Manjolai families seek samthuvapuram, not housing complex
Madurai: Families in Manjolai are ready to relocate but have urged the state govt to consider establishing a
samathuvapuram
(Periyar memorial equality village) instead of moving them to a multi-storeyed housing complex in Reddiarpatti, Tirunelveli. This was stated by People's Watch executive director Henri Tiphagne and high court advocate Robert Chandra Kumar at a press meet in Madurai on Saturday.
Robert Chandra Kumar said Supreme Court had taken up the case regarding
rehabilitation of Manjolai residents
. "Most of the people are agriculturists and livestock rearers. The proposed rehabilitation site near Tirunelveli city consists of a multi-floor apartment complex, which is unsuitable for people with cattle and agricultural livelihoods. What we seek is a samathuvapuram model, where these families can live with dignity and continue their way of life," he said.
Henri Tiphagne said there are about 500 families. "The govt must listen to their plea and ensure that resettlement happens with full dignity. The villagers have demanded a compensation package of ₹25 lakh per family to help them restart their lives," he added.
Later, Tiphagne expressed concern over downgrading of India's
National Human Rights Commission
(NHRC) from 'A' to 'B' status by Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) citing various factor. They include political interference in appointments, lack of pluralism in its composition, appointment of police officers as investigators in human rights cases among other things.
"The downgrading is a serious warning to India. The NHRC must urgently undertake reforms to regain its credibility, independence, and effectiveness," Tiphagne said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
NGT lists Kukrail night safari case for next hearing on Aug 21
LUCKNOW The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has granted the UP government four weeks to respond to a case regarding the proposed relocation of Lucknow Zoo to Kukrail and the construction of a night safari in the same area. The tribunal has listed the case for next hearing on August 21. Seeking to remove roadblocks in the ambitious Kukrail night safari project, the UP government had filed an impleadment application in the Supreme Court on April 8, seeking permission to establish the safari and relocate the Lucknow zoo to the Kukrail forest area. The plea is yet to come up for hearing. Lucknow-based social activist Alok Singh filed this case in the NGT. He raised concerns over the night safari project at the Kukrail reserve forest, for which around 1500 trees were proposed to be felled. He also moved the SC on April 11, 2025, on this issue. The Supreme Court has given July 15 as the tentative date for next hearing of the case. A detailed project report (DPR) of the night safari, coming up on a 900-acre maple leaf design in the 2027.46-hectare Kukrail forest, was presented before chief minister Yogi Adityanath on November 19, 2024, roughly two years after its digital survey in December 2022. However, the project got stuck due to the apex court's February 19, 2024 order restraining the central and state governments across the country to establish zoos and safaris in forest areas (other than protected areas) without approval of the top court. This order was passed by a three-judge bench headed by former CJI Justice Dhananjay Y Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Donald Trump's new travel ban is coming into effect
The executive order banning travel from 12 countries, which comes into effect on June 9th, is more methodical than previous iterations. In his first batch of executive orders, issued on January 20th, President Donald Trump directed several top advisers to compile a list of countries with insufficient screening standards for potential migrants, which they considered to be a national-security risk. The order warned that people from these countries could be barred from coming to America. It was a signal that Mr Trump intended to resurrect the travel ban, one of the most controversial immigration policies of his first term. Most of the countries targeted in this, the fourth version of the policy, are in the Middle East and Africa. Nationals from seven other countries, including Cuba and Venezuela, face partial restrictions. A country might find itself on the travel-ban list if its citizens tend to overstay their visas; if it has refused to take back deportees; if instability within the country prevents proper screening or information sharing; or if it 'has a significant terrorist presence'. A tally from David Bier and Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, suggests that 116,000 immigrants, and more than 500,000 visitors (including students and temporary workers) could be affected by the ban over the next four years. The way the ban was rolled out and how the proclamation was written shows how the White House has learned from its earlier failures. When Mr Trump first tried to ban travel from seven Muslim-majority countries in 2017, chaos ensued. Travellers who had already been issued visas or were approved for refugee resettlement were held at airports. Some green-card holders were detained. The ban followed through on a campaign promise for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on'. Thousands of Americans, joined by Democratic Party leaders, gathered at big-city airports to protest. This was early in Mr Trump's first term and the #resistance was in full swing. Federal judges issued nationwide injunctions to block the first and second iterations of the travel ban. A third version of the policy ended up in front of the Supreme Court by virtue of Trump v Hawaii. