
Illegal mining in Panchkula villages: HHRC takes suo motu cognizance, asks for action taken report
Taking suo motu cognisance of media reports on alleged illegal mining, unauthorised stone crushers and brick kilns operating in several Panchkula villages — Khedawali, Baadh, Lehi and Thane ki Ser — the Haryana Human Rights Commission (HHRC) has sought a status report.
The HHRC has sought a 'status report on action taken to control these activities; assessment of environmental damage including deforestation, groundwater depletion and pollution; details of actions taken against violators including penalties and criminal cases lodged; and proposals for stricter monitoring, enforcement mechanisms, technological interventions and enhanced patrolling'.
In it's order dated April 25, HHRC condemned failure of the state authorities to control illegal mining and unregulated industrial operations terming it a case of 'grave administrative negligence' warranting 'immediate intervention'.
'These unregulated activities have led to severe environmental degradation, causing air, water, and soil pollution. Children, the elderly and pregnant women are reportedly suffering from respiratory and eye-related ailments, while the destruction of agricultural land is threatening villagers' right to livelihood,' the commission said.
'According to the commission, the situation reflects serious human rights violations and environmental harm, specifically — Air, water, and soil pollution — caused by illegal mining and unregulated industrial units; Damage to public roads due to overloaded dumpers, posing serious risks to commuters; Severe dust pollution resulting in health hazards, particularly affecting vulnerable groups; Destruction of fertile agricultural land, negatively impacting livelihoods; and Persistent inaction and negligence by concerned authorities despite public complaints and protests', HHRC found.
The commission bench, comprising chairperson Justice Lalit Batra and members Kuldip Jain and Deep Bhatia noted that 'these conditions amount to violations of fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, including the right to life, health, livelihood, and dignity'.
The commission also stated that 'these actions breach international human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights'.
The commission also found the alleged irregular activities in violation of several statutory provisions of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; The Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012; The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; The Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; and notification dated May 11, 2016, issued by the Environment Department, Government of Haryana' that mandates 'a minimum distance of 1.0 km for the siting of stone crushers from the nearest village boundary (Phirni or Lal Dora)'.
Puneet Arora, Protocol, Information & Public Relations officer of the commission, said, 'The Commission will monitor the entire case to ensure that all concerned departments fulfill their responsibilities in safeguarding public health, environment, and human rights. The Commission has sought compliance reports from the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Environment, Forests & Wildlife, Government of Haryana; Director General, Department of Mines and Geology; Chairman, Haryana State Pollution Control Board; Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF); Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula; Commissioner of Police, Panchkula; and Regional Officer, Haryana State Pollution Control Board, Panchkula. All the aforementioned departments have been directed to ensure the personal appearance of authorized representatives along with their respective reports on the next date of hearing – May 28, 2025.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Deccan Herald
39 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
Ahead of Bihar polls Tejashwi seeks fresh quota laws; writes to Nitish
The suggestion of the RJD leader, who was the deputy CM when reservations were hiked to 75 per cent, is that the fresh legislations be immediately sent to the Centre for being placed in the ninth schedule of the Constitution.


Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
RJD Leader Tejashwi writes to Bihar CM Nitish Kumar, seeks fresh quota laws
Synopsis Tejashwi Yadav, RJD leader, urges Bihar CM Nitish Kumar for a special assembly session to enact new laws, aiming to raise quotas for weaker sections to 85%. He proposes sending these laws to the Centre for inclusion in the Constitution's ninth schedule, drawing inspiration from Tamil Nadu's 69% quota.


News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Same-Sex Unions Not Marriages In Law But Queer Couples Can Form A Family: Madras High Court
Last Updated: The court invoked an emotional letter by late Justice Leila Seth and said not every parent is like her who could acknowledge and accept her son's sexual orientation The Madras High Court recently ordered the release of a 25-year-old woman from the illegal custody of her natal family, declaring that no adult can be detained against their will merely for choosing a same-sex partner. A habeas corpus petition was filed by MA, seeking the release of her partner, D, who her father and other family members had allegedly confined. D's (the detenue's) mother, who accompanied her, accused the petitioner of leading her daughter astray and claimed she was addicted to drugs—allegations the court found baseless after observing the detenue's composure and clarity. The bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan interacted with the detenue in private, as per Supreme Court guidelines in Devu G Nair v State of Kerala, to ascertain her true wishes. The woman, a well-qualified adult, told the court that she is a lesbian and in a consensual relationship with the petitioner. She described being forcibly taken home, subjected to rituals intended to 'cure" her, and even beaten by her family members. Highlighting India's evolving legal recognition of LGBTQIA+ rights, the bench referenced landmark Supreme Court decisions, including NALSA v. Union of India, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, and the recognition of 'chosen families" in Deepika Singh v. CAT. The judges emphasised that sexual orientation and identity fall squarely within the protective ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing personal liberty and dignity. 'We feel a certain discomfort in employing the expression 'queer'," the bench observed. 'To a homosexual individual, his/her/their sexual orientation must be perfectly natural and normal. There is nothing strange or odd about such inclinations. Why then should they be called as queer?" the court said. The judgment concluded with a continuing mandamus directing jurisdictional police to provide protection to the couple if required and restrained the woman's family from interfering with her liberty. 'We endeavoured in vain to impress upon the mother that her daughter, being an adult, is entitled to choose a life of her own," the court noted, while expressing empathy for the parent's social conditioning. The bench invoked a letter by the late Justice Leila Seth, who had once written emotionally about the criminalisation of homosexuality and the pain it caused families. 'What makes life meaningful is love. The right that makes us human is the right to love," she wrote. 'Not every parent is like Justice Leila Seth. She could acknowledge and accept her son's sexual orientation," the bench emphasised. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty Vs Union of India (2023), the high court stressed that it may not have legalised marriage between same sex couples, but they can very well form a family. 'Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family. The concept of 'chosen family' is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence. The petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family," the division bench held. First Published: June 05, 2025, 13:17 IST