SC agrees to hear plea against proposed constructions in Satkosia Tiger Reserve
PTI
Last Updated:
New Delhi, Jul 23 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear a plea raising concerns over the alleged proposed constructions inside the Satkosia Tiger Reserve in Odisha.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi was urged by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal to hear the plea.
The bench said it would hear the matter next week.
Bansal raised concerns over reported permission granted by the local administration for eco-tourism related constructions within the protected area.
'The district collector has issued such permissions for construction of an eco-tourism spot. How can this be permitted?" Bansal said.
'I am just fighting for forests," he added.
The Satkosia Tiger Reserve, spread across the districts of Angul, Cuttack, Nayagarh and Boudh in Odisha, is a crucial habitat for tigers, elephants, and several endangered species.
The plea sought quashing of provisional no objection certificates (NOC) issued by district collectors of Angul, Nayagarh, Boudh and Cuttack for development works inside and around the Satkosia Tiger Reserve.
The National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), the plea said, in April 2018 directed all states for mandatory delineation of eco-sensitive zones (ESZs) around tiger reserves.
The plea said these directions clearly stipulated where a protected area formed part of the buffer, a minimum one kilometer ESZ must be demarcated around it.
'There are multiple large-scale and systemic issues affecting the ecological and legal integrity of Satkosia Tiger Reserve, which require independent attention and urgent consideration of this court," it said.
In line with the NTCA's April 2018 direction, the petitioner said, the Odisha government recently submitted a draft proposal for declaration of ESZ around Satkosia Tiger Reserve to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change for final notification.
'However, the said draft, if approved in its current form, will seriously compromise the ecological integrity and conservation dignity of the tiger reserve," it alleged.
The proposed tourism-centric development activities in and around the tiger reserve, including the construction of high-impact infrastructure and grant of arbitrary NOCs, were said to be contrary to the precautionary principle and violate the statutory framework under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
'The zero-kilometre ESZ boundary proposed in parts of Satkosia Tiger Reserve violates NTCA's 2018 directive, which mandates a minimum 1 km buffer from core tiger habitat wherever the buffer is absent or disjunct," the plea added.
It claimed the issuance of no objection certificates by district collectors and non-forest authorities for tourism infrastructure within and around a notified tiger reserve constituted an unlawful usurpation of statutory powers reserved for designated authorities under the Wildlife (Protection) Act and violates the binding directives of the apex court.
The plea alleged the actions of state government and its agencies exhibited a deliberate pattern of undermining central environmental regulations through procedural shortcuts and executive overreach, including attempts to modify ESZ notifications to dilute their protective scope for commercial tourism purposes.
It also sought a direction to the state to withdraw the draft ESZ proposal relating to Satkosia Tiger Reserve. PTI SJK ABA ABA AMK AMK
view comments
First Published:
July 23, 2025, 13:15 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
Delhi govt files review plea in SC against blanket ban on ELVs
New Delhi: Delhi govt on Friday filed a review application in the Supreme Court, seeking reconsideration of the 2018 blanket ban on diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years in Delhi-NCR. Environment minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa said the matter is listed for Monday. The application requests the apex court to direct the Central govt or the Commission on Air Quality Management (CAQM) to conduct a comprehensive scientific study evaluating the actual environmental benefits of the age-based ban. It also seeks assessment of the feasibility and fairness of a blanket restriction across vehicle categories and technologies, and whether the policy meaningfully contributes to air quality improvement in the NCR, compared to targeted emission-based measures. Delhi govt argued that the current system enforces collective compliance without individual assessment of pollution levels or roadworthiness. "This approach does not align with the objective of reducing pollution," the application stated, adding that the directive disproportionately affects middle-class citizens whose vehicles may be less used, well-maintained, and compliant with emission norms. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi The 2015 National Green Tribunal order banning such vehicles was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. However, Delhi govt now contends that the landscape has changed significantly with the introduction of Bharat Stage-VI emission standards from April 1, 2020. It noted that as of July 24, 2025, Delhi has 2.8 million BS-IV and an almost equal number of BS-VI registered vehicles. "If the 2018 order continues, roadworthy, non-polluting BS-VI vehicles may be forced off the roads in a few years without scientific justification," the petition added. It questioned the rationale behind taking even BS-IV vehicles—meeting Pollution Under Control (PUC) norms—off the roads, asserting that such decisions must be based on updated, data-driven evaluations. The application pointed out that countries like Japan, the US, and those in the EU do not impose blanket bans based solely on vehicle age. Instead, they follow nuanced, sustainable policies that assess actual emissions and focus on roadworthiness through regular testing. Delhi's review petition, settled by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, stressed the need for a "graded, balanced and technology-driven regime" to tackle vehicular pollution. It urged for a scientific framework that accounts for individual vehicle emission data rather than broad age-based criteria. The CAQM's July 1 order denying fuel to end-of-life vehicles sparked public backlash, prompting Sirsa to request a pause in its implementation. Lieutenant governor VK Saxena later advised govt to approach the Supreme Court for a review. Following this, CAQM deferred the fuel-denial order to November 1 in high-density NCR districts and to April 1, 2026, for the rest of the region. Govt highlighted that other major pollution sources—like stubble burning, construction dust, and industrial emissions—also need to be considered. Its strict enforcement of PUC norms led to over 1.63 lakh challans in 2025 so far, up from 29,589 in 2021. It said the good AQI days increased from 159 in 2018 to 209 in 2024. Till July this year, there have been 106 such days. The robust implementation of Graded Response Plan has contributed to reducing pollution in the national capital, it said.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Third US Court Halts Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement the administration looked forward to "being vindicated on appeal." New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the lawsuit before Sorokin, said in a statement he was "thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere." "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history," he added. "The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen." Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, saying it should be "tailored to the States' purported financial injuries." Sorokin said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work. "That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes," the judge wrote. "In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic." Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration "are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question," Sorokin wrote. "But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional." The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said last week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is "enshrined in the Constitution," and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a "flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage." They also argue that Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to "provide essential services" — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to "early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities." At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. "These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment," Jackson, the White House spokeswoman, said in her statement.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
American-born babies are American: Judge halts Trump birthright citizenship order
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born in the US to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents, calling the move unconstitutional and legally ruling by US District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston marks the third federal court to stop the executive order in its tracks since the Supreme Court last month narrowed the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide Sorokin ruled that an exception applied in this case, where more than a dozen states demonstrated real financial harm tied to the order. 'A patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states,' Sorokin wrote, noting the high mobility of residents between states and slamming the administration's failure to explain how a more limited injunction would function.'They have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic.'The decision maintains a nationwide injunction that preserves birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, pending further review by the courts. Sorokin added that his ruling is not the final word on the issue, but emphasized the constitutional implications of the executive action.'The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen,' Sorokin said. 'Trump and his administration are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment but for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.'The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of states led by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who hailed the ruling as a critical defence of constitutional norms.'American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' Platkin said in a statement. 'I'm thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.'Government lawyers had argued that the injunction should be limited in scope to states' financial interests. Still, Sorokin rejected the idea, saying the administration failed to offer any coherent legal or administrative plan for how such limits would is the third time the executive order has been blocked. Earlier this month, a federal judge in New Hampshire prohibited the rule in a class-action lawsuit. That decision went into effect after no appeal was filed. On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco also ruled against the order, upholding a nationwide injunction.A fourth ruling may be on the way. A Maryland judge said she would issue a similar decision if the appeals court agrees. - EndsWith inputs from Associated Press
