Kerala's farm success under study by Supreme Court panel
1
2
3
Chandigarh: In a significant step towards agricultural transformation, the High-Powered Committee on Agrarian Reforms covened a meeting on Thursday to study and deliberate on the best practices adopted by the Kerala govt for making agriculture a sustainable and profitable enterprise.
The high-powered committee, chaired by former judge of the Punjab and Haryana high court justice Nawab Singh, was constituted by a bench of the Supreme Court of India to recommend comprehensive reforms in the agrarian sector with the aim of improving farmers' welfare.
Kerala agriculture minister S P Prasad elaborated on Kerala's strategic approach towards agrarian welfare. He highlighted landmark initiatives, including Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council Keralam (VFPCK) support programmes, paddy procurement policies ensuring MSP for farmers, Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission – providing relief to debt-burdened farmers, State Crop Insurance Scheme tailored to local conditions, natural calamity relief mechanisms, Karshaka Pension Scheme to provide social security to aged farmers, and promotion of organic and natural farming.
The officers of the Kerala agriculture department delivered a comprehensive presentation outlining these and other pioneering efforts that have transformed Kerala's agricultural landscape.
The discussions centred around key issues such as increasing farmers' income, reducing agrarian distress, and ensuring the long-term sustainability of agriculture. The Kerala delegation shared valuable insights into the initiatives that have positively impacted the farming community in their state.
The meeting was attended by prominent members of the committee and dignitaries, including Raja Shekhar Vundru, additional chief secretary, agriculture and farmers welfare department, Haryana; Devinder Sharma, noted agriculture scientist; Sukhpal Singh, chairman of the Punjab State Farmers & Farm Workers Commission; Prof Ranjit Singh Ghuman, Professor of Eminence at Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar; Sriram Venkataraman, director, department of agriculture, govt of Kerala; Swaran Singh Boparai, former vice-chancellor of Punjabi University, Patiala; Col J SGill and Vikash Kumar, professor at CRRID.
MSID:: 121343062 413 |
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
14 hours ago
- News18
'State Can't Object When Families Agree': SC Grants Bail To Man Jailed For Interfaith Marriage
Last Updated: Aman Siddiqui had been in jail for nearly six months after being booked under the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act The Supreme Court of India has granted bail to a man who was arrested under Uttarakhand's anti-conversion law after he married a woman of a different faith with the full consent of both families. Aman Siddiqui had been in jail for nearly six months after being booked under the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act. He was accused of religious conversion through marriage, even though the marriage was consensual and supported by both families. In a ruling delivered on 19 May, a Supreme Court bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the state cannot object to the couple's decision to live together as their marriage was voluntary and had the approval of their respective parents, Bar and Bench reported. 'We observe that the respondent – State cannot have any objection to the appellant and his wife residing together inasmuch as they have been married as per the wishes to their respective parents and families. In the circumstances, we find that this is an appropriate case where the relief of bail ought to be granted to the appellant herein," the Court said. Siddiqui was charged under Sections 3 and 5 of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, which prohibit and penalise religious conversion through force, fraud, or inducement. He was also booked under Sections 318(4) and 319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which relate to cheating and impersonation. He had initially sought bail from the Uttarakhand High Court, but it was denied. He then approached the Supreme Court, where his lawyer argued that the case was baseless and filed solely due to the interfaith nature of the marriage, which in fact had the consent of both families. The counsel also pointed out that the chargesheet had already been filed and that Siddiqui had spent almost half a year in custody.
Hans India
2 days ago
- Hans India
From socialism to market economy-Power over private property
The judgment allows for some private resources to be used for the public good under Article 39(b) while preserving individuals' property rights, supporting India's economic growth within a democratic framework. The court emphasized that DPSPs are not enforceable laws. The government must balance social welfare goals with citizens' rights. Recently, former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud led the majority (8:1) and wrote: 'India's economic trajectory has shifted from socialism to liberalization and market reforms. The Constitution does not endorse any single economic ideology.' He added that calling all private property 'material resources' forces a rigid socialist theory, which no longer reflects India's democratic economic reality. Are there any limits on power of the government over private property? Can the government seize any private property by calling it a 'material resource of the community' under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution? On 5 November 2024, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic verdict in the Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra case. The ruling settled a long-standing constitutional question: It answered with a clear no, thereby reaffirming individual property rights and limiting government power. This judgment has brought clarity to the conflict between Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and Fundamental Rights, and overruled earlier judgments that adopted a broad socialist interpretation of Article 39(b). Ignoring the Directive Principles Article 39(b) is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution. It says: 'The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.' It encourages laws for equitable distribution of wealth and resources, but DPSPs are not legally enforceable—they are only guiding principles. Do we have any Property Rights? Before 1978, right to property was a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31. However, due to frequent land reforms, bank nationalization, and other socialist welfare measures, the Parliament passed the: 25th Constitutional Amendment (1971): Introduced Article 31C to protect laws made under Article 39(b) and (c) from being challenged for violating Fundamental Rights like Articles 14, 19, and 31. 