Jenu Kuruba leaders refuse to call Nagarahole a tiger reserve
This is not a tiger reserve. It is just Nagarahole. We were forcibly moved out of our soil in the name of forest-tiger protection, Shivu JA, JK Timma, and Shivamma said.
Speaking at a press meet organised by the Nagarahole Indigenous Land Assertion Committee, People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), and Communities Network Against Protected Areas (CNAPA), they alleged that those who don't know anything about the forest are encroaching on the forests in the name of conservation.
Shivu stated that all the 52 Jenu Kuruba families now staying in their ancestral land are happy with what is available inside the forest now. "For decades, we were made to struggle in the lane houses," he said. He alleged that forest department officials misused the provisions of the law to displace them.
Timma recollected his experience with a tiger conservation project where he demonstrated his understanding of the forest.
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Homens acima dos 40 anos estão comprando esse óculos militar
Óculos Max
Saiba Mais
Undo
"Unfortunately, those who don't know anything about the forest and wild animals are allowed to encroach on the forests while those who know the forest are sent out of the forests," he charged.
He alleged that the tiger conservation projects resulted in the death of tigers.
Shivamma urged govt agencies not to displace them as they are leading a real life in their own hamlets.
Nitin Rai, an independent scholar who has looked at the socio-ecological impacts of wildlife conservation, and Pranab Doley, a community leader from the Mising community, Kaziranga, Assam, and convener of the Greater Kaziranga Land and Human Rights Committee, who is also the founding member of CNAPA, spoke during the press meet.
Rai alleged that govt agencies are misusing the increase in the number of tigers to dilute the forest laws for the benefit of mining and other activities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Time of India
Telephone tapping constitutes a violation of right to privacy: Madras HC
The Madras High Court on Wednesday held that telephone tapping constitutes a violation of the right to privacy unless justified by a procedure established by law. Justice N Anand Venkatesh also observed that the right to privacy is now an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judge said section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act authorises interception of telephones on the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interests of public safety. Both these contingencies were not secretive conditions or situations. Either of the situations would be apparent to a reasonable person. As laid down in paragraph 28 of the decision of the Apex court in People's Union for Civil Liberties, it was only when the above two situations exist that the authority may pass an order directing interception of messages after recording its satisfaction that it was necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, he added. Allowing a petition filed by P Kishore, Managing Director of Everonn Education Limited, the judge quashed an order of the union government, which authorised tapping of the mobile phone of the petitioner, in connection with a case relating to bribery and corruption, probed by the CBI, involving an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The judge said in the instant case, the impugned order dated August 12, 2011 does not fall either within the rubric of "public emergency" or "in the interests of public safety" as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties. The facts disclose that it was a covert operation/secretive situation for detection of crime, which would not be apparent to any reasonable person. As the law presently stands, a situation of this nature does not fall within the four corners of Section 5(2) of the Act as expounded by the Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties, which has been approved by the Constitution Bench of the SC in K S Puttaswamy case, the judge added. The judge said the authorities have also contravened Rule 419-A(17) of the Telegraph Rules by failing to place the intercepted material before the Review Committee within the stipulated time to examine as to whether the interception was made in compliance with Section 5(2) of the Act. As a consequence, the impugned order must necessarily be set aside as unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction. Besides violating Article 21, it was also ultra vires Section 5(2) of the Act besides being in violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 419-A of the Rules, the judge added. The judge said it follows that the intercepted conversations collected pursuant to the impugned order in violation of Section 5(2) of the Act and Rule 419-A(17) of the Rules shall not be used for any purposes whatsoever. The judge said it was, however, made clear that the above direction shall have no bearing on the other material that has been collected by the CBI subsequent to and independent of the intercepted call records, which shall be considered by the trial court on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Telephone tapping constitutes a violation of right to privacy: Madras HC
