SC stays relocation of deer from Hauz Khas park
New Delhi, May 1 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday passed an interim order restraining the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and other authorities from shifting the remaining deer from AN Jha Deer Park in Delhi's Hauz Khas area to forest zones in Rajasthan and other states.
A bench comprising justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan issued the interim direction on a petition filed by the New Delhi Nature Society.
The petition stated that about 600 deer in the park were at risk of being relocated without proper habitat assessments, veterinary checks, or safeguards for vulnerable groups such as pregnant deer and fawns.
It also contended that three batches of deer had already been relocated to predator-dense sanctuaries in Rajasthan, allegedly in violation of wildlife protection laws.
The court order stated, "For the time being, we restrain the respondents from shifting the existing deer out of the Deer Park at Hauz Khas, New Delhi. We also make it clear that the deer shall be properly looked after by the authorities."
The petition challenged the DDA's reliance on the Central Zoo Authority's (CZA) decision to withdraw the park's recognition as a 'mini-zoo' and argued that the withdrawal was being treated as a basis to dismantle the park without following the due process under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
It raised objections to the use of the 'Boma method' for capturing and transporting the deer, stating it lacked provisions to separate antlered males, pregnant or nursing females, juveniles, or sick animals.
The petition also invoked the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, claiming that relocating semi-urban, captive deer to predator zones amounted to cruelty, particularly under Section 11, which prohibits keeping any animal in a way that makes it an object of prey.
The petitioner cited an official communication from the Chief Wildlife Warden of Rajasthan requesting 550 deer from Delhi to enhance the prey base for carnivores in Sariska and Kumbhalgarh.
It also pointed to internal communications allegedly indicating that the DDA considered relocating the deer even before obtaining requisite approvals.
The petitioner raised concerns that the relocation plan could lead to the repurposing or dismantling of the deer park, which it described as ecologically significant.
The petition noted that the matter was earlier before the Delhi High Court, which in 2023 had stayed the relocation and suggested retaining at least 50 deer in Hauz Khas.
However, the High Court closed the case in July 2024 after the DDA submitted that 24 deer would remain at the site and the rest would be shifted after obtaining necessary permissions.
According to the petitioner, that order was passed without an opportunity to respond to the DDA's affidavit, and it alleged that the society's then-counsel accepted the affidavit without instructions.
A plea to recall the July 2024 order was dismissed in January 2025, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
The petition was filed through Advocate Rukhsana Choudhury and drawn by advocate Amita Singh.
UNI SNG PRS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
AI must be subordinate to fairness, equity, human dignity: Justice Surya Kant
Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant has said justice cannot be reduced to a digital product, warning that artificial intelligence (AI) must always remain subordinate to fairness, equity, and human dignity. 'Justice, unlike software, is not a product to be optimised, but a principle to be honoured. Technology must remain subordinate to our higher commitments to fairness, equity, and human dignity,' said Justice Kant, who is set to become the Chief Justice of India in November. Speaking at Microsoft's Fireside Chat on 'AI and Law' on June 6, Justice Kant cautioned that while AI promises to enhance access, efficiency, and transparency in the legal system, unchecked deployment could mirror and even magnify existing societal inequities. 'Technology, if left unchecked, can reflect and reinforce societal inequities. AI is not a perfect technology, and it can perhaps never replace the human element that the entire Rawlsian theory of justice hinges on,' he said. Rawlsian theory refers to the philosophy of justice developed by John Rawls, an American political philosopher. The core of the theory is the concept of 'justice as fairness', which aims to reconcile the seemingly competing values of freedom and equality. Justice Kant acknowledged the global nature of the challenges AI presents, particularly issues like algorithmic bias, hallucinated legal citations, and data protection. 'Take, for instance, the fictitious legal precedents that chatbots routinely come up with when faced with complex legal propositions,' said Justice Kant, warning of the risks of relying blindly on AI in sensitive domains like law. He spoke about growing cyber threats to courts and the judiciary, including ransomware attacks and doxing of judges, and said such digital risks were now 'a matter of constitutional resilience.' He said India has responded proactively, with secure e-filing platforms, the National Judicial Data Grid, and virtual hearings backed by multi-layered authentication. 'Cybersecurity is not a matter of IT hygiene, but of constitutional resilience…courts must invest not just in secure infrastructure, but in public confidence,' Justice Kant said. Justice Kant said the adoption of AI must not be driven by novelty or efficiency alone. 'We do so not as passive observers, but as stewards of a future we must shape with wisdom and purpose… Shaping the future demands more than innovation—it calls for an unwavering adherence to foundational values.' Justice Kant said India's judicial digital transformation, while ambitious, is being shaped through collaboration between technologists, judges, civil society, and academics via a dedicated Centre for Research and Planning within the Supreme Court. He referred to India's evolving legal-tech landscape and initiatives reshaping the courts including SUVAS, the Supreme Court's translation software that has enabled over 100,000 judgments in 18 regional languages, Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems in Constitution Bench hearings for real-time transparency, and LegRAA, a legal research tool that aids without replacing judicial reasoning. 'These technologies are designed explicitly to support, not supplant, human judgment. It preserves the essential human element of jurisprudence, ensuring that final legal Page 6 of 13 interpretations remain firmly rooted in wisdom, compassion, and ethical discernment,' he said. Justice Kant called for building AI systems that reflect functional competence and moral clarity. 'I remain firmly convinced that any contemplation of AI must be guided by a deep moral compass. Shaping the future demands more than for an unwavering adherence to foundational values. Transparency, equity, responsibility, and respect for human dignity must not be afterthoughts, but the pillars upon which all technological advancement rests…Let this dialogue between technologists and jurists be not the end, but the beginning of a sustained collaboration, one where justice and technology walk hand in hand, with the citizen always at the centre.'
