NGT says interference not required in construction of commando battalion HQ
The tribunal disposed of the matter, saying it had received an affidavit from the state government that the project's construction would be confined to less than 20,000 square metres or around 4.94 acres and according to rules, and Environmental Clearance (EC) was not required for such construction. The green body had taken suo motu (on its own) cognisance of a media report, which alleged that top forest officials of the Assam government had illegally diverted 44 acres of protected forest land for a Commando Battalion Headquarters -- a project which was being executed by the Assam Police Housing Corporation.
"In the affidavit dated April 25, 2025, the state of Assam has taken the stand that it will confine its construction to 20,000sqm (19,668sqm to be precise). For such a construction, EC is not required," said a bench of NGT chairperson Prakash Shrivastava in an order dated May 30.
The bench also comprising judicial member Justice Sudhir Agarwal and expert member A Senthil Vel noted the state government's affidavit, according to which, "The state government is ready to dismantle all the constructions beyond 20,000sqm and shall not undertake any further construction (of buildings and premises) beyond the said limit, for which no EC is required as per the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of 2006.
"
PTI
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
‘Indirect censorship': Digipub moves Karnataka High Court supporting X Corp's plea against takedown orders
The Digipub News India Foundation, a coalition of digital media organisations and independent journalists, Friday made submissions before the Karnataka High Court, supporting X Corp's petition against alleged subjective blocking orders on X issued by Central government officers across the country. A bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing the case challenging the blocking orders on X using Section 79 (3)(B) of the Information Technology (IT) Act. X Corp also raised issues with the Sahyog portal for intermediaries, which it has previously referred to as a censorship portal. Previously, during Tuesday's hearing, X Corp's counsel, senior advocate K G Raghavan, argued that government officials were issuing the takedown orders for social media posts without applying any uniform standard. X Corp has been arguing that these takedown orders can be issued only through the mechanism laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, that is, through Section 69(A) of the Information Technology Act, and not Section 79 (3)(B). Raghavan previously argued that 69A had been upheld by the apex court on account of inherent safeguards, while 79(3)(b), which deals with the removal of protection from intermediaries like X, did not have such safeguards. Senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing Digipub, stated, 'X is before the high court as an intermediary….the parties directly affected by the entire exercise that the government has come up with is us….these media organisations are in a dual capacity of providing and receiving content online.' He pointed out that in the exercise of takedown of content by the intermediaries, the content creator in question did not get the chance to be heard. He also questioned the manner in which Rule (3)(1) (d) of the IT rules, which refers back to Section 79 (3) (b), is being applied, raising the issue of free speech implications. Referring to safe harbour protections of intermediaries being a free speech right, he said, 'It is precisely this, the indirect censorship, that is now being played out through this mechanism. An officer unhappy with a news report etc not palatable to his personal politics, political master morality….sits in his office and says take it down. That is the chilling effect.' Referring to the current takedown orders as well as the Sahyog platform, Sondhi stated that the situation was that of an 'ad hoc executive regime'. He added, 'A judicial determination of an unlawful act by a duly constituted court of law on the one hand – and a cyclostyled form in the hands of an officer to fill in a couple of blanks, directly infringing Article 19 (1)(a) [freedom of speech].' The hearing is set to continue on July 17.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
EC always a 'puppet' in hands of Modi government: Kapil Sibal
NEW DELHI: The Election Commission has always been a "puppet" in the hands of the Modi government, Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal has alleged and claimed the poll body's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar is an "unconstitutional" move aimed at ensuring that majoritarian governments remain in power. In an interview with PTI, Sibal also alleged that each election commissioner surpasses the previous one in his "alignment to this government". Hitting out at the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, the former law minister said the Election Commission (EC) doesn't have the jurisdiction to decide issues of citizenship. The EC has all along maintained that the revision, being held after 22 years, will cleanse the voters' list of ineligible people, duplicate entries and include those eligible as per law to vote. Asked about the opposition's attack on the EC over SIR, Sibal said, "It has always been a puppet in the hands of the government for a long long time ever since this government came to power." The conduct of the Election Commission, the less said about it, the better, he said. "In fact, each election commissioner surpasses the previous one in his alignment to this government," Sibal said. On the ongoing SIR, he said, "This is according to me a completely unconstitutional process that is being carried on. The Commission doesn't have the jurisdiction to decide issues of citizenship and that also by a block level officer." "I have been saying that they (BJP) adopt all possible means to somehow win elections. In fact, this whole particular process of a special intensive revision is a process to ensure majoritarian governments for all times to come," the senior advocate said. "This is the intent because if you delete the names of the poor people, the marginalised, the adivasis, you will ensure that the majoritarian party always wins. So this is yet another way of ensuring that and this is very worrisome," he said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
