Encroachment of Channapatna lakes gets Upa Lokayukta's goat
He also observed that the lakes play a vital role in providing sources of water for various purposes, like drinking, farming and other chores. If what is stated in the news item is true, then the same would violate the right under the Constitution of India. The news indicates that various lakes in and around Channapatna town are polluted.
As per Section 87 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, obligatory functions are cast on the municipal councils to look after the water bodies, sewage, drainage work, supply of water etc. Such being the case, it is obligatory that the City Municipal Council maintain, and make sure that the lakes are not polluted to ensure that the citizens get a clean and healthy environment, he noted.
Justice Phaneendra has also stated that the Karnataka Lokayukta Act casts an obligation on Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta under Section 12(1) for redressal of the grievance of the public and Section 2(1) casts an obligation to prevent the maladministration by the public authorities. In light of this, 'I am of the firm opinion that the news item published in TNIE can be treated as source material for me to exercise my suo motu power under Sections 7(2) and 9(3)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, I exercise my power and initiate suo motu proceedings', he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Deccan Herald
23 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
DPDPA gaps delay privacy promise
Eight years after the landmark K S Puttaswamy judgement affirmed privacy as a fundamental right, its promise remains unfulfilled. The judgement, invoking the Preamble, recognised privacy as an enabling right essential for the fulfillment of all other fundamental rights, including equality. Yet, as automation becomes pervasive across sectors like healthcare and social security, India's legal framework proves inadequate in addressing the biases and discrimination that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) 2023 is a step in the right direction, it suffers from significant shortcomings. The Act's Section 7 provides for 'certain legitimate uses', creating loopholes for extensive profiling and automated decisions. This allows personal data collection without explicit consent for various purposes, including state functions and employment, not just when voluntarily provided..A more significant weakness is the Act's failure to define profiling or regulate automated decision-making. In simple terms, automated decision-making means the use of algorithms to make a decision based on certain given facts or a collection of facts. Profiling, on the other hand, means analysing various aspects of an individual to decide about 'automated processing' is defined, it is not used to grant any substantive rights to the affected individuals. This legislative lacuna is glaring, especially given the B N Srikrishna Committee's recommendations for automated safeguards. While Section 8(3) requires data fiduciaries to ensure data accuracy when making decisions that affect the data principal, it doesn't mandate a right to challenge the process itself. This opacity creates an accountability vacuum, making it virtually impossible to challenge unfair or discriminatory consequences of this regulatory vacuum are profound, manifesting in tangible bias and discrimination across vital sectors. In public services, algorithmic systems like Telangana's Samagra Vedika, designed to assess welfare eligibility, have reportedly excluded approximately 15,000 marginalised individuals due to technical glitches or flawed financial sector faces a significant challenge with digital lending algorithms that can inadvertently perpetuate historical biases, leading to unequal access to credit. This was highlighted by a recent incident involving an Indian NBFC, where an Artificial Intelligence(AI) tool miscategorised over 17,000 low-income applicants as high-risk. The system's bias, which favoured applicants with a strong digital footprint and extensive data, was corrected only after crucial human intervention, underscoring the vital role of the 'human-in-the-loop' approach. The incident serves as a powerful reminder that while the RBI's FREE-AI framework is a proactive step, human oversight remains indispensable in AI-driven credit engaged in platform work are also at the mercy of algorithms and automated decision-making. Studies show that unregulated use of AI in the gig economy can be detrimental to platform workers. While states such as Rajasthan and Karnataka have passed bills to regulate platform work, these bills do not address the use of AI by companies to 'manage' their workforce..A case for human cost is compounded by the absence of a 'right to explanation' in the DPDPA. The Act defines 'gain' and 'loss,' but only uses these terms for monetary penalties under Section 33, not to grant relief for the tangible harm caused by automated data processing. Furthermore, since the right not to be solely subjected to automated decision-making has not been incorporated in the DPDP Act, people are left without a remedy in case of discrimination or errors in the automation process. This lack of legal remedy is against the tenet of ubi jus remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy), given that privacy is a fundamental legislative vacuum in India stands in stark contrast to global frameworks. