Karnataka to ask Centre, apex court to ensure justice to farmers cultivating forest land
CHIKKAMAGALURU: The state government is vested with powers to drop lands sanctioned prior to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act, 1963. But to ensure justice to farmers who have been cultivating such lands with houses on them for the past 40 years after the notification, a proposal will be submitted to the Centre and the Supreme Court, Forest Minister Eshwar Khandre said on Friday.
At a meeting with MLAs, forest and revenue officers from Chikkamagaluru district at Vikas Soudha in Bengaluru, he said the Centre and the Supreme Court will be urged not to clear human settlements and cultivated lands within the deemed forests. Instead, compensatory land should be given to the forest department, the minister added.
In some cases, provisions under Section 17 have not been implemented even after 70 years of the notification issued under Section 4. This has become a hurdle in dropping such lands in the forest limits after the enforcement of the Forest Conservation Act of 1980. Therefore, it has become inevitable to submit the appeal to the Centre and the Supreme Court, Khandre said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
26 minutes ago
- The Wire
Why Indian Rivers Should Be Granted the Rights They Deserve
As North Eastern states experience disasters under flooding, rivers wreaking havoc, parts of the country also see an extreme season with the drying of its rivers having adversarial impact on soil, agriculture, and livelihoods of millions on depend upon it. Rivers and their critical vitality in shaping, managing and nurturing livelihoods have captured imagination of writers, artists, and scholars for centuries. In the ancient Hindu imagination, the Ganga is not a river. She is a mother. A bearer of life. A witness to history. For thousands of years, poets, priests, and pilgrims have also knelt at her banks, offering flowers and ashes alike. But in the courtroom, such reverence has not translated into responsibility. For Indian rivers today, personhood is poetry – but not yet law. And yet, the idea is not as far-fetched as it once seemed. If the river has a legal standing in a court of law In 2017, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the Ganga and Yamuna 'living entities' with the rights of a legal person. For a brief moment, the river had standing in a court of law. It could, in theory, sue a polluter, resist a dam, or demand its flow be restored. But the decision was swiftly stayed by the Supreme Court, citing practical difficulties: Who would represent the river? Who would be liable if the river 'committed' harm, like flooding? The Ganga returned to her pre-modern role: sacred but silent. Eight years later, in 2025, the waters are rising again – this time not just in volume, but in voice. Earlier this year, Rajya Sabha MP Satnam Singh Sandhu too introduced a bill proposing that Indian rivers be granted legal personhood through statute. In a nation where rivers are worshipped yet routinely strangled by concrete and sewage, the symbolism is powerful. But what matters more is the potential shift in power: from human dominion to ecological dignity. We have reached the limits of technocratic solutions to ecological collapse. India's flagship Namami Gange mission, launched with fanfare by the PM in 2014, has spent tens of thousands of crores and built miles of sewage infrastructure. Yet, the state of the Yamuna river – an important tributary of Ganga – in Delhi remains a chemical soup, where, fish die-offs are routine, and residents routinely gag at its banks. No amount of money can save a river if its right to flow, breathe, and exist is not recognized in law. In February, a Supreme Court-appointed committee reported that illegal embankments had been constructed through Kalesar National Park, obstructing the Yamuna's natural flow. On paper, it was a clear violation of forest and water laws. But the implications ran deeper. These embankments were not just environmental infractions – they were symbolic of a larger rupture: the quiet, everyday mutilation of riverine systems under the guise of 'development.' When a river's path is bent without its consent, it is not merely diverted; it is disenfranchised. Climate activist Ridhima Pandey, who first came into national consciousness for suing the government over climate inaction stood against the Kalasa-Banduri diversion project in Karnataka. Her protest was against a legal structure that treats rivers as passive infrastructure rather than living systems with embedded rights. Not isolated acts of environmental negligence but democratic failures in slow motion These are not isolated acts of environmental negligence. They are democratic failures in slow motion. Rivers may not cast votes, but they irrigate the very geographies our electoral maps are drawn on. To exclude them from legal personhood is to ignore that their depletion undermines the people who depend on them and the constitutional promises made to those people. Critics scoff. They warn of legal absurdities. Who defends the river in court? Can a river own property? The answer lies not in abandoning the project but in refining it. Guardianship models – where citizens, tribal councils, or environmental boards act as legal stewards – have worked elsewhere. In New Zealand, Maori iwi serve as co-guardians. India, too, can empower communities that have lived with and for rivers, rather than outsourcing custodianship to bureaucratic boards 500 kilometers away. It is a reckoning with the doctrine of human supremacy. Our legal system, forged in colonial logic, sees rivers as resources, not relationships. They are either dams to be built or drains to be dredged. But this worldview has failed us. Climate change is not just an engineering challenge; it is a civilisational crisis. The law must evolve. To grant rivers rights is not to anthropomorphise them, but to decolonise the way we see the world. This is critical for their being and sustenance through a realisation, recognition of rights that matter. The Ganga, after all, has outlived empires. She will likely outlast this one too. But what shape will she take – choked and canalised, or flowing freely as a subject of law and reverence? Personhood is not a silver bullet. But it is a beginning. A way of saying: the river has been speaking all along. It's time we learned how to listen. Deepanshu Mohan is a Professor of Economics, Dean, IDEAS, and Director, Centre for New Economics Studies. He is a Visiting Professor at London School of Economics and an Academic Visiting Fellow to AMES, University of Oxford.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC stays 2019 deportation order of Lankan Tamil refugee, asks govt for its stand