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976): Further expanded Article 31C to cover all Directive Principles, not just 39(b) and (c). But in Minerva Mills (1980), the Supreme Court struck down this wider protection, ruling that only Article 39(b) and (c) could remain shielded. Where Article 31C was upheld: In the famous Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court upheld Article 31C, but with a caveat — laws passed under it must still pass judicial review. This was to prevent misuse of DPSPs to undermine basic structure principles like judicial independence or fundamental rights. Thus, the Court permitted limited curtailment of property rights, but only in pursuit of the common good as envisaged in Articles 39(b) and (c), and not at the cost of the basic structure of the Constitution. A 32-year fight for justice: Though justice is upheld in some cases, delay is the biggest problem. The current verdict comes from a petition filed by the Property Owners Association (POA) in Mumbai, challenging Chapter VIIIA of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (MHADA), 1976, which permitted the government to acquire 'cessed properties' (old private buildings) for restoration. The POA argued this violated their right to property, and that Article 39(b) had been wrongly used to justify taking over all private property. The case spanned decades and multiple bench references, eventually resulting in this nine-judge bench being formed. Govt cannot acquire private property per se: The Court ruled that not every private property can be called a 'material resource of the community'. Article 39(b) does not give the government a blanket power to seize all private assets for the 'common good'. Material resources- Limited, not universal: The court clarified that 'material resources' must meet specific criteria such as: Belonging in public trust; Having community impact; being scarce or capable of causing harm by monopoly and possessing intrinsic public value like water and minerals, among others. Thus, private homes or businesses do not automatically qualify. Balanced approach to 'distribution' The term 'distribution' under Article 39(b) includes: Government acquisition and redistribution to private parties — only when it benefits the common good. So, laws under 39(b) must meet both public interest and proportionality tests. Survival of Article 31C: The Court confirmed Article 31C still protects laws made under Article 39(b) and (c) from Fundamental Rights challenges, but not from judicial review. This limits the misuse of Article 31C as a shield. The court recognized the dramatic shifts like private property, from traditional assets to data and space exploration. The judgment emphasizes the need to respect evolving market realities. Are we reinforcing a market-oriented economic model? It is interpreted that this judgment offers protection for marginalized communities against the unjust acquisition of their small farms and forest lands while promoting responsible management of essential public resources. The judgment allows for some private resources to be used for the public good under Article 39(b) while preserving individuals' property rights, supporting India's economic growth within a democratic framework. The court emphasized that DPSPs are not enforceable laws. The government must balance social welfare goals with citizens' rights. Justice Iyer's opinion was relied on by subsequent Constitution Benches in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing and Mafatlal Industries judgments in 1982 and 1997, respectively; hence, necessitating a reference to the nine-judge Bench. The CJI quoted a 'harsh' observation made by the Chief Justice about Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in a 'proposed judgment'. Justice Iyer was a former top court judge whose humanism and reforms in criminal justice are considered legendary. His coinage 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' is still assiduously quoted in Supreme Court judgments. Justice Krishna Iyer's dissenting view in Ranganath Reddy (1977) that all private wealth could be treated as public resources. The judgment noted that while Justice Iyer's ideas were rooted in the socialist vision of the 1970s, India's voters have since chosen liberal economic policies. Rejecting the view of Justice Iyer as one presenting a 'particular ideology', the majority opinion penned by Chief Justice Chandrachud said India has moved on from socialism to liberalisation to market-based reforms. Justice Iyer was a former top court judge, whose humanism and reforms in criminal justice are considered legendary. His coinage 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' is still assiduously quoted in Supreme Court judgments. In separate opinions, Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia, he had observed that 'the Krishna Iyer doctrine does a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution'. Dissenting: Justice B.V. Nagarathna: 'Judges must not decry the contributions of their predecessors. The institution is greater than individuals.' Justice Dhulia praised Justice Iyer's humanist vision, saying: 'The Krishna Iyer Doctrine was built on fairness and empathy. In dark times, it illuminated our path.' Though he dissented on interpretational grounds, he recognized the spirit of the Constitution as a living document, balancing rights and welfare. Finally, the November 5, 2024 Supreme Court ruling is a turning point in the constitutional understanding of property rights in India, saying: Individual property rights are protected. The government cannot seize private property arbitrarily. Article 39(b) remains relevant but must be applied with caution and clear public purpose. Article 31C survives, but judicial review cannot be ousted. The Directive Principles must align with fundamental rights, not override them. Courts remain vigilant in preserving constitutional balance between economic justice and individual liberty. This landmark judgment reaffirms the Supreme Court's role as a constitutional guardian, ensuring that the state acts for public welfare without violating basic rights. It also recognizes the evolving nature of economic policies in a vibrant democracy, where people, not dogmas, shape the nation's path. (The writer is Professor of the Constitution of India and founder-Dean, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Indian Express
