Supreme Court orders restoration of forest land in Pune's Kondhwa area
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has ordered the restoration of 29 acres and 15 gunthas (one guntha is equal to 1,089 square feet) of reserved forest land in Pune's Kondhwa Budruk illegally allotted and diverted for construction purposes. The apex court in its ruling on Thursday declared the allotment and all subsequent transactions and developments on the land as void, citing a clear violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
The verdict comes in response to a petition filed in 2007 by Nagrik Chetna Manch, a citizens' group. The petition challenged the 1998 allotment of the forest land to members of the Chavan family, which was later sold to Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society (RRCHS) for a multi-storey residential project.
The court found that the land had been notified as reserved forest in 1879 and remained so in official records. No valid de-reservation process had been undertaken after 1934. The apex court held that the diversion of forest land for non-forest use was illegal and stemmed from a nexus between politicians, bureaucrats, and builders, under the pretext of rehabilitation.
In its order dated May 15, the Supreme Court noted that a recommendation by the divisional commissioner in 1994 acknowledged that the Chavan family was cultivating only three acres and 20 gunthas of the land. Despite this, he recommended allotment of the entire parcel and further opined that prior approval from the central government was not necessary—despite admitting that the land was classified as reserved forest.
The then revenue minister justified the allotment on the grounds that the land had been continuously used for agriculture, claiming the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, did not apply. Following this, the collector issued an allotment order on August 28, 1998, with the condition that the land could only be used for agriculture and not transferred without prior approval.
However, in October 1999, the divisional commissioner granted permission to the Chavan family to sell the land to Aniruddha P Deshpande, chief promoter, RRCHS, for residential development. Over the next few years, multiple permissions were granted—by the district collector in 2005, Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) in 2006, and the ministry of environment and forests in 2007, which approved environmental clearance for 'Raheja Richmond Park' with buildings comprising residential, shopping, and offices, spaces for IT businesses.
After the petition was filed, the Supreme Court directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to investigate the matter. During the proceedings, a 2024 CID (Criminal Investigation Department) report revealed that land records submitted to the court from the Bombay Archives claiming de-reservation were fabricated.
After reviewing the CEC's findings and hearing both sides, the court directed cancellation of the original allotment and all transactions with RRCHS. It further ordered restoration of the land to the forest department and recommended prosecution of those involved—including the then revenue minister, the divisional commissioner, and other officials. The court also called for a special investigation team (SIT) to examine similar cases of forest land allotment in Pune district.
Environmental experts have hailed the verdict as a significant precedent for forest conservation and enforcement of environmental laws. It reinforces the doctrine of public trust and the primacy of the Forest (Conservation) Act.
'This is a significant judgment by the Supreme Court—not only for Pune or Maharashtra, but for the entire country,' said Mahadev Mohite, deputy conservator of forests, Pune Forest Department. 'Forest land across India currently under revenue department control will now be eligible for return to forest departments. In Maharashtra alone, nearly 1.5 lakh hectares of forest land is with the revenue department. In Pune district, it's around 14,000 hectares. The verdict paves the way for reclaiming those lands and bringing them under afforestation and related activities,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
41 minutes ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Refuses To Reduce Lawyer's Sentence For Abusing Woman Judge, Says...
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today rejected a petition by a lawyer convicted of abusing a woman judicial officer in a court in Delhi. The top court refused to reduce the imprisonment sentence to 6 months and said, "Today, the majority of our officers in Delhi are women. They will not be able to function if somebody can get away like this. Think of their state," the bench commented orally. The bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice Manmohan was hearing a plea against the order of the Delhi High Court, which upheld the conviction of a lawyer who used abusive language towards a woman judge in a challan matter inside the trial court. The lawyer used abusive, vulgar expletives after the judge had adjourned the matter. While hearing the plea, Justice Manmohan verbally remarked, "Just see the inspection report, the language used, we cannot even say in the open court". Justice Manmohan further said that if a stern view is not taken against such behaviour, women judicial officers would not be ensured a safe work environment. "Today, the majority of our officers in Delhi are women. They will not be able to function like this- if somebody can get away like this. Think of their state," the bench said. The lawyer, Sanjay Rathore, was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for the offence under Section 509 (intending to outrage modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code, 3 months under Section 189 (injury to public servant), and an additional three months under Section 353 (assault or criminal force against public servant to deter them from their duty). The trial court directed that the sentences would run consecutively, resulting in a total sentence of two years. Later, the High Court said that the sentence would run concurrently and not consecutively, reducing his sentence to 18 months from two years The counsel for the petitioner urged the Supreme Court bench to reduce his term of imprisonment to six months. He stressed several "mitigating factors" for this consideration, like his ageing parents and young children. He informed that the Bar Council has also acted against the lawyer.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Maternity benefits integral to right to life, health and equality
— Rituparna Patgiri In a recent judgment on May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court set aside a Madras High Court order that had denied maternity leave to a government school teacher for the birth of her third child. The Court ruled that maternity leave is part of a woman's reproductive rights and requires constitutional protection. This case once again highlights how maternity benefits are integrally connected to notions of social justice and inclusion. Historically, the provision of paid maternity leave is connected to the idea of the welfare state from the 1880s. It emerged as an outcome as well as a cause of women's influence in policy making. Maternity benefits were first granted in welfare states such as Bismarckian Germany and France to deal with concerns about depopulation and maternal and infant health problems. This helped incorporate more and more women into the state apparatus as well as workforce. In 1919, the newly formed International Labour Organisation (ILO) adopted the Maternity Protection Convention. It called for 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, free medical care during and after pregnancy, job guarantees upon return to work and periodic breaks for nursing. Today, almost all countries have adopted this convention in some or the other form. These gains in terms of reproductive justice are the result of women's