Farmers demand action as release of untreated waste continues despite SC order
VELLORE: Farmers have urged the district administration to take stringent action to curb industrial pollution, especially the unchecked discharge of effluents from leather units in Vellore into the Palar River - a practice the Supreme Court recently slammed as a gross violation of environmental norms.
At the monthly grievance redressal meeting chaired by Collector VR Subbulaxmi here on Friday, farmers alleged that the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) had failed to enforce the court's directives. The court, in its January 30 verdict, had directed the state government to curb pollution and compensate affected communities.
Despite the ruling, untreated effluents continue to flow into rivers in Gudiyatham and Pernampattu, turning the water yellow and affecting agriculture, farmers said. 'Compensation is only being paid to those in the Palar basin. Farmers elsewhere are equally affected and deserve compensation,' they added.
Illegal sand mining in Palar River was another issue raised during the meet. Farmers accused local officials of ignoring repeated complaints and called for strong measures to prevent sand theft. Additionally, farmers highlighted the long-pending issue of unpaid compensation for land acquired in 2017 for the Chennai-Bengaluru Expressway project in Melpadi Panchayat. They also called for a permanent solution to prevent accumulation of garbage at farmers' markets.
In response, the collector directed officials from the departments concerned to take immediate action.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Forced narco-analysis tests on accused violate constitutional rights: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that conducting narco-analysis tests on persons accused in a case without their consent is not permissible and amounts to a violation of fundamental rights. The court set aside a Patna High Court order that had permitted the test to be carried out on persons accused in a dowry death case. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B Varale held that the High Court had erred in accepting the investigating officer's request to conduct narco-analysis tests on the accused while hearing a bail plea. In a narco-analysis test, the accused is injected with sodium pentothal, a drug that puts them in a sedated state. In this condition, they are believed to be unable to lie and may reveal truthful information. Calling it an 'impermissible investigative shortcut in a bail proceeding', the Supreme Court said that such an approach violates Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution. It added that a bail court cannot act as a 'mini trial court' by allowing invasive procedures such as narco-analysis tests. Article 20(3) of the Constitution protects individuals from being compelled to be a witness against themselves or give self-incriminating testimony. Article 21 pertains to protection of life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court said that an accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narco-analysis test at an 'appropriate stage' of the investigation. It added that even if the accused voluntarily agrees to a narco-analysis test, the results alone cannot be used to convict them.
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Violates fundamental rights': SC sets aside narco test order
A narco-analysis test cannot be conducted on an accused person without their consent, and the results of such tests cannot form the sole basis of conviction in a criminal case, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday. Emphasising that the pursuit of modern investigative tools cannot override fundamental constitutional protections, the top court underscored that involuntary narco tests infringe upon the right against self-incrimination and personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and PB Varale set aside a 2023 Patna high court order that had accepted an investigating officer's proposal to conduct narco-analysis tests on all accused and witnesses in a dowry harassment case linked to the disappearance of a woman. 'We have no doubt that the impugned order cannot be sustained,' said the bench said, adding that 'under no circumstances is an involuntary or forced narco-analysis test permissible under law.' The court held that the high court erred in accepting the submission of the police for administering the test, noting that it contravened the law laid down in the landmark 2010 ruling in Selvi vs State of Karnataka, where a three-judge bench had declared such techniques unconstitutional if done without consent. 'Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution are non-derogable and sacrosanct rights to which the judiciary cannot carve out exceptions…Involuntary administration of narco-analysis and similar tests is in contravention of the protection given by Article 20(3)...The results of such involuntary tests cannot be considered as material evidence in the eyes of the law,' noted the bench. To be sure, a narco-analysis test is a forensic interrogation technique in which a suspect is injected with a psychoactive drug to lower their inhibitions and suppress their reasoning ability, in an attempt to extract information, they might otherwise withhold. The bench further stated that permitting such tests without consent would breach a person's right to privacy and amount to a disproportionate exercise of police powers. The apex court also rejected the state's argument that 'modern investigative techniques are the need of the hour,' saying such measures must never come at the cost of constitutional guarantees. 'While the need for modern investigative techniques may be true, such investigative techniques cannot be conducted at the cost of constitutional guarantees under Articles 20(3) and 21,' it said. The Court also clarified that a voluntary narco-analysis test, undertaken at an appropriate stage and with adequate safeguards, may be permissible. However, the outcome of such tests, by itself, cannot form the sole basis for a conviction. 'A report of a voluntary narco-analysis test with adequate safeguards in place, or information found as a result thereof, cannot form the sole basis of conviction,' held the court, referring to the evidentiary value of discoveries made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The third key issue addressed in the judgment was whether an accused has an indefeasible right to undergo a narco-analysis test voluntarily. As highlighted by senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal, who assisted the bench as amicus curiae, the bench noted conflicting views from different high courts, including a Rajasthan high court ruling which held that the accused could seek such a test under their right to lead evidence. Rejecting that interpretation, the bench held: 'It cannot be said that undergoing a narco-analysis test is part of the indefeasible right to lead evidence, given its suspect nature... Such a right is not absolute.' Simultaneously, the bench acknowledged that an accused may move an application seeking a voluntary narco test during trial, and if such a plea is made, the concerned court must carefully assess the totality of circumstances, including free consent and necessary safeguards, before allowing the test. 'The accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narco-analysis test at an appropriate stage... However, there is no indefeasible right with the accused to undergo a narco-analysis test,' the judgment clarified. Concluding, the apex court said that the Patna high court's decision to allow narco-analysis at the bail stage was not only premature but outside the scope of what a court considers while adjudicating a bail application. 'It does not involve entering into a roving enquiry or accepting the use of involuntary investigative techniques,' it added.
