Will take up issues of apple growers with Centre: Sukhu
on Tuesday assured that no felling of fruit trees would be allowed after the Supreme Court's stay order and directed the forest department to conduct an inquiry into reports of apple trees being axed in Karsog and Kullu valleys after the apex court's directive on Monday.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
After listening to the grievance of a delegation of the 'Seb Utpadak Sangh', led by CPM leader and former MLA Rakesh Singha, the CM said he would raise the issue with the Union minister of environment, forests and climate change. The state govt would formulate a policy in consultation with all stakeholders to address the concerns of apple growers, he said.
Earlier in the morning, 'Seb Utpadak Sangh' members from across the state gathered outside the state secretariat in Shimla and carried out a massive protest in the rain, seeking the state govt's attention to pending demands, including five bigha land for landless farmers.
Later, the CM listened to a delegation of protesting apple growers and added their demands would be considered sympathetically, highlighting the state govt had already approached the Supreme Court seeking relief for them. Sukhu said the state urged the central govt to allow the allocation of one to five bighas of land for the rehabilitation of disaster-affected families who were rendered landless.
With 68% of the state under forest cover, the CM emphasized the need to relax forest norms to facilitate rehabilitation.
All BJP MPs from Himachal were requested to pursue this matter with the central govt, he added.
Himachal Pradesh revenue minister Jagat Singh Negi also assured support to apple growers and said the state govt would leave no stone unturned in helping them. He said relief could also be considered under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, as was done in the case of Pong dam oustees. Former Shimla mayor Sanjay Chauhan and CPM leader Kuldeep Singh Tanwar were also present during the meeting.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
24 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Rights of persons with disabilities: SC judge highlights need to create sensitisation & awareness
New Delhi, Supreme Court judge Justice Manmohan on Saturday highlighted the need to create sensitisation and awareness about the rights of persons with disabilities. Rights of persons with disabilities: SC judge highlights need to create sensitisation & awareness Justice Manmohan said the courts have and will deliver verdicts on issues concerning the rights of persons with disabilities, but the other organs of the State also have to rise to the occasion. He was speaking at a conference held here on 'Judging and lawyering at the margins disability rights and beyond'. The conference was organised by Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation in collaboration with Qable. "The need of the hour is to create sensitisation, to create awareness. And I think the more awareness is there about the Act, about the rights that are available, the more the society will understand, the more the courts will understand and it will ensure more compliance," said Justice Manmohan when asked about the issue concerning implementation of the judgements. He also spoke on the issue regarding continuous monitoring by the court for compliance of its verdicts. "First of all, the court dockets are absolutely full and really to say that court will pick up this issue and give it absolute priority is not feasible because every day the court is grappling with so many issues," he said. Justice Manmohan said keeping in view the constraints, it has to be ensured that other organs of the State also rise to the occasion. The judge said the legislature will have to be aware of the issue and will have to put in place some mechanism whereby the court orders are given effect to. "Everything cannot be done at the pain of contempt. And if we start using the power of contempt repeatedly, it also loses its utility at some point of time," he added. Justice Manmohan said it has to be ensured the executive machinery understands that this is an obligation on them and this is "not some charity being done". "I think the basic problem that is arising is because everyone is believing that this is some sort of a charity which is being done. You think of any concept, whether it's gender justice, whether it is persons with disability, the mindset of the executive as well, to a large extent, the people who have been adjudicating these matters in the past have been that we will deal with it as if one is doing a bit of a charity," he said. Justice Manmohan further said things will change once people will realise it is a rights-based approach and not charity. "But yes, I agree with you. As a short-term measure, the court will have to monitor and will have to ensure that its judgments are implemented," he said. Justice Manmohan also cautioned if people think the court is going to monitor a matter on a daily basis, it may be raising the hopes too high. "We have to be realistic and we have to ensure that all organs of the State work towards it. Today, everything can't be left at the judiciary's doorstep. If you think that only judiciary is going to resolve the problem of this country, you are sadly mistaken," he said. Justice Manmohan said until and unless all organs, including the society, works for it, there will be issue at hand. "Just see, you need empathy in the society which is lacking," the judge said. "So, the real issue is to sensitise the society to ensure all organs of the society work together and one should not expect that it will be solved only by the judiciary," he added. Justice Manmohan said the judiciary may take the lead in the matter, but it will only get implemented at the ground level when everyone works together. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hindustan Times
24 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Vishaka still matters: The Bombay HC judgement