activism and push for social justice. Historically, the rights of working women were usually overlooked in policy priorities. In the context of India, the history of women's reproductive rights and freedom dates back to the pre-independence period. The Maternity Benefit Act – drafted by B. R. Ambedkar, N. M. Joshi and M. K. Dixit – was introduced in the Bombay Legislative Council in 1929. This was in response to the presence of a sizable number of women workers in Mumbai's textile industry, who needed better medical care. Mill owners were not happy because they felt that the burden of taking care of women's maternal care was unfairly placed on them. There was resistance to hiring women. Nonetheless, several provincial maternity benefit acts were passed in Madras (1934), Uttar Pradesh (1938), West Bengal (1939) and Assam (1944). In the 1940s-50s, Ambedkar pushed for the codification and unification of labour laws, including maternity protection. In post-independence India, the Maternity Benefit Act was enacted in 1961. It regulated the employment of women in various sectors (including government agencies, private corporations and factories, mines, plantations, shops and establishments with ten or more employees) before and after childbirth, and provided maternity benefits. The Act granted benefits such as 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, no dismissal during maternity leave, no arduous work during pregnancy and nursing breaks after childbirth. The Maternity Benefit Act of 1961 was amended in 2017. This act extended maternity leave to 26 weeks, facilitated the establishment of childcare facilities like creches in workplaces with 50 or more employees, and granted mothers the right to visit these creches during the day. It also required employers to inform women of the maternity leave provisions at the time of joining. These provisions were mandated by the 2000 ILO Maternity Benefit Convention. However, some countries have also introduced paid parental or family leave policies. It extends the idea of paid maternity leave to make workplaces more gender inclusive. In 1974, Sweden became the first country to introduce parental leave – available to both parents – as a gender neutral policy. It went beyond the idea of the traditional notion that caregiving is solely a woman's responsibility. Some countries in Northern Europe – such as Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland – as well as other Eastern European nations like Estonia, Latvia, and Ukraine, provide one year of parental or family leave. There are only eight countries in the world (Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Suriname, Tonga and the United States of America) that do not guarantee paid family leave at the national level for either men or women. In addition, the issue of paid maternity leave has constantly ignited debates about whether the responsibility to pay for the leave period lies with the state or the employer. In the absence of consensus, women continue to bear the brunt and face discrimination in both recruitment and promotion in workplaces. This is reflected in low female labour force participation, which stood at 37 per cent according to Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), 2022–23). Moreover, the India Discrimination Report 2022 by Oxfam India suggests that gender discrimination is the reason for 98 per cent of the employment gap between males and females. Employers are often prejudiced against women because of their caregiving and household responsibilities. Although the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 was a progressive step, its implementation remained sketchy. It applies only to the formal sector where less than 10 per cent of Indian women are employed. Awareness about its provisions is also low, and employers often fail to comply, particularly with requirements such as creche facilities. Moreover, while work from home is permitted by law after the maternity period depending on the nature of the work, it is often left to employers' discretion. As such, women are dependent on the employers' for availing their legal rights. Also Read | Women in judiciary: A mountain to climb It may be argued that there is a need to extend the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act to the informal sector, where the majority of Indian women, especially from marginalised sections, are employed. Women in informal sectors like domestic work, agriculture, construction sites, street vending, etc. also require protection of their reproductive rights in their workplaces. The private sector too needs to be made more compliant in implementing the act. There have also been demands that maternity benefits should be granted to contractual employees in addition to permanent ones. In 2023, the Delhi High Court noted that the denial of maternity benefits is inhumane and violates constitutional rights. This was in response to the University of Delhi's arbitrary termination of the services of a contractual employee while she was on maternity leave. As more and more jobs are privatised and contractualised, extending the act to both the private sector and contractual employees has become imperative. While many countries have moved towards a more progressive parental or family leave policy, India does not yet have a comprehensive family or paternity leave law in place. Fathers do not get paternity leaves, which not only limits their ability to share caregiving responsibilities but also reinforces traditional gender roles that are biologically essentialist. In this context, better implementation of the existing maternity leave policy, alongside a discussion over a comprehensive family leave policy, becomes important. After all, maternity benefits are an integral part of the right to life, the right to health and the right to equality making it a question of women's inclusion, social justice and constitutional protection of their rights. How has the evolution of maternity benefit policies in India reflected broader shifts in the understanding of women's reproductive rights and social justice? Despite the existence of the Maternity Benefit Act (2017), why does the implementation gap persist, especially in the private and informal sectors? What are the implications of excluding informal sector and contractual women workers from maternity benefits, both socially and economically? Do you think better maternity and family leave policies will help increase female labour force participation and reduce the gender employment gap? How does the legal and policy framework for maternity benefits in India compare with global best practices, particularly in the Global North? (Rituparna Patgiri is an Assistant Professor at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Guwahati.) Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
PM Modi's third term marks shift to coalition politics, calibrated diplomacy
NEW DELHI: As the Modi government completes the first year of its unprecedented third consecutive term, India finds itself navigating a landscape defined by both political recalibration at home and assertive re-engagement abroad. The 2024 general elections ushered in a significant shift: for the first time since 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is at the helm of a coalition government. This has necessitated a more consultative and consensus-driven style of governance, compelling the BJP to adapt its political strategy to accommodate the diverse interests within the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). Domestically, this new coalition dynamic has driven both tactical flexibility and policy evolution. While the BJP fell short of a parliamentary majority, it swiftly reasserted its dominance within the NDA and gained momentum in key state elections, indicating political resilience. Legislative moves such as the caste census and the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, underscore a balancing act between ideological priorities and the imperatives of coalition politics.