Overall area of water bodies along four key lakes in Ahmedabad has reduced by 46%, says report, points out ‘lack of water sensitivity in statutory plans'
While there has been much talk over the status of redevelopment in their surrounding areas, the overall area of water bodies along four prominent lakes in Ahmedabad — Vastrapur, Memnagar, Thaltej and Sola — has reduced by almost 46%, according to a report by the Keshav Varma-led High-Level Committee (HLC) on Urban Planning under Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, government of Gujarat, released by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday. Analysing the changes in lake land cover following the Lake Redevelopment and Interlinking of Lakes (LRIL) project, the report reveals that the redevelopment, in most cases, has happened by reclamation of lake land, effectively reducing the overall water spread of the lake. 'Lakes like Thaltej and Sola are still under threat due to encroachment because of lack of interventions,' the report added. Pointing out that often, lake redevelopment projects proposed with the goal of conserving them 'resulted in dried-up lakes', the report stressed that this was largely because of the vision of redeveloping the waterbody (mostly for placemaking) while ignoring its catchment, i.e., the streams that carry water to the lake and other green and grey infrastructure around the lakes. The section on water-sensitive urban planning by Professor Mona Iyer, CEPT University, with inputs from Prakash Datta, officer on special duty (OSD), Urban Development and Urban Housing Department; D P Desai, Chief Executive Authority of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA); and Harpal Dave, Convenor, HLC Gujarat, highlighted, '47 per cent of new development in Ahmedabad is sited on high and very high recharge potential zone' as 'built up area in Ahmedabad increased by 46 per cent in the 0-50 km region between 2000 and 2015'. Urban natural water systems—such as rivers, wetlands, ponds, and groundwater—offer a range of essential ecosystem services that contribute to the health and well-being of urban environments. '83 per cent of urban water bodies in Gujarat are being used for groundwater recharge (NIUA, 2023). In the census of water bodies, 54,069 water bodies have been enumerated, out of which 98.3% (53,156) are in rural areas and the remaining 1.7% (913) are in urban areas. Out of these urban water bodies, 800 are natural and 113 are human-made. (MoJS, 2023),' states the first-of-its-kind exercise of census of water bodies, conducted in 2018-19 and published in 2023. Highlighting the role of and challenges faced by urban water systems and their planning, the report has listed the case study of Vastrapur lake and smaller lakes around it. A comparative analysis of aerial imagery from 2000, the proposed Town planning scheme (TPS) Bodakdev 1B, and aerial imagery from 2020 of Vastrapur lake reveals a declining trend in blue cover, highlighting the rapid loss of water bodies due to unregulated urban development. 'In the 2000 aerial image, the lake is prominently visible. However, in TPS Bodakdev 1B, the lake was appropriated, its land use reclassified, and a proposal for Socially and Economically Weaker Sections (SEWS) housing was introduced. Further analysis of the 2020 aerial imagery shows that a haat (marketplace) had been constructed on the site, completely replacing the lake,' the report stated. 'This case clearly demonstrates how statutory plans often lack water sensitivity, facilitating the conversion of water bodies into developable land and ultimately leading to their disappearance. The water bodies vanished as they were not recognised in the statutory plan. Champal talavadi labelled as a water body in the TP scheme. Dhoyu Talaavdi labelled as a neighbourhood centre. Both the erstwhile water bodies are now filled and developed as a land parcel,' it added. Terming the LRIL, which started in 2003, as a 'good initiative with mixed impacts', the report pointed out that it was a result of four triggers — climate extremes, groundwater depletion, lake encroachment, and civic activism and judicial intervention. Mapping of lakes is among the foremost steps towards their conservation; it is a quintessential element of their identification, the report stated. Several lakes have been lost due to oversight in notifying them, the report has pointed out. What should be taken care of during redevelopment, according to the report: -Mapping of the streams should be an integral part of the plan-making process. -Conservation of streams will help ensure water in the lakes and prevent urban flooding. -Statutory plans should recognise the streams that need to be conserved and make relevant proposals. -The extent of conservation measures should be determined by the stream order. -Authorities and developers should ensure that the flow of the streams is not restricted by development. Any linear, public infrastructure cutting across water channels should be retrofitted to allow unhindered passage of water. For example, stretches of roads cutting across the streams should be provided with culverts to allow unhindered flow of water. – (Appointment of) An officer in charge (catchment management authority/officer) or creation of task force/ water management services department, directly reporting to the Municipal Commissioner and District Collector. Or, specially created water systems cells for their respective administrative jurisdiction that would be responsible for periodic survey and record verification of demarcated water bodies. -Any re-engineering of the demarcated streams or lakes should be done with the permission of the officer-in-charge. -All water bodies to be given high priority and attention. A state-level empowered committee chaired by the Principal Secretary (Urban Development) should take decisions in case of any disputes in the demarcated water bodies. The committee should include urban planners, environment engineers, hydrologists, geologists, and other invited subject experts as per context-specific requirements.