Hindustan Times
7 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC refuses relief to man given 182-yr term for defrauding 344 homebuyers
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant relief to a 75-year-old former director of a property firm facing an extraordinary 182-year prison sentence for defrauding 344 homebuyers, upholding the authority of a consumer forum to impose multiple consecutive jail terms in a landmark case. In a verdict delivered on May 30 and released Monday, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the plea of Rajender Mittal, a director of Tirupati Builders Pvt Ltd, who had sought modification of the sentence imposed by a district consumer court. The court in 1995 had convicted Mittal for failing to refund booking amounts collected from buyers promised plots in a proposed residential colony—Tirupati Township—on Delhi's Baghpat Road. The Tirupati Township Plot Holders Association, representing over 300 homebuyers, accused Mittal and his co-director Rakesh Kumar Sharma of collecting ₹90.79 lakh for plots that were never delivered. On March 13, 1995, the district consumer forum ruled in the buyers' favour, directing the directors to refund the money with 18% annual interest, along with ₹20,000 in compensation and ₹500 in litigation costs to each complainant. The Supreme Court upheld the order in July 2011. The two directors, however, failed to comply with the refund order. In February 1998, the consumer forum invoked Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which allows imprisonment for up to three years for non-compliance with forum orders. The forum sentenced Mittal and Sharma to one year of simple imprisonment in 20 complaints and six months in each of the remaining 324. Crucially, it directed the sentences to run consecutively—resulting in a combined term of 182 years. The sentence was suspended for three months to give the duo a final chance to comply. In 2003, the Delhi state consumer commission upheld this decision. Praying for his immediate release from prison, Mittal on December 1, 2020, challenged the sentence in the high court, arguing that since all complaints stemmed from the same transaction and were decided through a common order, the punishments should run concurrently. That would have limited his prison term to one year. He called the forum's decision 'excessive, arbitrary and illegal,' citing that the forum could not go beyond the maximum three-year sentence outlined in the Consumer Protection Act. Mittal also pointed to his incarceration in a separate criminal case. Arrested in 2016 after being declared a proclaimed offender, he was convicted in 2019 for cheating, criminal conspiracy, and criminal breach of trust. He was sentenced to five years for cheating, three years for breach of trust, and two years for conspiracy, with sentences running concurrently. He claimed to have already served over seven years in that case. But the high court was unmoved. Representing the Centre, advocate Udit Vaghela argued that the 1995 consumer forum order had attained finality after the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling and could not be reopened. Justice Krishna rejected Mittal's petition, ruling that the sentences were lawful and enforceable under Section 27, and since they were imposed for default of compliance rather than for criminal wrongdoing, they could not be made to run concurrently. She underlined that the punishment was not punitive, but a civil measure aimed at compelling compliance with the forum's directions. 'These sentences being for default of fine, cannot under the law be directed to run concurrently as it is not punitive in nature but only intended to ensure compliance,' held the judge, emphasising that no direction as sought by the petitioner could be issued under such circumstances. However, the court left a narrow window open: Mittal, the court said, was free to approach the district forum afresh on grounds of financial incapacity and seek a modified sentence there.
