CEC finds Yamuna embankment in Kalesar National Park intact
Gurgaon: The Supreme Court-appointed central empowered committee (CEC) this month confirmed allegations that an embankment was built in the protected Kalesar National Park to divert Yamuna waters and Haryana govt's submission that the structure had been removed was false.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
CEC visited the park in Yamunanagar on May 19 and found that the embankment across the river was intact, according to the report submitted by the committee's chairperson Siddhanta Das this week.
The Kalesar park is an eco-sensitive zone (ESZ), where construction is barred and any non-forest activity needs to be approved by the ESZ monitoring committee.
CEC recommended taking penal action against responsible officials, halting all illegal construction immediately, improving ESZ committee's oversight mechanism and training all govt officials in ESZ norms.
The case stems from a petition filed in March by activist Sanjay Kumar, who alleged that an embankment was built on the river by Haryana's irrigation department and the structure diverted Yamuna's waters to UP to aid illegal mining. The petitioner's counsel also submitted satellite imagery as evidence of construction.
The SC bench of justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih, while hearing the plea in April this year, ordered the CEC to investigate the site.
It also directed the petitioner to submit copies of the plea with Haryana and UP govts for their responses.
CEC, after the inspection on May 19, submitted its report to the top court on May 26.
It said that the state's irrigation department had informed the ESZ monitoring committee on May 15 that the embankment was temporary to stop nearby farmlands and villages from flooding. The department told the monitoring panel that the structure was removed.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
"During the site visit, it was also observed that the embankment was constructed across the river's flow, which contradicts the submissions made in the minutes of the district-level ESZ monitoring committee meeting. Irrigation department officials then informed that the said embankment was constructed temporarily…" CEC's report to SC noted.
The report also said that 1,800 metres from the embankment, nine concrete studs and a 450m cement wall were being built without ESZ committee's clearance.
Further, CEC said, a day before its site visit, the irrigation department submitted a "written statement" from the contractor tasked with building the embankment that this structure was constructed to "facilitate concreting work" to prevent soil erosion and the firm has "since removed it".
In its observations, CEC pointed out the violations – that the ESZ monitoring committee "failed" to take suo-motu cognizance of construction in the Kalesar National Park; the irrigation department "misrepresented the nature and location of the embankment", and that "no permissions" were sought for construction in the protected area.
In addition, the report said, the contractor's admission that the embankment was built for concreting work and not to avoid flooding "came only a day before CEC's site visit, raising further concerns about transparency and compliance".
The
will take up the petition in July next.
Asked about CEC's findings, Haryana's principal chief conservator of forests (PCCF) Vineet Garg said strict instructions have been issued by the ESZ panel to ensure compliance with environmental regulations in the future.
"The state has acknowledged the ecological importance of the Rajaji–Kalesar–Simbalbara wildlife corridor and expressed its commitment to conservation efforts. As part of this, Haryana will prepare a proposal to strengthen the corridor," Garg said.
Yamuna's passage in the Kalesar park is part of a critical wildlife corridor through the Shivalik hills. This corridor facilitates movement of wildlife between Rajaji Tiger Reserve in Uttarakhand, Kalesar National Park in Haryana and Simbalbara National Park in Himachal Pradesh.
The petitioner's counsel Gaurav Kumar Bansal told TOI on Thursday that this region is a "crucial dispersal zone" for wildlife, allowing them to move through protected forests across states.
"These habitats are vital for restoring historical tiger ranges and strengthening wildlife connectivity across the northern landscape. However, illegal embankments like the one constructed on Yamuna river — especially those that alter its natural flow — pose a serious threat to this fragile ecosystem. Such interventions can severely disrupt wildlife movement, degrade habitats and undermine the corridor's ecological integrity," Bansal said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
43 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump v. Hawaii: Explaining case cited in new US travel ban order affecting Cuba and Haiti
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a proclamation imposing travel restrictions on 19 countries, including a complete ban on nationals from 12 countries. The affected nations include Cuba and Haiti. The White House cited the Trump vs Hawaii (2018) as a legal precedent in its latest press release. The proclamation, enacted under Executive Order 14161, fully bans entry from 12 nations and partially restricts seven, including Cuba (partial) and Haiti (full), to combat terrorism and national security risks. Trump v. Hawaii upheld the president's authority to restrict entry, a ruling central to the new ban's justification. Trump v. Hawaii (585 US 667) challenged Proclamation No. 9645, Trump's third travel ban, issued on September 24, 2017. It restricted entry from eight countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen), citing deficient vetting and security risks. Hawaii, the International Refugee Assistance Project, and others sued, alleging the ban violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by targeting Muslims. The case centered on whether the president's authority under INA Section 212(f) (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f))—allowing suspension of entry for foreigners deemed 'detrimental' to US interests—was lawful and whether the ban was motivated by anti-Muslim bias. On June 26, 2018, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court upheld the ban. The majority ruled: Presidential Authority: Section 212(f) grants the president broad discretion to suspend entry when national security is at stake, supported by a worldwide review of vetting processes. No Religious Discrimination: The ban was facially neutral, based on security concerns, not anti-Muslim animus, despite Trump's campaign statements. The Court applied rational basis review, finding the ban had a 'legitimate purpose." Dissent: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented, arguing the ban was rooted in anti-Muslim rhetoric, violating the Establishment Clause, and drawing parallels to Korematsu v. United States (1944). The 2025 proclamation relies on Trump v. Haiti to justify restrictions under Section 212(f), citing the same authority upheld in 2018. The new ban targets countries like Haiti (31.38% B1/B2 visa overstay rate) and Cuba (state sponsor of terrorism) for inadequate vetting and security risks.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Trump administration issues total travel ban from 12 nations, partial restrictions from 7 others; is India in the list?
