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
Hindustan Times
12 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC push nudges Jharkhand HC to grant child care leave to woman judge
The Supreme Court on Wednesday noted that the Jharkhand High Court has allowed a 92-day child care leave (CCL) to a senior woman judicial officer -- a single parent, after the top court's firm nudge last week. However, the case took a fresh turn as the officer alleged that the high court sought to tarnish her annual confidential report (ACR) in retaliation for her petition seeking leave. A bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan, while taking note of the high court's affidavit allowing part of the officer's requested leave, issued notice to the high court on the judicial officer's additional plea seeking expunging of adverse ACR remarks. The matter will be heard in four weeks. 'In deference to this court's June 6 order, we have taken a decision granting her 92-day leave,' senior advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha, appearing for the Jharkhand High Court, submitted before the bench. Also Read: SC stays Madras HC order, allows toll collection on NH38 However, he added that allowing eight months of continuous leave for an officer heading the district judiciary at Hazaribagh would set an undesirable precedent. 'She has asked for 194 days. Her child has exams in 2026. This kind of stretch leave is not advisable,' Sinha said. Representing the woman officer, advocate Anup Kumar said she had applied for CCL between June 10 and December 20, 2025, to assist her son in preparing for his Class XII board and engineering entrance examinations. He also pointed out that her ACR had been adversely commented upon in a May 23 communication after she moved the Supreme Court. The communication stated that her 'conduct has not been good.' The woman officer's lawyer contended that adverse comments in her ACR dated May 23 appeared part of a retaliatory act by the administration. At this, the bench observed, 'You proceed on leave for 92 days, and we will see later,' before recording the fresh plea regarding her ACR and issuing notice. On June 6, the top court had asked the Jharkhand high court to revisit its decision rejecting the woman judge's CCL application, making it clear that if the matter was not resolved by June 12, it would intervene. The officer, a Scheduled Caste (SC) judicial officer serving since 2002, was transferred in April from Hazaribagh, where her son studies, to Dumka, despite having sought a transfer to Ranchi or Bokaro where better coaching facilities are available. Her request for CCL, soon after, was summarily rejected by the high court on May 10 without assigning reasons. In her plea, the officer pointed out that another judicial officer had recently been granted three months of CCL by the high court and alleged that her case had been treated differently, amounting to discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petition cited Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which entitles eligible female government employees to 730 days of CCL during their service tenure, with full pay for the first 365 days and 80% for the remaining period. A March 2024 resolution of the Jharkhand government and an August 2024 circular by the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court reinforced this entitlement, specifically in the context of children's exams, illness, or care requirements. However, the state objected to her petition, with advocate Vishnu Sharma arguing before the court last week that granting such leave would 'open a Pandora's box.' The Supreme Court, on June 6, dismissed the state's apprehensions, clarifying that the matter lay squarely between the high court and its officer. 'There is enough power with the high court unless you think someone is not acting bonafide,' the bench had then remarked.
India Today
17 minutes ago
- India Today
Both are adults: Top court grants bail to Muslim man jailed for interfaith marriage
The Supreme Court has granted bail to a man arrested under the Uttarkhand Freedom of Religion Act for getting married to a woman of different faith. The court, while granting bail to the accused, said that both the man and the woman were adults and got married in the presence of both families and had full knowledge of each other's religion. advertisementThe court also stated the state cannot have any objection to the couple residing together as they have been married as per the wishes of their respective parents and families. The accused, Aman Siddiqui alias Aman Chaudhary, was arrested on the basis of an FIR filed by a few extended members of the woman's family and 'certain organisations' at Rudrapur police station of Udham Singh Nagar district under Section 3/5 of Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act and Sections 318(4) and 319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Uttarakhand High Court had rejected the bail application of Siddiqui and he has been in jail for nearly six lawyer argued before the court that the marriage between the couple was an arranged one. However, soon after the marriage, certain people and certain organisations seemed to have objected to the marriage. advertisementHis lawyer also said that if granted bail, the couple would reside separately from the families and continue to live peacefully without any hindrance. The top court has instructed the trial court to release him immediately. Must Watch
The Hindu
35 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Federal appeals court set to hear arguments in Trump's bid to erase hush money conviction
President Donald Trump's quest to erase his criminal conviction heads to a federal appeals court on Wednesday (June 11, 2025). It's one way he's trying to get last year's hush money verdict overturned. A three-Judge panel is set to hear arguments in Mr. Trump's long-running fight to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court, where he could then try to have the verdict thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. The Republican is asking the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Mr. Trump wants the federal appeals court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. The 2nd Circuit should 'determine once and for all that this unprecedented criminal prosecution of a former and current President of the United States belongs in federal court," Mr. Trump's lawyers wrote in a court filing. The Manhattan District Attorney's office, which prosecuted Mr. Trump's case, wants it to stay in state court. Mr. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defence lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If Mr. Trump loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Mr. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Mr. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former Presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved cheques he wrote while he was President. They tried again after his conviction, arguing that Mr. Trump's historic prosecution violated his constitutional rights and ran afoul of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, which was decided about a month after the hush money trial ended. The ruling reins in prosecutions of ex-Presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors in pointing to official acts as evidence that a President's unofficial actions were illegal. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied both requests, ruling in part that Mr. Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as President. In a four-page ruling, Mr. Hellerstein wrote that nothing about the high court's ruling affected his prior conclusion that hush money payments at issue in Mr. Trump's case 'were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.' Mr. Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that prosecutors erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Mr. Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while President in 2018. Mr. Trump's former criminal defence lawyer Todd Blanche is now the Deputy U.S. Attorney General, the Justice Department's second-in-command. Another of his lawyers, Emil Bove, has a high-ranking Justice Department position. The trial Judge, Juan M. Merchan, rejected Mr. Trump's requests to throw out the conviction on presidential immunity grounds and sentenced him on January 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Appearing by video at his sentencing, Mr. Trump called the case a 'political witch hunt,' 'a weaponisation of government' and 'an embarrassment to New York.'
