Kancha Gachibowli aftermath: State government reconstitutes expert committee to identify forest lands
In a significant development after the Supreme Court's directions in the suo motu case pertaining to Kancha Gachibowli forest clearance, the State government issued orders on Friday, reconstituting the expert committee to identify the forested lands in the State.
With fewer persons than the previous one, the new 7-member committee is chaired by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in charge of IT & Wildlife Protection, and comprises a person nominated by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and a representative from the National Remote Sensing Agency as members, retired Deputy Conservator of Forests and Officer on Special Duty A.Sankaran as expert member, Deputy Conservator of Forests S. Madhava Rao as expert member and member-convenor, Chief Conservator/Conservator of Forests, Rajanna Sircilla Circle and District Forest Officer, Khammam, as members/field forest officers.
The earlier committee had a wider membership from senior bureaucrats such as the CCLA, GHMC Commissioner, HMDA Metropolitan Commissioner, Commissioner Panchayat Raj, Director, Town & Country Planning, Commissioner of Industries, Commissioner of Agriculture, Commissioner/Director, Tribal Welfare, and Commissioner Horticulture as members and the PCCF and Head of Forest Force as member-convenor.
The membership of the committee earned a serious view from the Apex Court which questioned the representation of so many unrelated departments in the committee to identify forests. The Central Empowered Committee which had submitted its report on the Kancha Gachibowli issue, also recommended reconstitution of the panel with representation of relevant departments.
State-level expert committee constitution to identify forest lands was mandated by the Supreme Court, in the landmark T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad judgement in 1996 which expanded the definition of forest to its dictionary meaning, from the narrow interpretation based on the legal boundaries or ownership.
Several State governments have not constituted expert committees, nor carried out the exercise to identify the deemed forests. With the Central government removing unclassified forests from the legal definition of forests by way of a recent amendment to the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, a public interest litigation was filed in the Supreme Court, invoking the Godavarman Thirumulpad judgement.
The top court directed the State governments and union territories to forward records of the reports of their expert committees, containing the data of the deemed forests to the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, spurring all the States to constitute expert committees now.
The State government issued its first order constituting the previous expert committee on March 15 this year, with one month's time to come up with a report. The latest order does not specify any time limit for the report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
39 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Uttarakhand HC clears path for panchayat polls
New Delhi The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday vacated its interim stay on the upcoming panchayat elections, allowing the electoral process to move forward while directing the State government to respond to allegations regarding irregularities in the reservation roster. A Bench comprising Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahara passed the order while hearing multiple petitions challenging the reservation allocations for the rural body elections. The stay, originally issued on June 23, just two days after the State had announced the election schedule, had stalled polls that were set to take place on July 10 and 15, with results scheduled for July 19. Over a dozen petitions were filed by residents from various districts, raising concerns about repeated allocation of seats to the same social groups over successive terms. The petitioners alleged that such practices violate Article 243 of the Constitution and go against various Supreme Court judgments. They contended that seats for block pramukh and district panchayat president were not being rotated fairly among different categories. In response, the state government informed the court that it had revised the previous reservation roster following observations made by the National Commission for Backward Classes, necessitating a new list for the current elections. After examining submissions from both sides, the court noted that while there were some instances of repetition in reserved seats, the number was negligible when compared to the total number of seats. It also observed that new panchayats had been created following delimitation, contributing to the apparent irregularities. 'Petitioners have raised various contentions, including the validity of Rule 4(4), and argued that even general category seats reserved for women should fall within the 50% reservation ceiling. Prima facie, this argument does not appeal to the Bench,' the court noted in its order. The court has directed the State Election Commission to release a revised election schedule, extending the previously announced dates by four days. It also ordered the state government to file its response to the allegations within three weeks. The matter will next be heard on July 28.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Supreme Court curbs nationwide injunctions in win for Trump's immigration agenda