EC always a 'puppet' in hands of Modi govt: Kapil Sibal
The Election Commission has always been a "puppet" in the hands of the Modi government , Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal has alleged and claimed the poll body's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar is an "unconstitutional" move aimed at ensuring that majoritarian governments remain in power. In an interview with PTI, Sibal also alleged that each election commissioner surpasses the previous one in his "alignment to this government". Hitting out at the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, the former law minister said the Election Commission (EC) doesn't have the jurisdiction to decide issues of citizenship. The EC has all along maintained that the revision, being held after 22 years, will cleanse the voters' list of ineligible people, duplicate entries and include those eligible as per law to vote. Asked about the opposition's attack on the EC over SIR, Sibal said, "It has always been a puppet in the hands of the government for a long long time ever since this government came to power." Live Events The conduct of the Election Commission, the less said about it, the better, he said. "In fact, each election commissioner surpasses the previous one in his alignment to this government," Sibal said. On the ongoing SIR, he said, "This is according to me a completely unconstitutional process that is being carried on. The Commission doesn't have the jurisdiction to decide issues of citizenship and that also by a block level officer." "I have been saying that they (BJP) adopt all possible means to somehow win elections. In fact, this whole particular process of a special intensive revision is a process to ensure majoritarian governments for all times to come," the senior advocate said. "This is the intent because if you delete the names of the poor people, the marginalised, the adivasis, you will ensure that the majoritarian party always wins. So this is yet another way of ensuring that and this is very worrisome," he said. Sibal said he has always stated that he doesn't believe in the independence of the EC at all because the institution has not reflected that independence that was expected of them. On the Supreme Court 's interim order, Sibal refused to comment on it, pointing out that he is a counsel in the matter. "Whatever the court has said will be taken into account hopefully by the EC itself. So that we don't have this controversy moving forward," he said. Noting that the Monsoon session of Parliament is coming up, Sibal said the issue of SIR is perhaps more significant than any other issue being talked about today. He also said the Maharashtra issue is also very important because "the EC has still not been able to explain how there was a sudden spurt of voters only in those constituencies where the BJP has won". Sibal's remarks come days after the Supreme Court asked the Election Commission to consider Aadhaar, Voter ID and ration cards as valid documents during SIR in Bihar, set to go to polls later this year. Calling SIR a "constitutional mandate", Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi had considered the submissions of senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the EC, and permitted the poll panel to continue with the exercise in Bihar with over 7 crore voters. Terming the right to vote as an important right in a democratic country, it had said, "We cannot stop a constitutional body from doing what it is supposed to do. Simultaneously, we will not let them do what they are not supposed to do." The bench in its order had further noted, "After hearing both sides, we are of the opinion that three questions are involved in this case. A, the very powers of the EC to undertake the exercise, B, the procedure and the manner in which the exercise is being undertaken, and C, the timing, including the timings given for preparation of draft electoral rolls, asking objections and making the final electoral roll, et cetera, which is very short, considering the fact that Bihar election are due in November 2025." Underlining the need to hear the matter, the bench has posted over 10 petitions challenging the drive on July 28. The poll panel in the meantime has been directed to file its response within a week following which the rejoinder from the petitioners could be filed a week thereafter. The bench has taken on record the poll panel's statement that the list of 11 documents it had to consider for SIR was not exhaustive. "Therefore, in our view, since the list is not exhaustive, it would be in the interest of justice if the ECI will also consider the following three documents, such as Aadhaar card, voter ID card, and ration card," the bench had ordered. The poll panel, represented by Dwivedi and senior advocates K K Venugopal and Maninder Singh, however, had objected to this part of the order. "We are not saying you have to. It is up to you to consider. We are saying it looks that way. They are genuine. If you have a good reason to discard then discard it. But give reasons," Justice Dhulia had remarked.
