OHRC seeks report on ‘ban' on SCs from crematoriums in Odisha

BHUBANESWAR : The OHRC has asked the additional chief secretary in the Revenue and Disaster Management department and secretary of ST & SC Development department to submit reports on allegations of SC community people of Jagatsinghpur, Cuttack and Khurda being denied use of public crematoriums.
A complaint was filed with the OHRC by state coordinator of Bahujan Student & Youth Front Anil Mallick who alleged that there has been systemic exclusion of SC people from accessing public crematoriums and they are forced to cremate the bodies in open fields which is a violation of Article 17 of the Constitution, and the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Citing an incident, he said in Jagatsinghpur district, a crematorium at Jaleswarpada village displays a casteist signboard 'Mohanty Sahi' and SCs are denied access.
In 2018, the state government had prohibited the practice of displaying caste signboards at crematoriums. In Cuttack's Dhurusia, they have been threatened of social boycott if they use the community crematorium. The OHRC has sought the reports by August 26.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New Indian Express

28 minutes ago

• New Indian Express

Why bigger may not be better for Indian cities

This is true not just in India, but in other countries, too—such as the growth machines in the US and local governments in China, whose officials are often disciplined for corruption. It is understandable, therefore, if state politicians balk at handing these decisions and rents over to local representatives. By contrast, smaller cities with limited rents may stand a chance of being better governed. The GBA model is perhaps an acknowledgment of this tension with representation. It removes local politicians from decision-making and promises better coordination across civic functions. Should this be a model for the future? What if we had a trade-off, with chief ministers controlling the capital city, as in Bengaluru, but implementing the Constitution's 74th amendment—also known as the Nagarpalika Act—in letter and spirit in the other cities of the state? Could this create an open, constructively competitive ecosystem across secondary cities, resulting in a sustainable and vibrant process of urbanisation, as hoped for by the prime minister? Eventually, those in the capital cities may also demand a voice, emboldened by an encirclement of the state capital—not Mao-like from the countryside, but by smaller cities. Not only is urban governance not representative, it is often also performative. Like anti-smog guns, they have limited effectiveness but look modern and give the appearance of action. Delhi has shifted this expenditure to the private sector, but public money, too, is often spent on ineffective infrastructure that has popular support because of its performative aspect. Consider the metro rails in many cities. While in some they are both necessary and effective, they do little to solve the transportation problem in others. But residents feel proud to live in a city with a metro rail, unaware that for that cost they could have mitigated their transport woes with an effective bus system. Finally, the identity crisis. Is the urban local body an artificial administrative construct and should one instead consider the 'metropolitan area' or 'economic region' determined by commuting, spread of contiguous night lights, or just fiat? How can such regions be governed? Indeed, for cities like Delhi, Bengaluru and Chennai, such a region will spill across even state boundaries and trigger a series of other questions. Are investments such as the Namo Bharat regional rapid transit system, which takes less time to reach Meerut from Delhi than it does to reach parts of Gurugram by road, to be seen as guideposts? Is the preferred expansion of Delhi to be along this corridor? If so, should one shift defence operations to Jewar instead, and develop Hindon as a civilian airport? Where will the existing private investments along the Gurugram-Jaipur route fit into such a plan? No such questions are raised. Urbanisation has been reduced to an assorted collection of schemes and projects, scattered pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that no one is interested in putting together. Maybe, each individual answer has become so lucrative that it's too troublesome to even remember there was a question. Partha Mukhopadhyay | Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, and former member, Technical Advisory Committee, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Views are personal)