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) and the United Kingdom's GDPR provide crucial safeguards like mandatory Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) and the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions. These safeguards, along with the EU AI Act's classification of high-risk activities like credit assessment, impose strict requirements on providers, including human oversight and data quality checks. These crucial safeguards are missing from the we reflect on the anniversary of the Puttaswamy judgement, it is clear that its promise of digital rights remains unfulfilled when automated systems can discriminate without our knowledge or consent. India possesses a unique opportunity to lead in ethical AI governance by amending the DPDPA. By including a right to explanation, a clear definition of profiling, and specific regulation of automated decisions, we can fulfil the true promise of privacy and equality in the digital age..(Utkarsh is a final-year law student at RMLNLU, Lucknow; Harshita is a student at National Law University, Jodhpur)
The Hindu
23 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Nuclear laws and the role of Opposition
Political parties in India, especially the Opposition, will soon need to take a view on a critical subject with a bearing on the country's energy security and climate change mitigation. The proposal to amend the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act (CLNDA), 2010, and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 1962 — which in the past witnessed intense debate — sooner or later, is expected to come up in Parliament. With the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance government indicating its intention to introduce it during the monsoon session, Parliament will revisit the issue whenever the Bills are introduced. The plan is to amend the CLNDA and the AEA to address the vexatious issue of liability on the suppliers of equipment and permit private parties in the field of nuclear energy, respectively. The India-U.S. Civil Nuclear Agreement and the enactment of the CLNDA led to a series of standoffs between the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government and Opposition parties — the BJP and the Left parties led by CPI(M). Historical context Fifteen years ago, the government introduced a Bill to write laws for compensation to the people for nuclear accidents, as India was not a party to any of the existing conventions. Parliament was engaged in a lengthy debate, as the government preferred the passage of liability along the lines of international covenants. Lack of requisite strength in the Rajya Sabha, dreadful memories of the suffering of people from the 1984 Bhopal gas leak, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and the damage to the nuclear reactor at Fukushima, Japan, following an earthquake, provided the backdrop. Sensing an opportunity, the combined opposition pressed to raise the compensation bar on suppliers of nuclear reactor equipment and beyond the immediate compensation liability on the operator. The insertion of the clause rendered the Act dead on arrival. Western country equipment suppliers shied away. An attempt to tweak it a decade ago made little difference, and international response remains lukewarm. In 2007, during the debate around the nuclear deal, questions were raised about whether it was considering amending the AEA, allowing private sector participation. The government then noted that the 1997 report of the Dr. Raja Ramanna Committee had been examined, and a review of the Act had been under consideration since then. Now both issues are scheduled to return on Parliament's agenda. Raising concerns In February this year, the Congress raised objections to the announcement to amend the Acts. It said the move dilutes accountability of suppliers, raises domestic risk, and protects equipment suppliers, reflecting the Convention on Supplementary Compensation, compromising the citizens' safety, and leaning in favour of international corporations. The party also alleged that the move was intended to appease foreign interests, particularly France and the U.S., ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit. Back in 2010, then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated that the process for compensation for nuclear accidents began in 1999, and such a law was needed. The government then dismissed claims that the proposed law was timed with a visit by President Barack Obama. Now, the central issue is whether the Congress will take a studied stance on the proposed legislation. There is a serious debate taking place outside on the move to build small modular reactors, with many countries vying to have a piece of the pie. The contribution of energy from nuclear power is estimated to be slightly over 3% of the total power generation. At the end of last year, the installed capacity of 24 nuclear power plants stood at 8.8 GW, the government informed Parliament. This was when the country set a target of 10 GW by the year 2000. The government now aims for 22.48 GW by 2031-32 and an ambitious 100 GW by 2047. In the past, the Opposition took an about-turn on three key issues. At the turn of the century, opposition led to a delay in enacting an amendment to the Patents Act, 1970. Eventually, after a change of sides, the Opposition's support resulted in the mandatory amendment. A decade ago, on two other contentious issues, the Opposition stalled laws, one on insurance law to raise the foreign direct