Several organisations plan mega protest against mining policy in Ballari on Aug. 16
Addressing presspersons in Hubballi on Thursday, president of National Committee for Protection of Natural Resources (NCPNR) and Citizens For Democracy (CFD) S.R. Hiremath said that through the protest they will be demanding effective steps to mitigate the sufferings of the mining-affected people. They will also seek reduction in the annual mining cap to 20 million tonnes.
Mr. Hiremath said that the Joint Action Committee of mining-affected people was already formed during a meeting in Ballari on June 1. Subsequently, like-minded orgnaisations, including Janandolan Maha Maitri, CFD and JPJPS (Agitation Committee for revival of the lives of people and environment), conducted jathas in all the four mining-affected districts of Ballari, Vijayanagar, Chitradurga and Tumakuru to sensitise the residents to the common problems affecting their lives due to continued mining and the need to launch a united fight.
Before the mega protest on August 16, jathas will be taken to mining-affected villages between August 1 and 4 and district committees for the preparation of the projects will be formed. The organisations will give a call to all like-minded organisations working for the cause of the people to join hands with them for the mega protest, he said.
To a query, Mr. Hiremath pointed out that despite the Supreme Court taking a tough stand against indiscriminate mining, both the State and Union governments have managed to get the annual cap for mining increased and now, they wanted to increase it further to 57 million tonnes.
However, the former Supreme Court judge B. Sudarshan Reddy, who has been appointed by the Supreme Court as the Oversight Authority for implementation of the Comprehensive Environmental Plan for Mining Impact Zone (CEPMIZ), has recommended reducing it to 20 million tonnes for the four districts.
Mr. Hiremath said that the JMM, the CFD and the NCPNR welcome the State government's decision to quash the land acquisition process at Devanahalli. It is a historical win for farmers of Devanahalli and Samyukta Horata-Karnataka which led the agitation. However, the farmers and also the organisations will have to be more vigilant as the war is not yet over.
S.A. Mulla of JMM was present.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
List steps you plan against betting apps, SC asks government
. NEW DELHI: Expressing serious concern over the deleterious impact of addictive betting applications on youth, the Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to respond in two weeks what steps it is contemplating to save youngsters from getting financially ruined, often forcing them to commit suicide. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the counsel for Centre to specify in its affidavit "what remedial measures it is contemplating after applying mind to the gravity of the issue". The counsel said another bench is examining whether these apps are akin to gambling, requiring them to be banned, and the decision in that case would have a direct bearing on reliefs sought in a PIL filed by K A Paul. But the bench said, "You (the Centre) do not appear to take the problem seriously". The judges also issued notices to some states, RBI, ED, TRAI, Google India, Apple India, Dream11 and other gaming companies to file responses in two weeks. The petitioner had sought a complete ban on illegal betting apps and strict regulation of online gaming and fantasy sports, alleging these are being popularised by film stars, famous cricketers and other celebrities and end up drawing youth to the apps like moths to a flame. He said the more than 150-year-old Public Gambling Act, 1867, is unable to deal with the menace. Over 24 incidents of suicide have been reported from Telangana alone in the last one and a half years and are directly linked to debt traps created by gambling/betting platforms.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order
By Nate Raymond Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order -U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trumps birthright citizenship order
Boston-based federal appeals court skeptical of Trump's order One appeals court has already ruled order is unconstitutional U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
