by the chief minister. However, forest minister Eshwar Khandre insisted that all proposals that were brought to his notice were cleared. The RTI response comes days after the govt made a U-turn on its decision to seek 'tiger reserve' status for Male Mahadeshwara (MM) Hills Wildlife Sanctuary. The reversal follows public outcry over a recent incident of tigers in the region being poisoned. The MM Hills proposal is among those still pending, along with other conservation plans have stalled at various stages of govt processing. The six pending proposals are: Expansion of Pushpagiri Wildlife Sanctuary in Kodagu (cleared in 2012); Kudremukh National Park expansion (2012); Mullayyanagiri Conservation Reserve in Chikkamagaluru (2019); Nethravathi Island Conservation Reserve in Dakshina Kannada (2019); MM Hills Tiger Reserve in Chamarajanagar (2019), and Dhamne-Bailoor Conservation Reserve in Belagavi Rural (2022). The RTI reply revealed that while some of these proposals are pending notification at the govt level, others are awaiting clarifications from district administrations. For instance, in the case of Pushpagiri and Kudremukh, the forest department had instructed the Kodagu deputy commissioner to explore the possibility of merging the two areas. However, a report on this is yet to be submitted, keeping both proposals in cold storage since Dec 15, 2012. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A senior forest department official said that a 2019 amendment to the Karnataka Govt (Transaction of Business) Rules has further delayed the process. Under the revised rules, any changes to wildlife sanctuaries, protected areas, or eco-sensitive zones must be brought before the state cabinet for final approval. Until the cabinet clears these proposals, they remain recommendations without formal legal status. Khandre said: "The Mugli-Apsarakonda Marine Sanctuary, which was pending for years, was brought to my notice and I immediately took it to the cabinet. It was declared a protected area. The more the protected areas, higher the conservation. Clearance is kept pending only if proposals face opposition by locals or there are legal issues involved. I will seek clarity on pending proposals from the department." Box: What's pending & since when Expansion of Pushpagiri Sanctuary 188.3 sq kms 15 Oct 2012 Kudremukh National Park 600sqkm 15 Oct 2012 On 19 July 2024, DC was asked to explore possibility of merging both areas. Report still awaited Mullayyanagiri Conservation Reserve 56.6 sqkm (14,000 acres) 9 Jan 2019 At preparation stage Nethravathi Island conservation reserve 0.19 sqkm (49.01 acre) 9 Jan 2019 At preparation stage MM Hills as Tiger Reserve 906.2 sqkm 9 Jan 2019 Pending with govt Dhamne-Bailoor conservation Reserve 15 sqkm 3 Nov 2022 Pending with govt