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the deportation of a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee, Bhaskaran Kumarasamy, a former member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), who fled to India in 2004 during the final years of the country's civil war, citing a serious threat to his life if sent back. Bhaskaran Kumarasamy also asked the Supreme Court to let him appear before the Swiss embassy in New Delhi to pursue a pending asylum application (ANI) A bench of justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh passed the interim order while hearing Kumarasamy's plea challenging the Madras high court's decisions from 2021 and 2024 that upheld the Tamil Nadu government's decision to deport him. The bench has also sought a response from the Centre and the Tamil Nadu government on the current status of his deportation. 'Considering that the deportation order is five years and six months old, we would like to be apprised of the status of the deportation. Meanwhile, the deportation is stayed,' said the bench, posting the matter for further hearing on August 4. Kumarasamy's counsel urged the court to intervene, pointing out that his client could be killed upon his return to Sri Lanka and that he should be permitted to appear before the Swiss embassy in New Delhi to pursue a pending asylum application. The court acknowledged the concern and also observed that Kumarasamy may explore the possibility of applying for Indian citizenship under the newly enacted Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), if eligible. Kumarasamy, a former cadre of the LTTE, fled from Jaffna's Nalloor area in 2004 with his wife, Sakuntala and daughters, Sobana and Sobiha -- then aged eight and six. The family entered India through Rameswaram and was lodged at the Mandapam refugee camp in Tamil Nadu. Kumarasamy claims to have given up arms before leaving Sri Lanka. In 2019, the Tamil Nadu government issued a deportation order against him, and since then, he has been entangled in a prolonged legal battle to stay in India. The Madras high court initially stayed the deportation in August 2020, noting the credible threat to his life in Sri Lanka. 'For the past 13 years, he is in India. Moreover, his family members, father, brother, brother's wife and daughter, were reportedly murdered by the Sri Lankan Army,' the high court had noted at the time, adding that deporting him would not serve the interest of justice. However, the high court reversed course in June 2021. Dismissing his plea to visit the Swiss embassy in Delhi to process his asylum request, the court held that Kumarasamy could no longer be considered a refugee under Indian law. It relied on the Tamil Nadu police's Q Branch's assertion that Sri Lanka was now safe for returnees and pointed out that Kumarasamy briefly travelled to Sri Lanka in 2014 for eye surgery -- a fact that, according to the court, weakened his claim of credible threat. Kumarasamy was also among 19 Sri Lankan Tamil refugees booked in 2016 by Tamil Nadu's Q Branch under multiple laws, including the Foreigners Act and other penal charges related to conspiracy, trafficking and cheating. He was arrested and moved from Bagayam refugee camp to Tiruchirappalli Special Camp, and later to Puzhal Central Jail. Though he and the others were acquitted of all charges in 2019, Kumarasamy remained confined to the special camp in Trichy. In 2020, he began the process of seeking asylum in Switzerland, where a sizeable diaspora of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees resides. According to Kumarasamy, the Swiss embassy in Delhi had asked him to appear for an interview as part of his application process. However, he was unable to obtain the necessary travel permission from the Tamil Nadu authorities. He claims that despite submitting official communication from the embassy, both the district collector of Tiruchirappalli and the local revenue inspector denied him permission to travel to Delhi. In February 2021, Kumarasamy petitioned the Madras high court to be allowed to travel to Delhi. But in June that year, the court not only dismissed his plea but also agreed with the authorities' contention that he no longer qualified for refugee protections.
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
HD Deva Gowda asks PM Modi to help farmers as mango rates crash, weather hurts
BENGALURU: Former prime minister HD Deve Gowda on Sunday wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan, seeking the Centre's intervention in helping Karnataka's mango cultivators, who have suffered a double-whammy of unpredictable prices and bad weather. Karnataka is a major contributor to mango production globally, Gowda pointed out, requesting the Centre to initiate a Price Deficiency Payment and Market Intervention Scheme for immediate fruit procurement in Karnataka through NAFED and NCCF, which will support farmers and alleviate rural distress. 'Further, mango is one of the major horticultural crops of Karnataka, cultivated over an area of 1.39 lakh hectares, particularly in Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru Urban, Chikkaballapura, Kolar, and Ramanagara districts, with an estimated output of 8-10 lakh tonnes during the rabi season. However, due to inclement weather and diseases, the mango yield has dropped to less than 30 per cent this year, according to farmers,' Gowda wrote. 'Prices fell from Rs 12,000 per quintal to Rs 2,000, while the cost of cultivation was Rs 5,466 a quintal. This has financially stressed the farmers, with many small and marginal mango growers unable to cover even basic costs,' he elaborated. He said Andhra Pradesh's ban on Totapuri mangoes from entering Chittoor district, which borders Karnataka, has disrupted the supply chain, risking post-harvest losses for the state's border mango growers, noting: 'This has created tension among the mango growers leading to protests in many districts, especially Kolar and Chikkaballpura.' Gowda also mentioned that the Karnataka Chief Minister and Chief Secretary have asked the AP government to revoke the ban immediately.