A united conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled Friday that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the outcome represented a victory for Trump, who has complained about judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. Nationwide, or universal, injunctions had emerged as an important check on the Republican president's efforts to expand executive power and remake the government and a source of mounting frustration to him and his the court left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, which was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Enforcement of the policy can't take place for another 30 days, Barrett justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden's Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court. Judges have issued more than 40 such orders since Trump took office for a second term in administration has filed emergency appeals with the justices of many of those orders, including the ones on birthright citizenship. The court rarely hears arguments and issues major decisions on its emergency, or shadow, docket, but it did so in this courts, Barrett wrote, 'do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.'The president, speaking in the White House briefing room, said that the decision was 'amazing' and a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' the separation of powers and the rule of Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York wrote on X that the decision is 'an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court.'Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent for the three liberal justices, called the decision 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.' This is so, Sotomayor said, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower administration didn't even ask, as it has in other cases, for the lower-court rulings to be blocked completely, Sotomayor wrote. 'To get such relief, the government would have to show that the order is likely constitutional, an impossible task,' she the ultimate fate of the changes Trump wants to make was not before the court, Barrett wrote, just the rules that would apply as the court cases groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh that judges may still be able to reach anyone potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by declaring them part of a 'putative nationwide class.' Kavanaugh was part of the court majority on Friday but wrote a separate concurring that also challenged the policy in court said they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was through a nationwide hold.'We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land and of course birthright citizenship as well,' said Attorney General Andrea Campbell of citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American U.S. is amongst about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil' — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are amongst and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called 'a priceless and profound gift' in the executive order he signed on his first day in Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's have uniformly ruled against the Justice Department has argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this justices also agreed that the administration may make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.- EndsMust Watch
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
What is Birthright Citizenship? 10 key points to know about the US Supreme Court's decision today
US Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling has opened a new chapter in America's immigration and legal policy. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled 6–3 to limit federal courts from issuing nationwide blocks on presidential actions, giving President Donald Trump the green light to begin implementing his controversial executive order to end automatic citizenship for some U.S.-born children. While birthright citizenship is still protected under the 14th Amendment, this procedural decision gives Trump more control over immigration policy and future executive powers. The legal fight isn't over, but the balance of power has clearly shifted—possibly for years to come. US Supreme Court limits court powers, boosting Trump's move to end birthright citizenship. The June 27 ruling clears the way for executive action on immigration, reshaping how legal challenges are handled. Birthright citizenship fight now heads into deeper legal waters. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What is birthright citizenship and why is it at the center of the legal fight? Why did the Supreme Court limit nationwide injunctions? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Is birthright citizenship still legal in the US? Here are 10 key takeaways from today's Supreme Court decision: Birthright citizenship explained Birthright citizenship refers to the legal principle that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status. This right is granted by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that all persons 'born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' are citizens. The Trump Executive Order In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aiming to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or temporarily. This move reignited national debate on the scope of the 14th Amendment. The lawsuit and injunction Several immigrant advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations sued the administration, and federal courts quickly issued nationwide injunctions, temporarily halting enforcement of the order across the country. Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions In today's ruling, the Supreme Court held that federal district courts had overreached their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said courts can only block executive actions for named plaintiffs and within their jurisdiction—not for the entire nation. A procedural, not constitutional, decision Importantly, the Court did not rule on whether Trump's executive order violates the 14th Amendment. It focused only on the legal question of how far courts can go in stopping federal actions during ongoing litigation. The 30-day window The Court gave lower courts 30 days to revise or narrow their injunctions. This means the current block on Trump's order remains for now—but likely only for those directly involved in the case. Liberal dissent Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. They warned that limiting injunctions would allow potentially unconstitutional actions to impact millions of people before a full legal review can be completed. Impact on future litigation This decision redefines how legal challenges to federal policies proceed. Moving forward, district courts will find it harder to issue sweeping nationwide bans—even in urgent civil rights cases. Trump hails the ruling President Trump celebrated the decision, calling it a victory over 'radical left judges' who he claims have tried to overrule executive power. His campaign has emphasized ending birthright citizenship as part of his broader immigration agenda. What's next? While the nationwide injunctions are likely to be scaled back, the underlying case about whether the executive order violates the Constitution will continue through the courts. A final ruling on the substance of birthright citizenship may still be months—or years—away. What do dissenting justices say about this change? How does this ruling expand presidential power? What happens next in the legal battle over birthright citizenship? