Cambodians on tiger-saving trip caught in jumbos' crosshairs
CHENNAI: Blame it on the eleventh-hour change in the plan! A 15-member delegation from Cambodia, that came all the way to study the state's tiger-conservation efforts, ended up staying in a partially-sealed 'illegal' resort inside the notified Sigur Elephant Corridor at Mudumalai Tiger Reserve (MTR) in the Nilgiris.
Giving company to the members of the delegation at Monarch Safari Park at Bokkapuram in Masinagudi, owned by a veteran Bollywood actor, are senior officials of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and Wildlife Institute of India (WII). And, they have been staying at the resort, a part of which is facing the threat of demolition, since Friday.
The facility is one among the 28 illegal resorts in the area that is facing demolition. A senior NTCA official told TNIE the bilateral programme was originally scheduled at Panna National Park in Madhya Pradesh. 'We were forced to shift it to South India due to military escalation between India and Pakistan. We chose Mudumalai because of its close similarity to the Cambodian forest landscape. Due to the last-minute changes, finding a decent accommodation for 20-odd people was a challenge. After arriving here, I cross-checked with WII if the resort falls inside the elephant corridor. We were told that the part of the resort in which we are staying is not on the corridor,' he said.
A WII official told TNIE the delegation's visit was confirmed only on May 14. 'We did not have enough time to find alternative decent accommodation,' he said.
In May 2024, the then forest minister M Mathiventhan had stirred up a similar controversy, after he stayed in another partially-sealed resort against which orders were passed by the Supreme Court-appointed Segur Plateau Elephant Corridor Inquiry Committee.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Assam exploring how to ‘push back foreigners' without involving Foreigners Tribunals, Himanta says
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Saturday said that the state government is exploring the possibility of 'pushing back' suspected foreigners into Bangladesh without going through the existing process of identification via Foreigners Tribunals. To support this, he cited a 1950 law, which was issued before the institution of Foreigners Tribunals in the state. He stated that the Supreme Court, while hearing the question of the validity of Clause 6A of the Citizenship Act, had stated that this law is still in force. 'When the Supreme Court had taken up the matter of Clause 6A of the Citizenship Act, that was under a Constitutional Bench. The Bench had mentioned that… that the Assam government does not have to keep approaching the judiciary in the matter of identifying foreigners. There is an old law called the Immigrants Expulsion Order. The Supreme Court has said that this law is still in force. According to this law, the DC has the authority to issue an order for immediate pushback. For whatever reason, this had not been brought to our notice by our lawyers, and we were not aware of it either. In the past few days, this has come to our attention. So we will discuss this,' he told reporters on the sidelines of an event. Last week, Sarma had confirmed that the state is carrying out 'push backs' of people who had been declared foreigners by the state's Foreigners Tribunals by invoking a February 4 Supreme Court order. The top court had pulled up the state for not initiating the process of deporting declared foreigners lodged in the Matia detention centre. Civil groups as well as sections of opposition parties have argued that these 'push backs' violate the procedures of deportation. On Saturday, Sarma said, 'Pushbacks will continue and the process of identifying foreigners, which had been paused because of the NRC (National Register of Citizens), will be sped up again. And this time, if someone is identified as a foreigner, we won't send them to a tribunal; we will just keep pushing them back. Preparations for this are going on.' Foreigners Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies which determine whether a person presented before them, usually referred by the border police or those listed as 'D-voters' in electoral rolls, is a 'foreigner' or an Indian citizen. Those declared foreigners by these tribunals have the option to appeal against the order by approaching the Gauahti High Court and the Supreme Court.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Exploring old law allowing ‘push back': Sarma
The Assam government is looking into the details of 'an old law' that will allow it to 'push back' infiltrators without having to mandatorily approach foreigners tribunals, chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma said on Saturday. Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a programme in Nalbari, Sarma said that a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing a case on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, had said that there is no legal requirement for the Assam government to always approach the judiciary in order to identify foreigners. 'There exists an immigrants expel order, which is an old law. The Supreme Court has said that this law is in force and a deputy commissioner can give permission for immediate pushback under it,' he maintained. 'For whatever reason, our lawyers had not informed us and we too didn't know about it. The entire matter has come to light in the last few days. We will now discuss it further,' he added. The chief minister said pushing back illegal migrants will continue, adding that the process of identifying foreigners, which had been paused due to NRC-related matters, will now be accelerated. 'And when the identification of a foreigner happens, there will be no need to send the case to any tribunal. We will directly push them back. We have been preparing for it,' he added. Sarma said the process of pushback will continue, though no person with a case pending before the court will be sent back. His comments came even as the state witnessed protests over 'harassment' of minorities in the name of detecting illegal immigrants. Members and supporters of the All Assam Minority Students' Union (AAMSU) wore black badges and displayed placards against the purported recent pushback of Bangladeshis in the state. They carried out the protest in different parts, including Chirang and Jogighopa, after Eid namaz.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Preventive detention extraordinary power of state, use it sparingly: Top court
Preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly, said the Supreme Court as it set aside an order by a district magistrate to detain a moneylender who was allegedly indulging in illegal activities again after getting bail in four cases.A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan questioned the contention of the detaining authority that the order was passed as the detainee was violating bail conditions in the cases, and noted that they should have instead moved the competent court seeking cancellation of the order of detention dated June 20, 2024, and the impugned judgment dated September 4, 2024, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam are hereby set aside. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is allowed," the bench said in its order passed on Friday. Noting that the power of preventive detention finds recognition in the Constitution under Article 22(3)(b), the bench said, "The provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature."The bench said the contention of the detaining authority that the detainee, Rajesh, who used to run a private financing company called 'Rithika Finance', was violating the conditions of bail imposed upon him in the cases that have been considered for passing the order of said that pertinently, no application has been filed by the respondent in any of the four cases, alleging violation of such conditions, if any, and moreover, have not even been spelt out during the hearing of the case filed by his wife against the Kerala High Court order, which affirmed the preventive detention order of the Palakkad district magistrate."Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we have no doubt that the order of detention cannot be sustained. The circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention."We clarify that if such an application for cancellation of the detainee's bail is made by the respondent - state, the same must be decided uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove," the bench referred to the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, and said that the object of the statute was to provide for effective prevention of certain anti-social activities in the bench said Section 2(j) of the state law defines 'goonda' as a person who indulges in activities that are harmful to the maintenance of public order, either directly or indirectly, and includes persons who are bootleggers, counterfeiters, drug offenders, and loan sharks, among bench also said that under Section 3 of the Act, the district magistrate so authorised or the government may pass an order directing detention of a "known goonda" to prevent commission of antisocial activities within the state of Kerala."Coming to the attending facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act was not justified in law," the top court said, as it noted four cases lodged under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, cited by the police for recommending preventive detention to the district police stated that the detainee was a "notorious goonda" in the district and a threat to the society at by the order of his detention dated June 20, 2024, Rajesh's wife filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court assailing the order and praying for a writ of habeas corpus to the state against the "illegal" detention of her high court on September 4 last year affirmed the order of preventive detention. Aggrieved by the order, the detainee's wife moved the top court challenging the December 10, 2024, the top court ordered the detainee to be released as his maximum period of detention under the Act was InMust Watch
