English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Reprieve to forest dwellers and tribals as Supreme Court stays its eviction order

Published

on

Tribals FRA

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Granting a respite to nearly 12 lakh tribals and forest dwellers, the Supreme Court today (Thursday, Feb 28) put on hold its February 13 order directing the eviction of all those whose claims for forest land rights have been rejected under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006.

The Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha, and MR Shah, however, said “the mighty and the undeserving” who have encroached on forest lands would be shown no mercy.

The Bench acknowledged the need to further delve into whether due process was followed by gram sabhas and States’ authorities under the FRA before the claims for forest rights of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDST) and other traditional forest dwellers (OTFD) were finally rejected.

It directed the states to submit affidavits detailing the procedure adopted to assess the claims under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The affidavits must also provide details of the authorities that decided these claims.

Also Read: IAF pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman to be released tomorrow, says Imran Khan

When the hearing commenced today, Justice Arun Mishra asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta why the Centre was “caught in a slumber” and approached the Court only now, when the previous order in the case was passed in 2016.

Mehta, accepting that there is no explanation for the same, submitted that the Act only talks about the process for assessing claims and does not provide for eviction.

It was also submitted by the Centre, through Mehta, that the main challenge is to the Constitutional validity of the Act and it affects a large number of forest dwellers.

The February 13 order of the Supreme Court causes serious prejudice to the lives of the forest dwellers, Mehta submitted before the Court. At this point, Justice Arun Mishra asked the parties,

“Are these people (living in the forest) all tribals or normal people living there.”

Nearly 12 lakh ST and OTFDs across 16 States faced the brunt of the apex court’s order of eviction on February 13.

The apex court has now given the States four months’ time to file affidavits responding to allegations that there was a high rate of rejection of claims, non-communication of rejection orders, unrealistic timelines in deciding claims, irregular holding of State Level Monitoring Committee meetings, lack of support from the district administrations concerned in providing revenue or forest maps, rejection of claims despite incomplete or insufficient evidence, etc. In fact, the court wants to know whether tribals and OTFDs were ousted from forest lands on the basis of sketchy, incomplete information and data.

The order came on an application by the Centre to modify the February 13 order. The government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, submitted the order has affected a “large number of families”. The Centre said the States should first file proper affidavits on the procedure followed in the verification of forest rights claims before any such eviction.

Also Read: US, France and UK move UN Sec Council for terrorist tag to JeM chief Masood Azhar

“The eviction of the tribals may be withheld… the eviction of tribals, without such information, would cause serious prejudice to them who have been residing in forests for generations… Many are poor and illiterate,” Mehta submitted.

To this, initially, Justice Mishra asked whether the Centre was in a “slumber for the past three years”. Justice Mishra observed that the February 13 order was only a follow-up of the court’s order on January 29, 2016, which had also directed the eviction of encroachers into forest lands.

The court asked why there were no mechanism in place in the States or in the Centre to review the rejection orders.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, for petitioner NGO Wildlife First, countered that lakhs of genuine claims were honoured under the FRA. He showed the MoTA’s data up to November 2018 that 42,24,951 claims from individuals and communities were received till November 30 last year. Of this, 18,94,225 titles were distributed while 19,39,231 claims were rejected. The ministry data, collated from inputs supplied by the States, show that titles were distributed to 44.83% of the number of claims received.

To this, Justice Mishra said “are they (rejected claimants) really tribals or normal people encroaching on forest lands?”

Justice Sinha said the Rules under the 2006 Act comprehensively cover every stage of the process of verification of claims and the provisions were self-explanatory.

“This is a human problem more than a legal problem,” Mehta responded.

“Encroaching forest lands is a serious problem,” Justice Shah said.

“But forests and tribals are to co-exist,” the Solicitor-General responded.

Also Read: Terrorists of Jaish-e-Mohammed used to take four routes to enter Jammu and Kashmir

The Centre argued that the 2006 Act is a beneficial legislation which should be liberally construed in favour of the poor.

Arguing for Wildlife First, Shyam Divan told the Court that bona fide forest dwellers will not be affected by the Court’s order. He submitted, “The people who have been granted pattas by the authorities will not be affected by the Court’s order at all.”

Mehta at this juncture termed this a “human problem” and went on to claim that forest conservation and protection of rights of forest dwellers have always coexisted, the world over. Continuing his submissions, Mehta argued that the Forest Rights Act only deals with the process of assessment of claims and does not touch upon the point of eviction saying that the “limited scope of the Act is to recognize the rights or not.”

On the point of assessment of claims, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves told the Court that most of the claims under the Act have been rejected by the authorities to which Justice Mishra observed that lack of proper documentation might make it difficult for the Tribals to prove their right over the land.

After hearing the submissions from parties, the Court stayed the implementation of its previous order.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Canada fact checks own media, rejects report claiming PM Modi knew of Nijjar murder plot

The clarification comes after a Canadian newspaper cited an unnamed national security official, claiming the alleged plot to murder Nijjar was orchestrated by Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

Published

on

Canada fact checks own media, rejects report claiming PM Modi knew of Nijjar murder plot

The Canadian government clarified that there is no evidence to connect Prime Minister Narendra Modi or his top officials to any criminal activity in Canada, including the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

The clarification comes after a Canadian newspaper cited an unnamed national security official, claiming the alleged plot to murder Nijjar was orchestrated by Union Home Minister Amit Shah. The media report further alleged that PM Modi, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval were informed about the plan.