investment ceiling, and the ratification of the exchange of enclaves with Bangladesh under the Land Border Agreement. Finally, these proposed laws were enacted with the then-Opposition offering support, with minor or no concessions. Leaders across the aisle walked together to arrive at an agreed position as the governments of the day worked, in their assessment, to further the national interest. Need for a debate Today, the NDA government does not have to look across the aisle for support. The current issues have long-term implications, and there is a need for a well-rounded discussion that takes into account all factors around nuclear energy, the shift towards small modular reactors, the larger question of disposal of nuclear waste, and allied subjects. The Opposition should play a leading role in initiating this discussion and decide accordingly. Otherwise, during a debate on a contentious issue two decades ago, a member on the Treasury Benches remarked to another member of the Opposition that a change of sides should not result in a change of stand. K. V. Prasad is a senior Delhi-based journalist and authored a book Indian Parliament Shaping Foreign Policy
The Hindu
23 minutes ago
- The Hindu
A historic move, but still unequal
Hoping to bring down the curtain on the three-decade-old struggle for internal reservation, the Karnataka government on Tuesday agreed on a matrix for slicing up the overall 17% reservation for the Scheduled Castes (SCs) in the State. The Madiga community (Dalit left), who led the struggle from the front, will now get a 6% share in the overall matrix. The relatively better-off Dalit right (Holeya) group will receive 6%, while the 'less backward' communities of Lambanis, Bhovis, Korama, and Koracha — along with 59 microscopic communities — have been allocated 5%. The demand for internal reservation, which gained momentum over the past decade and a half, received judicial clearance last August, when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of creating a matrix within the larger SC quota. In Karnataka, 101 castes have been notified as SCs. The government mostly relied on the recommendations of the one-man commission headed by retired judge H.N. Nagamohan Das, who submitted a report on August 4. The report recommended classifications following a two-month house-to-house survey, which collected empirical data on the socio-economic and educational backwardness of about 93% of Karnataka's estimated 1.16 crore SC population. The Cabinet's decision, announced by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, appears to have been weighed down by political compulsions. While the commission recommended five categories based on backwardness, the government reduced these to three to accommodate the demands of the politically stronger Dalit right and 'less backward' communities. In doing so, the State government let go of Category A, which was recommended for 1% reservation by the commission for the most backward 59 microscopic communities, many of which have double-digit populations and no representation in bureaucracy or politics. The Cabinet also dropped the 1% reservation recommended for Adi Karnataka, Adi Dravida, and Adi Andhra communities under Category E. They have been split between right and left groups. Under the new categorisation, microscopic communities — around 4.97% of the total SC population — will now have to fight with relatively better-off 'less backward' SC communities that have made strides in securing education and finding public sector employment. While many concede that bringing consensus among all groups vying to have a bigger pie in the matrix was not easy, it was believed that in the jockeying for a higher share, the microscopic communities — many of them nomadic — did not get the justice they had hoped for. Of the six Dalit Ministers in the Cabinet, none represents these communities, and there was no voice in their favour. In the final decision, both Dalit right and 'less backward' communities received 1% more than the commission's recommendations. In Karnataka, the Dalit left is seen as veering towards the BJP, while the Dalit right is believed to be with the Congress. The 'less backward' communities are believed to be divided between the BJP and Congress. The question of internal reservation has been an important component of Dalit politics in Karnataka over the past two decades. While the A.J. Sadashiva Commission, set up in 2005, submitted its report in 2012, the internal reservation remained mostly rhetoric as Dalit right groups successfully brought pressure on the government not to implement its recommendations. The judiciary then had also not cleared the internal reservation. The BJP government in 2022 tried to tinker with the recommendations and came out with its matrix that was unacceptable to Dalit right and 'less backward' communities. It also increased the overall reservation for SCs from 15% to 17%. Ahead of the 2023 Assembly elections, the Congress promised in its manifesto to introduce internal reservation. Following the commission's recommendations, though not officially released, Dalit right groups have been vigorously campaigning against the report, urging the government to drop it in what was seen as a posture for hard bargaining. While the clearing of the internal quota is historic, in the end, the relatively more powerful communities within the larger SC population seem to have gained an upper hand, while the most marginalised still have a long fight.