The Madras High Court declared telephone tapping a privacy violation. Justice Venkatesh cited Article 21 of the Constitution. He referenced the Telegraph Act's Section 5(2). The court quashed a Union government order authorizing the tapping of P Kishore's phone. This case involved bribery allegations. The judge noted violations of Telegraph Rules. Intercepted conversations cannot be used as evidence. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Madras High Court on Wednesday held that telephone tapping constitutes a violation of the right to privacy unless justified by a procedure established by law. Justice N Anand Venkatesh also observed that the right to privacy is now an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the judge said section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act authorises interception of telephones on the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interests of public safety. Both these contingencies were not secretive conditions or situations. Either of the situations would be apparent to a reasonable laid down in paragraph 28 of the decision of the Apex court in People's Union for Civil Liberties, it was only when the above two situations exist that the authority may pass an order directing interception of messages after recording its satisfaction that it was necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, he a petition filed by P Kishore, Managing Director of Everonn Education Limited, the judge quashed an order of the union government, which authorised tapping of the mobile phone of the petitioner, in connection with a case relating to bribery and corruption, probed by the CBI, involving an Assistant Commissioner of Income judge said in the instant case, the impugned order dated August 12, 2011 does not fall either within the rubric of "public emergency" or "in the interests of public safety" as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties. The facts disclose that it was a covert operation/secretive situation for detection of crime, which would not be apparent to any reasonable the law presently stands, a situation of this nature does not fall within the four corners of Section 5(2) of the Act as expounded by the Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties, which has been approved by the Constitution Bench of the SC in K S Puttaswamy case, the judge judge said the authorities have also contravened Rule 419-A(17) of the Telegraph Rules by failing to place the intercepted material before the Review Committee within the stipulated time to examine as to whether the interception was made in compliance with Section 5(2) of the a consequence, the impugned order must necessarily be set aside as unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction. Besides violating Article 21, it was also ultra vires Section 5(2) of the Act besides being in violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 419-A of the Rules, the judge judge said it follows that the intercepted conversations collected pursuant to the impugned order in violation of Section 5(2) of the Act and Rule 419-A(17) of the Rules shall not be used for any purposes judge said it was, however, made clear that the above direction shall have no bearing on the other material that has been collected by the CBI subsequent to and independent of the intercepted call records, which shall be considered by the trial court on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Indian Express
‘At least 30 witnesses and 30 assailants': civil society groups release report on Mangaluru mob lynching
Civil society groups have released a 'fact-finding report' on an incident in which a mob beat a Kerala man to death in Mangaluru on April 27 claiming that he raised a pro-Pakistan slogan near a cricket field. The civil society groups, including the People's Union for Civil Liberties, the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, and the All India Lawyers Association for Justice, released the report in Bengaluru on June 28. Alongside its findings, the 164-page report explains the background of the situation in Dakshina Kannada and includes a detailed timeline of the incident as well as testimonies from locals, those who knew the victim, and police officers. The report stated, 'This mob lynching did not happen in the wee hours of the night in stealth. Based on the testimonies, it is starkly clear that the mob lynching of Mohammed Ashraf took place in broad daylight with at least 30 witnesses and 30 people beating him to death. Those who undertook this lynching had no fear of consequences. They acted with absolute impunity as self-appointed vigilantes who are not held accountable either by law or the people.' Pointing out that it was not certain that Ashraf had actually raised slogans mentioning Pakistan as it might have been misinformation spread by the accused, the report went on to question whether this could at all be a justification for murder. Mavalli Sankar, convener of the Dr Ambedkar Dalitha Sangharsha Samiti (Ambedkarvaada), stated that in such cases officials must at least visit families of the affected to ensure trust in the rule of law. He also highlighted a demand of the brother of Mohammed Ashraf, the victim, that this ought to be the last such lynching incident. According to Maitreyi Krishnan of the All India Lawyers Association for Justice, the incident was not a mere murder but a hate crime. She noted that in the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment, the Supreme Court had described hate crimes as a 'product of ideological dominance and prejudice which ought not to be tolerated, lest it result in a reign of terror'. The report said the local law enforcement agencies were not aware of the mandates of the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment.
