30 bulldozers to raze forest overnight? Top court raps Telangana over tree felling
Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, appointed as the amicus curiae in the matter, informed the Court that certain private intervenors intended to respond to the state government's affidavit. The bench agreed to grant time for these responses and re-listed the matter for detailed hearing on August 13.In an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court had strongly criticised the actions of the state authorities, warning them of contempt proceedings and even suggesting that erring officials could be held in temporary prisons constructed at the site if they failed to comply with Court orders. The Court had directed that restoring the status quo at the site was of utmost priority and had asked the State Wildlife Warden to take immediate steps to protect wildlife impacted by the deforestation.It also granted the state government time to respond to the Central Empowered Committee's spot inspection report and ordered the submission of an action plan to restore the forest to its previous condition.The background of the case traces back to a government order issued in 2024 by TSIIC, which sought to alienate forest land for IT development. Although TSIIC claimed to have acquired the land in 2012, the tree-felling gained momentum recently, prompting the filing of multiple public interest litigations before the Telangana High Court. Petitioners argued that the government's actions were in blatant disregard of Supreme Court rulings in TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, which had directed all states to identify forests and forest-like areas as per the dictionary definition of 'forest'.advertisementThe petitioners further contended that the state had not conducted any environmental assessment as required under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, and alleged that the land was being auctioned off for the construction of an IT park without due process.In defence, the Telangana government maintained that the land in question was already classified as industrial and dismissed the petitioners' claims as being based merely on Google Earth imagery.On April 2, the Telangana High Court had initially stayed the felling of trees until April 3, with the matter being adjourned to April 24 in view of the Supreme Court's intervention. The top court is now set to hear the matter in detail on August 13.- Ends
IN THIS STORY#Telangana
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
18 minutes ago
- Economic Times
SC dismisses plea for delimitation exercise in Andhra Pradesh,Telangana
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea for conducting delimitation exercise in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana for increasing the assembly seats in both the states.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh rejected the contention of alleged discrimination against the two states, saying provisions dealing with delimitation in states were different when compared to UTs. It held that the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the delimitation notification issued for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir was not arbitrary or discriminatory and hence constitutional. The top court dismissed the plea filed by K Purushottam Reddy who sought directions to the Centre to operationalise Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act which deals with delimitation of the assembly constituencies in both the states. Reddy has contended that delimiting the assembly and parliamentary constituencies of only the newly minted Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, with the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, created an unreasonable classification and was, therefore, unconstitutional. The top court said section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act of 2014 was subject to Article 170 of the Constitution and as per which delimitation exercise can be held only after the first census conducted after top court said allowing the plea for fresh delimitation exercise will open the floodgates of litigation from other states seeking conduct of such exercise.
Hindustan Times
44 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Goa CM on DK Shivakumar's 'lost mental balance' jibe: 'Frustrated, shows Congress culture'
Goa Chief Minister Pramod Sawant on Friday hit out at Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar for making personal remarks over the Mahadayi river dispute, accusing him of exhibiting 'Congress-style politics' and speaking out of frustration. Goa CM Pramod Sawant.(PTI) Also Read - 'Terrible civic sense': Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw blasts BBMP for trash pile near cemetery in Bengaluru What Goa CM Pramod Sawant said? Responding to Shivakumar's sharp criticism a day earlier—where he claimed Sawant had "lost his mental balance"—the Goa CM said such language revealed the Congress mindset and showed the desperation among Karnataka's leadership. 'He (Shivakumar) is displaying the culture of Congress. When leaders are frustrated, they resort to such comments,' Sawant told reporters in Panaji. 'We are serious about protecting Mahadayi. Our legal battle continues in the Supreme Court and we are in constant touch with the Centre.' The exchange of words comes amid renewed tensions over Karnataka's Kalasa-Banduri project, which proposes diverting water from the Mahadayi river to improve drinking water supply in parts of North Karnataka. Goa, however, has consistently opposed the plan, saying it threatens the ecological balance of the state and endangers vital water sources. Also Read - Heavy rain alert in Karnataka: Schools, colleges shut in Dakshina Kannada today The war of words escalated after Sawant informed the Goa Assembly that the state would petition the Supreme Court against Karnataka's ongoing work on the river, even as the matter is sub judice. Shivakumar, reacting to this, said Sawant lacked understanding of the federal structure and had "lost his mental balance." Sawant, visibly critical, said, 'We will continue efforts to protect our river. Leaders in Karnataka seem to be competing over who can stoop lower. Such undignified remarks only reflect the culture they come from.' At the core of the dispute is Karnataka's Kalasa-Banduri project, which aims to divert water from Mahadayi to the Malaprabha river to meet the drinking water needs of districts like Dharwad, Belagavi, Gadag, and Bagalkote. The river flows through both Karnataka and Goa before emptying into the Arabian Sea. In Goa, it's known as the Mandovi and is one of the state's two lifelines. (With PTI inputs)
Indian Express
44 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Kerala HC issues policy for use of AI for judiciary work: What does it say? Why is it significant?
