SC accepts petitions challenging Sariska boundary changes
2
3
4
Jaipur: The Supreme Court has accepted a series of petitions challenging the govt's plan to alter boundaries of Sariska Tiger Reserve (STR) in Rajasthan. The petitions, filed by environmentalists and citizens, argue that the redrawing of the reserve's boundaries violates both legal procedures and conservation principles.
The petitions were accepted on Aug 6. These petitions, led by People for Aravallis and co-petitioners from Rajasthan, point out that the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) failed to follow the required legal processes, particularly regarding the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. One of the central issues raised is the lack of informed consent from local communities, which is necessary before altering protected areas.
Neelam Ahluwalia, founder member of People for Aravallis, expressed relief that the court accepted their petition. The challenge centres on a controversial recommendation by the Centrally Empowered Committee (CEC) to reduce the Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH) and buffer zone. The petitioners argue that this recommendation is not based on legal requirements or sound scientific reasoning, as it ignores the broader ecological needs of the area, including species other than tigers, like leopards and hyenas.
Another key concern is the potential reopening of over 50 marble and dolomite mines that were previously shut down within the reserve's no-mining zone. The petitioners warn that allowing these boundary changes could set a dangerous precedent for other protected areas.
Stay updated with the latest local news from your
city
on
Times of India
(TOI). Check upcoming
bank holidays
,
public holidays
, and current
gold rates
and
silver prices
in your area.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
12 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump's takeover of DC police: Can he, why now, and is it necessary?
United States President Donald Trump has announced that he is temporarily taking control of the Washington, DC, police department, while deploying 800 National Guard troops to the city, saying the measures are needed to 'rescue' the US capital from a surge in crime. During a 78-minute news conference, Trump declared that the US government would take control of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department to address what he called 'surging crime.' 'I'm announcing a historic action to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse,' Trump said, joined by US Attorney General Pam Bondi, who will oversee the force. 'This is Liberation Day in DC, and we're going to take our capital back. We're taking it back.' 'Under the authorities vested in me as the President of the United States, I'm officially invoking section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act… and placing the DC Metropolitan and Police Department under direct federal control,' he said. He also announced the deployment of the National Guard: 'I'm deploying the National Guard to help reestablish law, order and public safety in Washington, DC, and they're going to be allowed to do their job properly.' Trump added he intends to remove the capital's homeless population, without giving details. The 1973 law granted DC a degree of self-government, allowing residents to elect a mayor and council, while keeping certain powers with Congress and the president. The Act allows the president to take control of the police if 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' Trump previously threatened to do this in 2020. The president can take control for 48 hours, or up to 30 days if Congress is notified. Trump said he plans to extend the takeover beyond 48 hours. DC Mayor Muriel Bowser pushed back: 'Let me be clear. Chief Pamela Smith is the chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and its 3,100 members work under her direction. Nothing about our organisational chart has changed. And nothing in the executive order would indicate otherwise.' The US Army said 'between 100-200 soldiers will be supporting law enforcement at any given time,' handling administrative, logistics, and public safety tasks. The Guard will operate under Title 32 status — federally funded but locally controlled — and not bound by the Posse Comitatus Act. US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Guard units will begin arriving this week, likely without openly carrying rifles, though weapons will be accessible. Hegseth said the Pentagon was 'prepared to bring in other National Guard units – other specialised units.' When asked about removing homeless people, Hegseth said: 'Our job is to stand alongside law enforcement.' Trump's order states that 'rising violence in the capital now urgently endangers public servants, citizens, and tourists' and disrupts government functions. It calls DC 'among the most violent jurisdictions in the United States.' The move appears linked to the August 3 assault on Edward Coristine, a former Department of Government Efficiency staffer and protege of Elon Musk. Police say 10 teenagers attacked Coristine and his partner; two 15-year-olds were arrested. Days later, Trump wrote on Truth Social: 'If DC doesn't get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run.' He added that the takeover 'should have been done a long time ago.' Mayor Bowser questioned the need for the National Guard, suggesting more funding for prosecutors would be more effective. 