On July 7, 2025, the Bombay High Court delivered its judgment in UNS Women Legal Association (Regd.) vs. Bar Council of India. The petitioners had sought directions for the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa to consider forming the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). While dealing with the issue, the Court held that the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH) do not apply to the advocates. The Court had reasoned that there exists no employer-employee relationship between the Bar Councils and the advocates, whereas, actions if any intended can be dealt by disciplinary committee of Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961. Law (Pexel) The High Court's ruling has created uncertainty. The legal profession today faces critical questions. If not the PoSH Act, then what? How can the legal field be made a safe space for women advocates? And when grievances inevitably arise, where do they find recourse? The answer of the issue posed in UNS Women Legal Association was not all that easy to arrive at. The High Court has applied a narrow interpretation of the PoSH Act. To understand its far reaching impact, it is imperative to understand the history of PoSH Act. Unlike most laws, the law relating to prevention of sexual harassment did not originate in Parliament. It was born out of judicial intervention, following the brutal gang rape of a social worker in a village in Rajasthan, which shook the collective conscience of the nation. It led to the filing of a writ petition in the Supreme Court as a class action seeking enforcement of the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. For the first time, the Supreme Court was confronted with the critical task of addressing the pervasive issue of sexual harassment at the workplace. In its judgement in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Court declared its intention i.e., to protect all working women regardless of their workplace. Essentially, the Vishaka guidelines were never confined to traditional employer-employee relationships. The Supreme Court took an expansive view of the term 'working women,' extending protection to all women engaged in any form of work, irrespective of the nature or structure of their workplace. The guidelines carried a sunset clause. They were meant to lapse once appropriate legislation was enacted. However, the guidelines were meant to be continued till the Vishaka guidelines replaced with suitable legislation. Nearly 15 years later, in Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2012), the Supreme Court again emphasised that the implementation of Vishaka should be true to its substance. The Court observed with concern that women lawyers still lacked a proper grievance redressal mechanism. It directed the Bar Council of India to ensure that all persons registered with State Bar Councils followed the Vishaka guidelines. Further, in Binu Tamta v. Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court further advanced this jurisprudence by formulating the Gender Sensitisation and Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2013, with the aim of making the Supreme Court premises a safer place for women advocates. In this backdrop, the Bombay High Court's recent judgment is concerning. While it acknowledges both Vishaka and Medha Kotwal Lele, it falters to reckon with the directions contained in those judgements. The High Court's reasoning is premised on the belief that the enactment of the PoSH Act rendered Vishaka obsolete due to its sunset clause. However, the Vishaka guidelines still continues to hold good for all working women, who are otherwise not protected by the PoSH Act. The sunset clause did not extinguish Vishaka; it still shines; it merely defers to a legislative framework that meets or exceeds its standards. Where such a framework is found wanting or inapplicable, Vishaka continues. Compounding this, it has been suggested in the judgement that women advocates can pursue disciplinary remedies under the Advocates Act, 1961. A similar issue was dealt with in Medha Kotwal Lele. It led the Supreme Court to direct the government to amend service rules and incorporate the Vishaka guidelines since service rules were observed to be incapable of dealing with complaints of sexual harassment. In sum, the judgment raises serious and far-reaching concerns for all working women, beyond the legal profession. It affects all working women who may not be working in the realm of traditional employer-employee model. Consider gig workers for example. India has 7.7 million of them, yet legal recourse in instances of sexual harassment remains unclear. Companies call them 'partners' instead of employees to avoid social security benefits, which also ends up taking away their rights under the PoSH Act. As work patterns continue to evolve, it must follow with an expansive interpretation of the PoSH Act in line with the Vishaka guidelines. Without which, it risks becoming irrelevant to the majority of women entering the modern workforce. Therefore, even though as per the High Court's Judgement, women advocates do not have recourse to PoSH Act, any working women who is not covered under PoSH can still resort to the Vishaka guidelines and the employer or other responsible person is duty bound to abide by the constitutional mandate of providing a safe workplace. This article is authored by Anindita Pujari, senior advocate and Shaileshwar Yadav, advocate, Supreme Court.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
NEET UG 2025: SC Declines To Consider Plea Alleging Errors In Question Paper
Last Updated: NEET-UG 2025: The petitioner's counsel argued that the three questions were incorrect, citing two expert opinions that supported this claim. On Friday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a plea asserting that there were 'serious errors" in three questions from the NEET-UG 2025 examination. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar advised the petitioner's counsel to approach the relevant high court. The National Testing Agency conducts the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-Undergraduate (NEET-UG) for admissions to MBBS, BDS, AYUSH, and other related courses in both government and private institutions nationwide. The petitioner's counsel argued that the three questions were incorrect, citing two expert opinions that supported this claim. He stated that these questions affected the petitioner's score by 13 marks. 'These (three) questions were absolutely wrong. I have taken two expert opinions and those experts also concur with my views. They have certified my views," the counsel of the petitioner argued. The bench noted that the exam had already concluded. 'You withdraw this and go to the high court," the bench suggested, emphasising not wanting to deny the petitioner any remedy. The counsel requested that the Supreme Court appoint a panel of experts to review the questions within three days and consider their opinions. After the bench expressed unwillingness to entertain the plea, the petitioner's counsel decided to withdraw it. On July 4, the Supreme Court also declined to entertain a separate petition challenging the NEET-UG 2025 results due to an alleged error in one of the questions. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
