Experts suggest increasing priority area for Great Indian Bustards in Rajasthan: Centre tells SC
These critically endangered birds are particularly found in Rajasthan and Gujarat, and the alarming decrease in their numbers can be attributed to frequent collisions with overhead power transmission lines, including those of solar plants, near their habitats.
They have lateral vision as their eyes are on the sides of their head and they find it difficult to change their course of flight when confronted with a live wire.
Observing the birds were an endangered species, requiring urgent protection, the apex court in March last year formed an expert committee to suggest areas for underground laying of power transmission lines in priority and potential GIB habitats in Rajasthan and Gujarat.
The matter came up for hearing on Thursday (August 7) before a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, said initially, around 99,000 square kilometer (sq km) area was held up in Rajasthan and Gujarat where renewable energy projects could not take place for conservation of GIBs.
Referring to the March 2024 verdict, Ms. Bhati said the top court set up the committee, which has submitted two reports, one each for Rajasthan and Gujarat.
She said the judgement referred to priority and potential areas.
Ms. Bhati said the committee opined an original priority area of around 13,000 sq km in Rajasthan should remain sacrosanct and remain a priority area.
"Additionally, the committee has recommended 850 sq km to be added as an additional priority area which should remain sacrosanct," she said, pointing out a dissent note in the report over some aspects.
Ms.Bhati said the court would have to consider both the reports.
The 2024 verdict noted the total priority area was 13,663 sq km in both States whereas the total potential area was 80,680 sq km.
The verdict further observed in Rajasthan, 13,163 sq km was priority area, 78,580 sq km was potential area and 5,977 sq km was additionally important areas.
Similarly, for Gujarat, the verdict noted 500 sq km was priority area, 2,100 sq km was potential area and 677 sq km was additionally important areas.
During Thursday's hearing, the Bench asked whether there was any opposition to the committee's recommendations.
"One aspect which we are indicating is that there is a very high priority area because the breeding is taking place just adjacent to that and we believe that should be included," senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioner, said.
Referring to another aspect, Mr. Divan said they just wanted it to be refined.
"They have suggested a very good thing, that is, a power corridor so that all the lines are at one place instead of criss-crossing and creating a hazard," he said.
The Bench posted the matter for September 16.
In its March 2024 verdict, the apex court said the order passed by it in April 2019 would need to be suitably modulated and a blanket direction for the undergrounding of low-voltage and high-voltage power lines would need calibration and to be looked at by domain experts.
The apex court was hearing a PIL filed by retired IAS officer M.K.Ranjitsinh and others which said the birds were on the verge of extinction and the top court's 2021 order hadn't been complied with.
The top court, in its 2021 judgment on the PIL, passed a slew of directions to protect the birds.
Gujarat and Rajasthan governments were ordered to replace overhead electric cables with underground cables, wherever feasible, and install bird diverters in priority areas where the birds live.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
3 minutes ago
- India Today
How Trump's judicial picks could reshape abortion rights for decades
A review by The Associated Press shows that several of President Donald Trump's nominees to the federal courts have revealed anti-abortion views, been associated with anti-abortion groups or defended abortion have helped defend their state's abortion restrictions in court and some have been involved in cases with national impact, including on access to medication Trump has said issues related to abortion should be left to the states, the nominees, with lifetime appointments, would be in position to roll back abortion rights long after Trump leaves the White HAS BEEN INCONSISTENT ON ABORTIONadvertisement Trump has repeatedly shifted his messaging on abortion, often giving contradictory or vague the years before his most recent presidential campaign, Trump had voiced support for a federal ban on abortion on or after 20 weeks in pregnancy and said he might support a national ban around 15 weeks. He later settled on messaging that decisions about abortion access should be left to the his campaign, Trump has alternated between taking credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade and striking a more neutral tone. That's been an effort to navigate the political divide between his base of anti-abortion supporters and the broader public, which largely supports access to NOMINEES WITH ANTI-ABORTION BACKGROUNDSOne Trump nominee called abortion a 'barbaric practice" while another referred to himself as a 'zealot' for the anti-abortion movement. A nominee from Tennessee said abortion deserves special scrutiny because 'this is the only medical procedure that terminates a life.'One from Missouri spread misinformation about medication abortion, including that it 'starves the baby to death in the womb' in a lawsuit aiming to challenge the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the abortion pill experts and abortion rights advocates warn of a methodical remaking of the federal courts in a way that could pose enduring threats to abortion access Meyler, a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University, said judicial appointments 'are a way of federally shaping the abortion question without going through Congress or making a big, explicit statement.''It's a way to cover up a little bit what is happening in the abortion sphere compared to legislation or executive orders that may be more visible, dramatic and spark more backlash,' she REPRESENT TRUMP'S PROMISES TO AMERICANS: WHITE HOUSE Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said 'every nominee of the President represents his promises to the American people and aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling.''The Democrats' extreme position on abortion was rejected in November in favour of President Trump's common sense approach, which allows states to decide, supports the sanctity of human life, and prevents taxpayer funding of abortion,' Fields said in a statement to the focused primarily on the economy and immigration during his 2024 campaign, the issues that surveys showed were the most important topics for RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND GROUP RESPONDAnti-abortion advocates say it's premature to determine whether the nominees will support their objectives but that they're hopeful based on the names put forth so far.'We look forward to four more years of nominees cut from that mold,' said Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs for the national anti-abortion organisation SBA Pro-Life rights advocates said Trump is embedding abortion opponents into the judiciary one judge at a time'This just feeds into this larger strategy where Trump has gotten away with distancing himself from abortion, saying he's going to leave it to the states, while simultaneously appointing anti-abortion extremists at all levels of government,' said Mini Timmaraju, president of the national abortion rights organisation Reproductive Freedom for All.- Ends