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What's the broader impact of the ruling? Birthright citizenship is still alive, but the rules are changing FAQs: In a landmark decision on June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court made a major ruling affecting the future of birthright citizenship and how much power presidents have when issuing executive orders. The Court didn't outright end the constitutional right to citizenship for children born on U.S. soil—but it did clear the way for President Donald Trump's controversial executive order to begin taking effect. More importantly, it drastically limits how federal courts can block presidential actions nationwide. Here's everything you need to know about what happened, why it matters, and what comes citizenship is based on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that anyone born in the United States and 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' is a U.S. citizen. This rule has long applied even to children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or only temporarily. This sparked immediate backlash from immigrant rights groups, who argue that the executive order goes against the Trump's executive order was issued, federal courts quickly stepped in and blocked its enforcement with nationwide injunctions. But on June 27, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal district courts had overstepped their Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative majority, said that lower courts may only issue injunctions that protect the people who actually filed the lawsuit, not block the law across the entire country. This means that while Trump's order remains on hold for now, it's only blocked for a limited number of plaintiffs, not for now. The Court's ruling did not decide whether Trump's order is constitutional. Instead, it focused only on the procedure—specifically how courts can pause government actions while cases are pending. So birthright citizenship still stands, but the fight over it will continue in the courts for months, if not Barrett made it clear that lower courts have 30 days to narrow their injunctions. In practical terms, this opens the door for the Trump administration to start enforcing the executive order soon—at least for people not directly involved in the Court's three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented. They warned that limiting courts' ability to block federal actions could allow potentially unconstitutional policies to harm millions before being properly argued that in cases affecting civil rights, immigration, healthcare, and more, courts need the power to issue broader protections. Without that, executive actions could go unchecked until higher courts finally weigh in—potentially too late for those already Trump called the ruling a 'giant win', saying it strikes back at 'radical left judges' who he believes have blocked his policies unfairly. His administration says the decision restores a proper balance between the executive branch and the his return to office, Trump has pushed dozens of executive actions—many of which have been held up by federal judges. These include cuts to foreign aid, changes to diversity programs, rollbacks on immigration protections, and adjustments to election ruling doesn't just apply to birthright citizenship—it makes it much harder for lower courts to freeze other executive orders nationwide, allowing Trump and future presidents to act more freely while legal battles play the Supreme Court ruling doesn't end the legal challenge, it shifts the strategy. The main lawsuit will continue, and eventually, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether ending birthright citizenship is constitutional—possibly as soon as October 2025, according to Attorney General Pam the meantime, enforcement will vary depending on which state you're in. Because states issue birth certificates, and many Democratic-led states don't collect data on parents' immigration status, they may resist implementing Trump's Barrett also acknowledged that states may suffer financial and administrative burdens from the new rule—hinting that lower courts might still justify broader injunctions if specific harms are ruling marks a shift in American legal and political power. For decades, both Democratic and Republican presidents have clashed with district courts that blocked their actions. The Supreme Court's decision now narrows that power, giving the White House more room to Congressional Research Service noted that from Trump's inauguration to April 29, 2025, there were 25 instances where federal courts halted executive decision could affect not only immigration, but also climate policies, student loan programs, and workplace rules, giving presidents more control while the courts catch Supreme Court's ruling on June 27, 2025, doesn't eliminate birthright citizenship—but it paves the way for President Trump to start enforcing his order, and it reshapes how the legal system checks executive next few months will be crucial as lower courts revise their rulings, and states decide how to respond. Meanwhile, the broader debate over constitutional rights, immigration, and presidential power is far from Court allowed Trump's executive order to move forward by limiting court but Trump's policy could change how it's applied during ongoing court battles.