'It is true that those were more challenging times related to some issues. It is also true that we experienced a crime spike post-COVID, but we worked quickly to put laws in place and tactics that got violent offenders off our streets, and gave our police officers more tools,' she said. According to Bowser, violent crime is now at a 30-year low. DC crime statistics show violent offences fell from 2023 to 2024, with 2025 continuing the trend: homicides down 12 per cent, assaults with dangerous weapons down 20 per cent. The FBI also reported a nationwide drop in violent crime of 4.5 per cent in 2024 compared with 2023. (With inputs from The Guardian, BBC)
Mint
12 minutes ago
- Mint
'They didnt choose streets but...': Kichcha Sudeepa urges to 'kindly adopt' indie dogs after SCs order
Bengaluru (Karnataka) [India], August 13 (ANI): Actor Kichcha Sudeepa has reacted to the Supreme Court's recent order to move all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR to shelters within eight weeks. In his post on X (formerly Twitter), the actor said that while he does not want to question the court's decision, which "may have its reasons," he is worried about the "well-being" of the animals and how it will affect their lives. Sudeepa shared that he has grown up around community dogs and his family has also adopted Indian breeds. He described the "love and loyalty" they bring into people's lives, adding that the dogs did not choose the streets, but humans can choose to give them a home. "The Supreme Court's decision to round up the stray dogs in Delhi NCR and to be kept in shelters permanently isn't something I wanna question as this decision may have its reasons. But it also raises serious concerns about their well-being and the impact on their lives," Sudeepa wrote. "Having grown up around community dogs, and with my family adopting Indies, I can attest to the love and loyalty they bring. They didn't choose the streets but we can choose to give them a home. We surely can be the voice for the voiceless. Kindly adopt," he continued. On August 11, a bench of Justices Pardiwala and R Mahadevan took a stern view of the stray dog menace and ordered the Delhi-NCR to start removing stray dogs from all localities within eight weeks and house them in dedicated dog shelters to be set up by civic authorities. It said that all localities should be made free of stray dogs and there should not be any compromise, while making it clear that no captured animal will be released back on the streets. It also ordered contempt proceedings against any individual or organisation that attempts to obstruct the authorities from carrying out the capture drive. The order of the top court came on a suo motu proceedings initiated by it over a media report on the growing menace of stray dog attacks leading to rabies. Terming the news report as "very disturbing and alarming", the bench had said that day the news report revealed that the elderly and children were the most affected by rabies from dog bite incidents. (ANI)
Indian Express
42 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Bihar SIR process is ‘voter-friendly, not exclusionary': SC says ECI now allowing 11 documents as identity proof
The Supreme Court Wednesday said that the Election Commission of India (ECI) permitting to present 11 documents as proof of identity for the latest Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voters list in Bihar, compared to only seven documents for the summary revision carried out in the state in 2003, showed that the process is 'in fact voter-friendly.' A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said this while hearing petitions challenging the SIR process. 'They are expanding the number of documents of identity… We understand your exclusionary argument may be with regard to Aadhaar, but the expansion of number of documents from what was followed in a summary revision to an intensive revision is, in fact, voter-friendly and not voter-exclusionary. It gives you more options,' Justice Bagchi said. 'See, it was seven items (in 2003). And now there are 11 items from which you can identify yourself as a citizen,' the judge added. The court said this as Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the process was exclusionary. Singhvi, however, continued to insist that it was. On Monday, the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the norm of prospective voters merely having to furnish a declaration that they are citizens for inclusion in the list, while holding that the ECI can decide to include a citizen in the voter list or exclude a non-citizen from it. The top court said self-declaration of citizenship may lead to legal complications. The remarks were in response to Singhvi's argument that it was not within the remit of the ECI to decide on citizenship.