The Hindu
33 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Fast-track courts in Delhi fail to fulfil promise of providing speedy justice
The Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs), meant to speed up trials in rape and child sexual abuse cases, are underperforming in Delhi, according to data recently presented in the Lok Sabha by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal. The national capital figures in a list of States and Union Territories with delayed trials in FTSCs. In a bid to curb crimes against women and children, the Central government had enacted the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, introducing stricter provisions. By March that year, 1,66,882 rape and POCSO cases were pending in courts across the country. Concerned by the backlog, in July 2019, the Supreme Court directed that any district with more than 100 pending POCSO cases must have an exclusive special court to handle them. Acting on this direction, the Central government, in August 2019, launched FTSCs exclusively for cases related to rape and child sexual abuse. Under the scheme, each FTSC is tasked with disposing of at least 165 cases annually. As of June 30 this year, 725 FTSCs, including 392 exclusive POCSO courts, are functional in 30 States and Union Territories. Delhi currently has 16 FTSCs, including 11 exclusively for POCSO matters. Since its inception, 6,278 cases have been institutedin these courts, but only 2,718 have been disposedof as of June 30. Toll on survivors Unnecessary delay in the legal process involving rape cases only serves to prolong the victim's suffering, according to jurists. 'The trauma experienced by survivors of sexual assault is profound and enduring, and each moment spent waiting for justice exacerbates their pain,' Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court had observed in a March 2024 ruling related to a rape case. 'This delay in the administration of justice not only interferes with their healing process but also prolongs their journey towards closure and recovery from such a traumatic experience,' Justice Sharma noted. 'Needless delays' Advocate Shilpi Jain, who secured a conviction in just 11 days in a high-profile German tourist rape case in Alwar, Rajasthan, in 2006, says the delays are 'avoidable'. 'Fast-track special courts are not fast at all. These cases rarely have many witnesses. They could conclude in two months if there's seriousness,' Ms. Jain stated. 'As far as rape cases are concerned, there is rarely any eyewitness. Cross-examination is never lengthy. So it should conclude in two months,' she said. 'The spirit behind setting up FTSCs was that these courts must finish the cases much before regular courts. But, they end up becoming the same,' she commented, attributing delays to a lack of seriousness, which has to come from the State. 'Political gimmick' Meanwhile, senior advocate Rebecca John questioned the very premise of FTSCs, calling them a 'political gimmick'. 'I have been a long-term opponent of FTSCs. How many cases can you fast-track? The docket is overflowing with cases. When you fast-track one case, it is at the cost of another case,' the senior advocate told The Hindu. 'It is nothing but a political gimmick which is employed from time to time to satisfy public outrage, but nothing comes out of it. There is no substitute for more infrastructure. You can't pull out the same judges from the same pool and give them a few cases, and say fast track it,' Ms. John underscored.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Mahadayi water tribunal also gets year's extension
NEW DELHI: After giving back-to-back extension to two water disputes tribunals, Centre has extended the tenure of a third one, the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal, as well for a period of one year with effect from Aug 16. Constituted in Nov 2010 for adjudicating the dispute over river water sharing among Goa, Maharashtra and Karnataka, the tribunal has had the third longest tenure among the four active water disputes tribunals in the country, which continue to get extensions year after year, as they have not been able to resolve the long-pending disputes. The last extension to the Mahadayi tribunal was granted in Feb for a period of six months but, ahead of expiry of its term, it requested Centre to extend the timeline for submission of its further report by one year. Accordingly, a gazette notification to this effect was issued last week, extending its tenure under Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. The tribunal had submitted its earlier report and decision in Aug 2018, but all the three states made objections, seeking revised reports which would address their respective concerns. The tribunal with the longest tenure is the Ravi and Beas Tribunal constituted 39 years ago, followed by the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal which was constituted 21 years ago in April 2004. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Do you have a mouse? Desert Order Undo Both these tribunals were given an extension last month. The Mahanadi tribunal is the fourth active water disputes tribunal, constituted in March 2018 for adjudicating disputes between Odisha and Chhattisgarh. As both the states have BJP govts, they may go for an amicable solution to resolve their long-pending issues. Last month, Odisha CM Mohan Charan Majhi wrote to his Chhattisgarh counterpart Vishnu Deo Sai for a mutually beneficial settlement. He has proposed that a joint committee, comprising officials of both the states and the Central Water Commission, arrive at an equitable and timely solution to the dispute.