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Apex court rejects plea filed by Tamil Nadu on education funds
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a plea by the Tamil Nadu government seeking an urgent hearing in its suit against the Union government for allegedly withholding over ₹2,000 crore in funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS), citing what the state described as 'coercive tactics' by the Centre to force the state to implement the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. 'For how long has this fund not been given? What is the urgency now?' a bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan asked senior advocate P Wilson, who mentioned the matter on behalf of the Tamil Nadu government, seeking an expedited listing. As Wilson flagged the constitutional right to free and compulsory education of nearly 4.8 million students in the state being adversely impacted, the bench remained unconvinced and declined the request: 'The plea is rejected.' The brief exchange took place during the Supreme Court's ongoing summer recess, now designated as a period of 'partial court working days' where only two to three benches sit and only matters of pressing urgency are usually considered, in addition to some old cases where both sides have given their consent to argue during the break. The regular functioning of the top court will resume on July 14. Filed under Article 131 of the Constitution, Tamil Nadu's suit accuses the Centre of linking its annual share under the SSS to the implementation of the NEP 2020 and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme -- a condition the state calls 'unconstitutional, arbitrary and coercive.' According to the suit, the Project Approval Board had approved a total outlay of ₹3,585.99 crore for Tamil Nadu under the SSS for the financial year 2024–25, of which ₹2,151.59 crore was to be the Centre's 60% share. The state claims this amount was not released solely because of its principled opposition to NEP 2020. Tamil Nadu, ruled by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), has been a vocal critic of the NEP, particularly its three-language formula, which the state believes undermines its two-language policy rooted in Tamil linguistic pride and regional identity. 'The Union Government seeks to coerce the State to implement the NEP-2020 throughout the State in its entirety and to deviate from the education regime followed in the State,' the suit submitted, while asserting that the SSS is a standalone scheme that should not be tied to compliance with any other olicy. The suit further alleged that the withholding of funds 'cripples the implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009,' directly impacting 4.39 million students, 2.2 lakh teachers, and over 32,000 school staff in the state. The state's legal team has argued that the Centre's move violates the spirit of cooperative federalism and amounts to an 'usurpation' of the state's constitutional powers to legislate on education, which falls under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. Tamil Nadu has also urged the Supreme Court to declare that the implementation of the NEP and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme, which mandates full compliance with NEP, is not binding on the state. It has sought a direction to the Centre to immediately release ₹2,291 crore (including interest), claiming the delay is 'not only illegal but also violative of constitutional morality.' While the plea for an urgent hearing has now been declined, the main suit continues to be listed for regular hearing. The standoff comes amid a broader constitutional tussle between the Tamil Nadu government and the Union government. On April 8, the Supreme Court struck down Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi's controversial move to reserve 10 re-enacted state bills for presidential assent, and the matter is now part of a presidential reference pending before the top court.
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
Los Angeles Police shoot with rubber bullets at protesters
Los Angeles, June 10 (UNI ) Following noise grenades, Los Angeles police began shooting rubber bullets at the most active protesters, a RIA Novosti correspondent reported. Earlier, the correspondent reported that security forces used flash-bang grenades. Later, in an attempt to disperse the crowd, law enforcement officers used rubber bullets — primarily at those who threw various objects at them. The crowd, however, began to scatter along the streets of the city center. The unrest began on June 7 after a raid by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) service in downtown Los Angeles, where a mass operation was conducted to identify undocumented immigrants. The clashes with protesters came amid reports of potential cuts to federal funding for the state. The following day, the White House announced that 2,000 National Guard troops would be deployed to the city. Los Angeles County officials later said they had not requested the National Guard and stressed that the decision to deploy it was made without consulting local officials. It became a public point of contention between the Republican White House and the state's Democratic leadership. UNI SPUTNIK ARN