Hans India

an hour ago

• Hans India

Intimidating laws will be used against political rivals despite SC ruling

Slamming the authorities of gross misuse of state laws like the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, a Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, has made it clear that the Act was not an instrument to target individuals, who are guilty of involvement in a single incident of anti-social activity. While warning governments against invoking such stringent laws as a tool of harassment or intimidation, the bench asserted that it was tantamount to extreme abuse of the governing laws when such an Act is used as a means of oppression, especially when political motivations are suspected. In a veiled attack, the apex court has sent across a message loud and clear that they cannot be used to settle political scores. By definition, the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is designed to prevent and combat gangsters and related anti-social activities. It defines 'gangster' and provides for the punishment of individuals involved in organized crime, including imprisonment and fines, especially if the offence is committed against a public servant but not for staging demonstrations, when used as an expression of right to expression that had no other ulterior motives. Mere involvement in a demonstration or protest after a communal clash cannot be reason enough to invoke the provisions of the Gangster Act, was made clear by the Supreme Court. Putting to rest many self-satisfactory interpretations about the provisions of the Act, most of which were invoked for serving political interests in violation of the law, the apex court drove home the point that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires greater emphasis when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions, such as the UP Gangsters Act, is invoked. In unequivocal terms, it stated, 'When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions.' This, in essence, implies that the Act cannot be invoked to stifle voices and silence dissent. Quashing an FIR lodged on April 30, 2023 against an 'organised gang', based on a social media post that cried foul of a particular religion, which led to violent protests 'involving' the appellants Lal Mohd and others, the court maintained that the complaint provided no evidence to substantiate systematic planning or coordinated criminal activities against the group. It discarded the FIR on the grounds that it was a conjectural statement by the complainant and one that was not corroborated with facts to establish 'provocative' motivations of those named in the FIR or to establish that it was a premeditated gang activity meant to create serious law and order disturbances. On their part, the appellants held that the allegations do not meet the threshold to justify invoking the UP Gangsters Act. The Supreme Court said that the accused were arrested and booked under provisions of IPC for vandalising a shop and wondered the need for lodging a second FIR by invoking Gangsters Act six months after the incident. However, the ground reality is that for decades together, many state governments have taken undue advantage of the loopholes that exist in certain laws as a means to harass political antagonists and their supporters. It is even more tragic that they get away even without coming up with any concrete proof to justify such acts of victimisation. Police and law and order are, after all, state subjects and hence none dares to beard the lion.

Hindustan Times

2 hours ago

• Hindustan Times

No legal bar on use of Tulu in panchayat meetings, clarifies language academy chief

Mangaluru , The Karnataka Tulu Sahitya Academy on Friday clarified that there is no legal restriction on the use of Tulu language in gram panchayat meetings, amid concerns raised over a recent advisory issued by the Dakshina Kannada district administration. No legal bar on use of Tulu in panchayat meetings, clarifies language academy chief Taranath Gatti Kapikad, president of the academy, said elected representatives are free to use Tulu during discussions in gram panchayat general body meetings, and that there is no statutory provision that limits the use of regional languages in such forums. The clarification follows a representation submitted by a local civil society group, Yashaswi Nagarika Seva Samsthe, to the Chief Executive Officer of the Dakshina Kannada Zilla Panchayat. The petition had urged the district authorities to discourage the use of Tulu in panchayat meetings and to give priority to Kannada. Acting on the petition, the ZP CEO reportedly issued a letter to taluk-level panchayat executive officers, directing them to take action "as per rules." However, the ZP CEO's letter does not explicitly mention any prohibition on Tulu, nor does it mandate Kannada-only proceedings. This has led to ambiguity and triggered concerns among Tulu language advocates. "The use of Tulu in local government meetings has been a long-standing practice in this region. Across Karnataka, panchayat members often speak in their native tongues. There is no legal hindrance to this," Kapikad said. He urged the ZP CEO to withdraw the letter to prevent any misinterpretation that could undermine the linguistic rights of local communities. He also emphasised that India's constitutional framework upholds linguistic and cultural diversity. "Respecting all languages is central to our democratic values and the spirit of the Constitution," he added. Tulu, a Dravidian language spoken widely in the coastal districts of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi, is not among the 22 official languages listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution but has a strong presence in cultural and social life in the region. The Karnataka Tulu Sahitya Academy has formally appealed to the district administration to retract the advisory in the interest of linguistic harmony and clarity. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.