Supreme Court lists petition seeking panel for ‘return' of captive elephants at Vantara
The petition was orally mentioned before Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai by advocate C.R. Jaya Sukin, who is the petitioner-in-person. Chief Justice Gavai asked the Registrar present in the courtroom to list the case.
Also Read | Thousands march in silent rally in Kolhapur, demanding return of elephant Mahadevi by NGO Vantara
Mr. Sukin, in his petition, has sought the constitution of a monitoring committee to ensure the return of the captive elephants to its owners and to 'rescue all wild animals, birds from Vantara and free them into the wild'.
'The law and rules have been violated. States' administration failed, some officers were compromised and others were threatened. Captive elephants were forcibly taken from temples and their owners. Not only national level but also international level animals and birds, some of them endangered species, were smuggled into Vantara in the name of a wildlife rescue and rehabilitation facility in Gujarat,' the petition said.
Mr. Sukin alleged private entities like the Madras Crocodile Bank Trust in Tamil Nadu, the Association for the Conservation of Threatened Parrots in Germany, Fauna Zoo de Mexico and State-owned zoos like Sakkar baug Zoo in Gujarat, Assam State Zoo had transferred some of their 'stock' to Jamnagar.
Also Read | Kolhapur elephant row: Maharashtra government to file a review petition in SC over animal's transfer to Vantara
'A third channel, also from State zoos, involves exotic species seized while they were being trafficked. A fourth channel is from State forest departments, which send wildlife ensnared in human-animal conflict, to Jamnagar,' the petition alleged.
Mr. Sukin said the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa, a coalition of 30 organisations, had urged the Environment Ministry to probe the large-scale transfer of wild animals from South Africa to Vantara.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
22 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Supreme Court dissolves marriage, says ego should 'vanish'
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dissolved a couple's marriage and asked them to look after their minor child, noting their egos should "vanish" now the wedlock was over. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, noting it disliked granting divorces, passed the order after the parties filed a joint plea for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. "There should be no ego now. Now, there is no marriage. There is ego in marriage. Once there is no marriage, the ego should vanish. Now look after the child," the bench told the estranged couple. The top court was hearing a plea filed by the woman against an interim order passed by the Bombay High Court in the matter. The lawyers appearing for both parties said after several rounds of negotiations during the pendency of appeal, they had decided to seek dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent on certain terms and conditions. The bench noted the aspect of their child's custody and visitation rights which indicated the child's custody would remain with the mother with the rights of visitation would be with the father in line with the joint application. It came on record that the man would pay Rs 50,000 every month towards his minor daughter. The terms and conditions of settlement in the joint application filed under Article 142 of the Constitution read with section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. While Article 142 empowers the apex court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing "complete justice" in any cause or matter pending before it, Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with divorce by mutual consent. "The parties are present before this court. When queried by this court, the parties stated that they have indeed arrived at a resolution of all their disputes and have decided to part ways by seeking dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent," the bench said. It noted both had stated that they would abide by the terms and conditions of the joint application. "On perusal of the aforesaid terms of settlement, we find they are lawful and there is no legal impediment in accepting the same. Consequently, we accept the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties," the bench said. While disposing of the appeal, the top court said the marriage between them should stand dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court dissolves marriage, says ego should 'vanish'
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dissolved a couple's marriage and asked them to look after their minor child , noting their egos should "vanish" now the wedlock was over. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan , noting it disliked granting divorces, passed the order after the parties filed a joint plea for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. "There should be no ego now. Now, there is no marriage. There is ego in marriage. Once there is no marriage, the ego should vanish. Now look after the child," the bench told the estranged couple. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like War Thunder - Register now for free and play against over 75 Million real Players War Thunder Play Now Undo The top court was hearing a plea filed by the woman against an interim order passed by the Bombay High Court in the matter. The lawyers appearing for both parties said after several rounds of negotiations during the pendency of appeal, they had decided to seek dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent on certain terms and conditions. Live Events The bench noted the aspect of their child's custody and visitation rights which indicated the child's custody would remain with the mother with the rights of visitation would be with the father in line with the joint application. It came on record that the man would pay Rs 50,000 every month towards his minor daughter. The terms and conditions of settlement in the joint application filed under Article 142 of the Constitution read with section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955. While Article 142 empowers the apex court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing "complete justice" in any cause or matter pending before it, Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with divorce by mutual consent. "The parties are present before this court. When queried by this court, the parties stated that they have indeed arrived at a resolution of all their disputes and have decided to part ways by seeking dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent," the bench said. It noted both had stated that they would abide by the terms and conditions of the joint application. "On perusal of the aforesaid terms of settlement, we find they are lawful and there is no legal impediment in accepting the same. Consequently, we accept the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties," the bench said. While disposing of the appeal, the top court said the marriage between them should stand dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
‘Toll on citizens' purse and patience': Supreme Court slams NHAI, upholds Kerala HC order suspending toll
The Supreme Court Monday upheld the Kerala High Court's view that the public cannot be forced to pay user fee for roads which are in a state of disrepair, and pointed out that citizens bear the brunt of such roads, which also affects the environment and leads to a wastage of fuel. A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, K Vinod Chandran, and N V Anjaria said this while dismissing the appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against the Kerala High Court's August 6 judgement. In the judgment, the high court suspended the toll collection for four weeks at Paliyekkara in Thrissur district along the stretch of the National Highway 544, where the roads are in a poor condition. 'We cannot but agree with the reasoning of the High Court that the 'obligation of the public to pay a user fee under statutory provisions is premised on the assurance that their use of the road will be free from hindrances',' the bench said, citing the HC order. The bench added from the August 6 order, which also said, 'When the public is legally bound to pay a user fee, they simultaneously acquire a corresponding right to demand unhindered, safe, and regulated access to the road. Any failure on the part of the National Highways Authority or its agents to ensure such access constitutes a breach of the public's legitimate expectations and undermines the very basis of the toll regime'. The bench said the cost of constructing roads under the Build, Operate, Transfer (BOT) model is collected from people using it, despite having already paid motor vehicle tax. 'In a democracy, roads are laid on Build Operate and Transfer contracts to ensure that the cost is collected from the users, when motor vehicle tax is remitted for their use on roads, it is a sad reflection of the free market. That the successful bidder extracts much more than what is spent on construction and maintenance is a comedy of errors,' Justice Chandran said, writing for the bench. 'That the roads fall into disrepair due to vagaries of nature and often rank neglect, is the stark reality. That the toll collectors at the booths, often due to understaffing and overwork, behave like satraps, is a fact of life. That the poor citizen is bound to wait for hours, in a queue, and in a cramped space, with the engine running but hardly moving, is a tragedy. That the toll is really on the purse and the patience of the citizen, as also the environment, is the downside,' said Justice Chandran. On the condition of the said stretch of National Highway 544, the bench said, 'We are also surprised that the further constructions on the road, constructed on BOT basis is entrusted to another Contractor, when the obligation to maintain the entire stretch is on the Concessionaire under the BOT agreement; on which we speak no further, since it is the commercial wisdom of the NHAI.' Refusing to interfere with the Kerala HC order, the top court said, 'We are convinced not only that the order be sustained, but the Division Bench also be requested to monitor the situation to ensure ease of traffic' It asked the high court's division bench to also implead the contractor who is carrying out the work on the black spots. The Supreme Court noted that NHAI had assured that the maintenance work on the service roads is proceeding on a war footing and smooth traffic would be ensured soon. 'The minute smooth traffic is resumed, the NHAI or the Concessionaire would be entitled to pray for lifting the prohibitory order, even before the four weeks as ordered by the High Court.'