Nonetheless, the same report acknowledged that the Canadian government had no direct evidence to support these claims against PM Modi. Issuing a statement, the Canadian government distanced itself from these allegations, mentioning that there was no substantiating evidence.

The statement underlined that on October 14th, because of a significant and ongoing threat to public safety, the RCMP and officials took the extraordinary step of making public accusations of serious criminal activity in Canada perpetrated by agents of the government of India.

It added that the government of Canada has not stated, nor is it aware of evidence, linking Prime Minister Modi, Minister Jaishankar, or NSA Doval to the serious criminal activity within Canada. It remarked that any suggestion to the contrary is both speculative and inaccurate.

Earlier, India furiously rejected the Canadian daily’s report as ludicrous, terming it detrimental to diplomatic ties that have been frosty since Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau first accused India of involvement in Nijjar’s killing last year.

Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said that they do not normally comment on media reports, but such ludicrous statements made to a newspaper purportedly by a Canadian government source should be dismissed with the contempt they deserve. He added that smear campaigns like this only further damage our already strained ties.

Diplomatic ties between India and Canada weakened when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) accused Indian government agents of involvement in criminal activities on Canadian soil, including murder, extortion, and intimidation. As the diplomatic rift intensified, both the countries expelled top envoys in response.

Hardeep Singh Nijjar was gunned down outside a gurdwara in Surrey, British Columbia, in June 2023. Earlier in 2024, Canadian authorities arrested and charged four Indian nationals for the murder.

Continue Reading

India News

Parliament winter session: Government lists 15 bills, including Waqf bill

The session will kick off on November 25 and conclude on December 20.

Published

on

The government has listed five new ones and one to amend the contentious Waqf law out of 15 bills for the winter session of Parliament. The session will kick off on November 25 and conclude on December 20.

The government has introduced five new bills, including the Coastal Shipping Bill, 2024, which aims to promote coasting trade and increase the participation of Indian-flagged vessels owned and operated by Indian citizens for both national security and commercial purposes.

Another significant legislation that will be introduced by the government is the Indian Ports Bill, 2024. This bill is designed to implement measures for the conservation of ports, enhance security, and manage pollution, ensuring compliance with India’s international obligations and statutory requirements.

Additionally, the government plans to introduce the Merchant Shipping Bill, 2024, which aims to meet India’s obligations under maritime treaties and support the development of Indian shipping while ensuring the efficient operation of the Indian mercantile marine in a way that serves national interests.

Pending legislation includes the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, which is awaiting consideration and passage after the joint committee of both Houses submits its report to the Lok Sabha. The committee is expected to report by the end of the first week of the winter session.

Currently, there are eight bills, including the Waqf (Amendment) Bill and the Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Bill, pending in the Lok Sabha, while two additional bills are in the Rajya Sabha.

Furthermore, the government has also listed the Punjab Courts (Amendment) Bill for introduction, consideration, and passage, which seeks to increase the pecuniary appellate jurisdiction of Delhi district courts from Rs 3 lakh to Rs 20 lakh.

The Merchant Shipping Bill, along with the Coastal Shipping Bill and the Indian Ports Bill, is slated for introduction and eventual passage.

Continue Reading

India News

International Criminal Court issues arrest warrant against Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu over war crimes

The court accused Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Gallant of crimes against humanity, including murder, persecution, inhumane acts, and the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.

Published

on

International Criminal Court issues arrest warrant against Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu over war crimes

The International Criminal Court (ICC) today issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The court accused Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Gallant of crimes against humanity, including murder, persecution, inhumane acts, and the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare. The leaders allegedly restricted essential supplies such as food, water, and medical aid to civilians in Gaza, resulting in severe humanitarian crises and deaths, including among children.

Last year in October, Israel had launched attacks on Gaza in retaliation for the surprise attack by Hamas. The Israel-Hamas war has led to the death of thousands of civilians, while lakhs have been displaced. The major infrastructures in Gaza, including hospitals and schools, were also destroyed as Israel vowed to wipe out Hamas.

The International Criminal Court stated that it found reasonable grounds to believe the accused intentionally targeted civilians and limited medical supplies, forcing unsafe medical procedures, which caused immense suffering. This ruling was based on the findings from at least October 8, 2023 until at least May 20, 2024.

The court remarked that it has assessed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that PM Netanyahu and Defence Minister Gallant bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza.

Furthermore, it also noted that the lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and medical supplies created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, leading to death of civilians, including children due to malnutrition and dehydration.

Additionally, the International Criminal Court dismissed two challenges by Israel against its jurisdiction in the situation in the State of Palestine.

Notably, Israel had contested the ICC’s jurisdiction, claiming it could not be exercised without Israel’s consent. Nonetheless, the Chamber ruled that the Court has jurisdiction based on Palestine’s territorial scope, including Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. It further noted that Israel’s objections were premature, as jurisdictional challenges under the Rome Statute can only be made after an arrest warrant is issued.

Reportedly, Israel had also requested a fresh notification regarding the investigation, started in 2021. Denying the request, the court stated that Israel had earlier declined to request a deferral, making additional notifications unnecessary.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com