The Kerala High Court last week issued a policy document titled 'Policy Regarding the Use of AI Tools in District Judiciary' for 'responsible use' of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial work. The policy aims to reduce dependence on AI in the judiciary by limiting its use to administrative tasks. This is the first time that a High Court in India has tried to frame principles and guidelines for using AI in the judiciary. What does the policy cover? The document focuses on four key principles: transparency, fairness, accountability, and the protection of confidential data. The guidelines apply to all members of the district judiciary, including judges, clerks, interns, court staff, and other employees who are involved in judicial work. They apply regardless of whether AI tools — softwares that use AI algorithms to perform different tasks such as problem-solving — are used on personal or government devices. The document provides a separate definition for Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek, saying they produce human-like responses to prompts that have been entered by the user. The policy also differentiates between 'general' AI tools and 'approved' AI tools. Only an AI tool approved by the Kerala High Court or the Supreme Court can be used for court-related work. The guidelines set clear limits on the usage of AI tools. Writing, drafting legal judgements, orders, or findings is strictly prohibited. Translating documents by using AI tools without the verification of a judge or a qualified translator is also not allowed. Using AI for research work like looking up citations or judgements should be verified by an appointed person. The document encourages the use of AI tools for administrative tasks like 'scheduling of cases or court management'. However, it must be done within the observation of a person, and should be duly recorded. Errors in the tools, if any, must be reported to the Principal District Court or the Principal District Judge and forwarded to the IT department of the High Court. Judicial officers and staff are required to attend training sessions that cover the ethos and technical issues involving the use of court-related work. The document specifies that violation of any rule will automatically lead to disciplinary action. Why is the policy relevant? In February 2025, the Centre, in a press note, encouraged the use of AI in judicial work to help alleviate the backlog of cases and improve the speed of justice administration. Since then, several discussions have taken place regarding the risks and safeguards that such a move would require. On July 17, the Karnataka High Court, while hearing a petition on X Corp's challenge to the Centre's orders to block content under Section 79 of the IT Act, through Sahyog portal, discussed the usage of AI algorithms in moderating content on online platforms. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta noted that 'there are instances where the lawyers start using AI for the purpose of research and artificial intelligence, as an inbuilt difficulty, it hallucinates.' AI hallucination is a blanket term for various types of mistakes made by chatbots in response to the facts inserted as a prompt. Justice M Nagaprasanna said, 'Too much dependence will destroy the profession…I keep saying dependency on Artificial Intelligence should not make your intelligence artificial.' In 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court took the assistance of ChatGPT to understand the global view on bail for an accused with a history of violence, including an attempt to murder. Justice Anoop Chitkara denied bail, seeking AI insights on global bail jurisprudence. He inserted the question in ChatGPT, 'What is the jurisprudence on bail when the assailants are assaulted with cruelty?' However, the court said, 'Any reference to ChatGPT and any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. This reference is only intended to present a broader picture on bail jurisprudence, where cruelty is a factor.'