US President Donald Trump issued a fresh proclamation restricting entry into the United States for travelers from specific countries. There is total travel ban from 12 countries and partial restrictions for seven others, a CBS News report said. The proclamation fully restricts and limits the entry of nationals from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Meanwhile, there is a partial restriction on entry of people from seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. As per the proclaimation, there is no travel restrictions for Indians who intends to visit the United States. In his first term, Trump introduced a travel ban targeting seven predominantly Muslim countries. The policy underwent multiple revisions before the Supreme Court upheld it in 2018. Later, Joe Biden, overturned the ban when he took office, denouncing it as 'a stain on our national conscience.'
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC dismisses Delhi Waqf Board appeal seeking possession of gurdwara
New Delhi The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal filed by the Delhi Waqf Board seeking possession of a pre-independence gurudwara in Oldenpur village of Shahdara as waqf property, observing that the board should have relinquished its claim once the records showed that a religious structure had been functioning on the land since 1948. A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order on a 2012 appeal filed by the board, challenging a Delhi high court order of September 24, 2010, which held the property to be in possession of the late Hira Singh, who had purchased it from Mohammad Ahsan in 1953. Dismissing the appeal, the court said, 'The records show there is a gurudwara functioning since Partition. Once a religious structure is there, you should yourself relinquish your claim.' The Waqf Board, represented by senior advocate Sanjoy Ghose, contended that the high court disturbed concurrent findings by a trial court, first in October 1982 and then again in February 1989, in the board's favour. He said that the property has been since time immemorial dedicated as waqf property and witnesses in the suit deposed that there was a mosque and 'some sort of a gurudwara' came to be built over that. The bench interjected Ghose and said, 'It is not some sort of gurudwara. There is a fully functional gurudwara there.' The board claimed that the property in question was gazette notified on December 3, 1970, and subsequently corrected by another notification of April 29, 1978, published in the Delhi Gazette on May 18, 1978. As per the Waqf Board records, the property in question was notified as 'Masjid Takia Babbar Shah'. The high court, in its judgment, had said: 'The defendant (Singh) was admittedly in occupation of this property since 1947-48... It is also true that the defendant was not able to adduce any document of title to evidence the purchase of this property, yet this does not in any manner benefit the plaintiff (Waqf Board) who has to establish his own case and prove it to enable him to obtain a decree of possession.' The high court had noted that although the board claimed it to be waqf property, no dates were given as to from which date the property was being used as a masjid. 'This assumes special relevance as the defendant (Singh) in his written statement had specifically controverted this stand.' The board had relied on the deposition of witnesses, who attested to the fact that the mosque was constructed by Muslim owners of the property, and the defendant occupied it illegally since 1948. The high court relied on a 1979 Supreme Court decision in the Board of Muslim Waqfs, Rajasthan case, where it held that where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list published under the Waqf Act, 1954. Going by this verdict, the high court held that the gazette notification of the property being waqf 'would not be binding on a stranger or a person who does not fall in the category of 'person interested in a wakf' as defined under Section 3(h) of the act. Singh had pointed out that the Gurudwara Managing Committee was managing the premises in dispute. It was further stated that the Waqf Board had filed two suits that were withdrawn in 1970 and 1978. He further pointed out that under Section 64 of the Limitation Act, a suit for recovery of possession of property has to be filed within 12 years from the date when the right to sue accrued. In the present case, the Waqf Board filed the suit in December 1980, which was time-barred.
