Sinking of MSC Elsa 3: Kerala HC admits PILs seeking compensation
The Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji posted the case for hearing in September, considering that a Single Bench is hearing an Admiralty suit filed by the State government seeking ₹9,351 crore as compensation for marine and coastal pollution, loss of fishers' livelihood and the 'remediation' measures following to the ship's sinking.
However, the petitioners can approach the Division Bench in instances where directions to the government, the Director General of Shipping or to the Pollution Control Board are needed, the court said. The PILs had been filed by T.N. Pratapan, former MP and chairperson of the Kerala Fishermen Coordination Committee, among others. Another PIL was filed by Charles George, social activist and president of Kerala Fish Workers Coordination Committee and of Swathanthra Matsya Thozhilali Union, seeking $134 million as environmental security deposit following sinking of the vessel.
The counsel for MSC, which operated the vessel, said that the inclement weather has affected efforts to salvage goods and oil from the sunk vessel.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
4 hours ago
- United News of India
SC tells Isha Foundation to seek Deli HC relief against magazine's defamatory reports
New Delhi, July 21 (UNI) The Supreme Court today directed Sadhguru's Isha Foundation to approach the Delhi High Court for its plea seeking to restrain Tamil media outlet Nakkheeran Publications from publishing allegedly defamatory content against it. The court also directed Nakkheeran to raise its contentions, including the issue of maintainability, in the Delhi High Court. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the transfer petition filed by Nakkheeran Publications as well as the interlocutory application filed by Isha Foundation in the matter. Nakkheeran Publications had filed a petition in the Supreme Court to transfer the Rs. 3 crore defamation suit against it in the Delhi High Court to Chennai High Court. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Isha Foundation, argued that despite a defamation suit pending before the Delhi High Court, Nakkheeran continued publishing defamatory material, including allegations of organ trade against the Foundation. Isha Foundation opposed the transfer of the case to Chennai, stating that such grounds were impermissible. On the other hand, Senior Advocate R Balasubramaniam, representing Nakkheeran, submitted that Isha Foundation secured listing of its application without notice to the respondent and was seeking the same relief that had already been denied by the Delhi High Court. He argued that the question of jurisdiction should be decided first. 'For the last 8 months, they have been happy because there is no injunction granted to them. But in my petition, they are seeking the same relief which was denied by High Court… the next date is in August,' he submitted. Justice Kant observed that grounds such as lack of jurisdiction may not justify transfer of the suit. He suggested that Nakkheeran raise these issues before the Delhi High Court through an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Accepting the bench's suggestion, Balasubramaniam withdrew the transfer petition, resulting in the disposal of Isha Foundation's interlocutory application as well. Last year, Isha Foundation filed a Rs. 3 crore defamation suit against Nakkheeran Publications in the Delhi High Court, alleging that its publications tarnished the Foundation's reputation. In response, Nakkheeran Publications filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court seeking to shift the defamation case to Chennai. During the hearing, Rohatgi highlighted that Nakkheeran continued its 'vilification campaign' on social media despite the pending suit, adding, 'We are a charitable organisation with disciples all across the world… today, on social media, he's going on and on…' The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the Delhi High Court should decide the pending applications of both parties expeditiously. UNI SNG SSP
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
If CS fails to comply with orders of court, who else will, asks HC
Chennai: Raising concern over the failure of top officials in implementing court orders, Justice Battu Devanand on Monday remarked, "If a chief secretary does not obey court orders, who else will obey?" The judge made this observation during a suo motu contempt proceeding against former chief secretary (CS) Shiv Das Meena and incumbent chief secretary N Muruganandam for failing to implement a 2023 court order. The 2023 order directed the chief secretary to constitute an expert committee to recommend necessary amendments to the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2023, as the existing provisions suffered from various infirmities. This was to be done within two months. "Because they are higher officials, they do not have any regard for the orders passed by the court. If the chief secretary himself is not following the court orders, how can we expect officers serving under him to follow the order in a timely manner," the judge questioned. It was embarrassing for the court to initiate suo motu proceedings against high-ranking officials, the judge added. You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai During course of the hearing, the court directed the appearance of both Siva Das Meena and Muruganandam to explain their actions in not implementing the order. On Monday, the court was informed that the committee has been constituted and steps have been taken to maintain a seniority list of persons eligible for appointment under compassionate grounds. Recording the submissions, the court observed that had the former chief secretary taken steps to implement the order at that time, the incumbent officer would not have been summoned to the court. The judge added that even in one of his previous orders pronounced two years ago, he appreciated the former chief secretary for issuing a circular to all his subordinates to promptly implement court orders. The court then directed the authorities to produce a copy of the amendments made to the rules to the high court registry in two weeks and closed the contempt petition.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Madras stays OTP verification during DMK's ‘Oraniyil Tamil Nadu' drive
Madurai: on Monday ordered a limited interim injunction restraining from sending OTP verification messages during the party's enrolment drive 'Oraniyil Tamil Nadu'. The restraint order shall be in force until the issues of right to privacy and data protection are examined by the court in detail. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A division bench of Justice S M Subramaniam and Justice A D Maria Clete, passed the interim orders on a PIL pertaining to DMK's 'Oraniyil Tamil Nadu', which is a mass membership drive organised across the state by DMK. "Digital membership drives conducted by the political parties in recent times are a new area of study, whereby there is a clear departure from the conventional modes of inducting party members. The bearing it has on the data privacy of the individual is a concern that has to be addressed. Hence, a clarity is required as to the means and infrastructure adopted by the political parties to collect, process and store data from the public. How this data is stored and processed and the implications on the right to privacy of the voter including the right to privacy of the political affiliation also ought to be examined," the judges observed. In the absence of accountability and transparency in the data collected from individuals across the state, it is an issue which needs elaborate analysis, the judges said. A valid and free consent is an essential part of such membership programmes organized by the political parties. Hence, no force or coercion shall be employed in such membership drives conducted by the political parties, they said. The judges then directed the DMK to provide details on the data privacy policy employed in this membership campaign and ensure the security of the data collected and whether 'informed consent' is obtained from the individuals in this membership drive. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It is also to be seen if other smaller or economically challenged political parties will be put in a disadvantageous position and will disturb the level playing field in the election thereby impacting Article 14 of the Constitution, the judges observed. Justice Maria Clete, in a separate order, observed that when a query was put forth as to whether any mechanism or designated authority exists to address violations under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the Centre responded that rules have been framed under the Act and that the authority concerned is the joint secretary. However, the Centre sought time to verify and respond on the specific operational aspects and the institutional framework under the Act. The judge observed that she agreed to the interim order particularly in light of the serious concerns relating to personal data protection and digital privacy. However, she made it clear that such relief is extended with circumspection, particularly in the absence of a counter-affidavit and without full knowledge of the programme's operational framework. She also clarified that she did not agree with Justice Subramaniam's views pertaining to smaller or economically challenged political parties being put in a disadvantageous position. They are not immediately germane to the legal and factual matrix presently before the court, she said. The judges then ordered notice to the Centre, state and DMK and adjourned the hearing in the case by two weeks. The court passed the order while hearing a public interest litigation filed by S Rajkumar, a resident of T Athikarai village in Sivaganga district in Tamil Nadu.
