Karnataka High Court allows Minister George's son to use forest road 24/7 to access private land within sanctuary's boundary
However, the court made it clear clear that while using the property, the petitioner should not cause any damage, physically or otherwise, to any flora and fauna in the sanctuary.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order recently while allowing a petition filed by Mr. Rana, who had questioned the legality of the restriction against the use of the road between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. imposed in the communication dated March 1, 2024 issued by the department while allowing him to use the road to reach his immovable property only between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.
'...The State government has granted access in terms of Section 27(1)(c) of the Act, but adds a rider that it should not be between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. This cannot be countenanced. If there is access, it should be complete access. Thus, the order that permits access between certain hours is, on the face of it, contrary to Section 27 of the Act and its interpretation by the apex court and the High Court of Madras,' the court said while quashing only the restriction imposed on using the road between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. among other conditions, while permitting him to use the road.
The petitioner had sought permission to use the road within the forest as another road available to reach his property gets submerged during rain or whenever the water level in the Nugu dam raises. It was argued that restriction on the timings to use the road infringed on his fundamental right of movement in the private property owned by him for the last 25 years.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘No locus standi to challenge such an order': SC dismisses child rights body's plea against verdict on Muslim girl's marriage
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) appeal challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that held that a 16-year-old Muslim girl can enter into a valid marriage, saying it did not have any locus standi in the matter. 'We fail to see how NCPCR can be aggrieved by such an order. If the High Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226, seeks to extend protection to two individuals, the NCPCR has no locus standi to challenge such an order. Dismissed,' a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan said. The counsel for the Commission said its challenge was on the question of law, whether a minor girl can enter into a legally valid marriage only because the personal law allows it. The bench, however, said, 'No question of law arises', adding, 'You challenge in an appropriate case please.' Justice Nagarathna also referred to minor teenagers falling in love and said such instances will have to be viewed distinctly. 'There is Pocso [Protection of Children from Sexual Offences] Act, which takes care of the penal cases, but there are romantic cases also where teenagers on the verge of majority run away, where there are genuine romantic cases, they want to get married…don't read such cases the same as criminal cases. We have to differentiate between criminal cases and this,' she said. 'Look at the trauma the girl undergoes if she loves a boy and he is sent to jail, because her parents would file a Pocso case to cover the elopement,' the judge added. A single-judge bench of the high court had on June 13 passed the order on a plea by a Pathankot-based Muslim couple who had approached the court for protection. The high court had said the issue for consideration in the case was not with regard to the validity of the marriage but to address the apprehension raised by the petitioners of danger to their life and liberty. It had directed the senior superintendent of police, Pathankot, to decide the representation of the petitioners and take necessary action as per law. 'The court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the apprehension of the petitioners needs to be addressed. Merely because the petitioners have got married against the wishes of their family members, they cannot possibly be deprived of the fundamental rights as envisaged in the Constitution of India,' the high court had said.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
2023 law insulates CEC, EC from legal action; CECs removal only by Parliament
Agency: PTI Last Updated: New Delhi, Aug 19 (PTI) As opposition parties threaten the impeachment of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and action against the two election commissioners if the INDIA bloc comes to power, here is a look at the law on how they can be removed and whether they can be taken to court for decisions taken by them while in office. Clause 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 grants immunity to the CEC and ECs from any legal action for decisions taken while in office. '… no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against any person who is or was a Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner for any act, thing or word, committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty or function," the clause reads. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has threatened 'stern action" against Kumar and the two ECs over allegations of 'vote chori" (vote theft) through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar, when the INDIA bloc comes to power. Gandhi's threats came days after the CEC served him a seven-day ultimatum to submit a signed affidavit to back his vote-theft claims and said or else, his allegations will be considered invalid. According to Clause 11(1) of the Act, the CEC or an EC can, at any time, by writing under his hand addressed to the president, resign from his office. Clause 11(2) states that the CEC cannot be removed from his office except in like manner and on like grounds as needed for the removal a Supreme Court judge. Supreme Court and high court judges can be removed only through a motion passed by both houses of Parliament. A motion supported by 50 MPs of the Rajya Sabha or 100 MPs of the Lok Sabha has to be moved in Parliament and passed by the House with a two-thirds majority of those present. The law says the other ECs cannot be removed from office except on the CEC's recommendation. PTI NAB RC view comments First Published: August 19, 2025, 15:15 IST 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. Loading comments...
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC junks NCPCR plea against HC rulings on Muslim girls' marriage at puberty
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed petitions by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the National Commission for Women (NCW) challenging Punjab and Haryana high court orders that recognised the validity of marriages of Muslim girls after attaining puberty. The high court had earlier held that Muslim girls can marry on their own volition once they reach puberty, usually at 15. (HT file photo) A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan said the commissions had 'no locus standi' in such personal matters, remarking: 'It is strange that NCPCR, which is for protecting children, has challenged an order protecting two children… Leave these couples alone.' With the dismissal, a January 2023 order of the top court that the high court ruling should not be treated as precedent also came to an end. The high court had earlier held that Muslim girls can marry on their own volition once they reach puberty, usually at 15. During the hearing of connected petitions seeking safeguards against misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in cases of consensual adolescent relationships, the bench underlined that criminal law cannot intrude upon genuine teenage bonds. 'Love is not penal, and it cannot become one,' said the bench, adding that prosecuting adolescents in such cases inflicted lasting trauma. Also Read: Delhi gets 'paralysed' after 2 hours of rain: SC draws parallel in Kerala highway case The bench stressed that misuse of POCSO often arises when parents invoke the law to punish eloping couples in the name of 'honour.' 'Many such cases are filed by parents. If we start treating all such cases as crimes, there will be honour killings,' the bench cautioned. At the same time, the court clarified that each case must be assessed on its own facts: 'Why do you want to prosecute everyone? Police must investigate, apply their mind, and segregate genuine cases from those that should be prosecuted.' The proceedings form part of a wider debate over whether the statutory age of consent under POCSO, currently fixed at 18, needs reconsideration. The Union government, in separate proceedings before the top court, has opposed any dilution, arguing that exceptions for adolescent relationships could weaken child protection laws and embolden abusers.