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts found that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president exceptional discretion to bar certain people, including specific nationalities, from the country so long as he can argue that their presence is 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'. The ruling offered yet more evidence for what Adam Cox of New York University has termed 'immigration exceptionalism': the court's profound deference to the president where immigration policy is concerned. That opinion influenced the way the Trump administration resurrected the policy for his second term. The president halted refugee admissions in January (except for white South Africans) and waited until June to implement the new travel ban, to try to avoid the kind of protests and litigation that took place last time around. The proclamation announcing the new ban lists each country and the justification for its inclusion on the list. There are exemptions, including for green-card holders, athletes travelling to America for the World Cup or the Olympics in coming years, Afghans who worked for the American government and the immediate families of Americans, so long as they can prove their relationship. This is a 'much more defensible executive order than the iterations in Trump 1.0', says Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute. But just because travel ban 4.0 looks like it will hold up in court doesn't mean it makes sense. Like slapping tariffs on allies to bring back American manufacturing or declaring a foreign invasion to speed up deportations, Mr Trump's justification for banning foreigners from these countries does not hold up to much scrutiny. The president suggested that the ban would help neutralise national-security threats such as the recent attack on Jewish marchers in Boulder by an Egyptian man who overstayed his visa. Yet Egypt is not on the list. A Department of Homeland Security report confirms that most listed countries do indeed have high visa-overstay rates. But, with the exception of Haiti and Venezuela, the total number of people from restricted countries who didn't leave America when they were supposed to is relatively small. Meanwhile some 40,000 Colombians and 21,000 Brazilians, who are not subject to travel restrictions, overstayed their tourist and short-term work visas (see chart), yet their countrymen are not banned. The travel ban also sends a message. It is yet another signal—along with the detention of international students for their political views and immigration raids in big cities—that America is becoming much more hostile to foreigners. When the Supreme Court decided Trump v Hawaii in 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion in which he describes an 'anxious world' watching to see whether America's leaders 'adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise'. That warning looks ever more prescient.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Himanta in Assembly: DCs can ‘push back' into Bangladesh anyone they find is a foreigner
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma Monday announced in a special one-day session of the Assam legislative assembly that the state government has decided to bring a 1950 Act into action to 'push back' into Bangladesh anyone who District Collectors prima facie find to be foreigners – without going through the state's existing system of Foreigners Tribunals. The CM claimed the state had been empowered to do so by the Supreme Court. He said this will be implemented in addition to the ongoing 'pushbacks' of people who have been declared foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunals (FTs); around 330 such declared foreigners have been pushed into Bangladesh in the past couple of weeks. Speaking in the assembly, Sarma referred to the October 2024 judgement of the Supreme Court in which a majority of a five-member Constitutional Bench headed by then Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which makes March 24, 1971 the cut-off date for citizenship in Assam. 'Four judges said 1971 is the cut-off date. But one thing the Supreme Court said repeatedly was that the people brought after 1971 should not be spared in any way. They will have to be deported… In that judgement, the Supreme Court gave the Assam government a sweeping power… The Supreme Court in this judgement affirmed that the 1950 expulsion Act remains valid and operative. That means for expelling foreigners, the government does not have to go to tribunals. The 1950 Act says that if the DC says that prima facie this person is a foreigner, he can be evicted from the state of Assam,' Sarma said. 'By the order of the Supreme Court, every Deputy Commissioner is empowered to evict anybody whom he feels is a foreigner. This is the law of the land… This power has been given to the state of Assam by the Honourable Supreme Court… It says in the Act itself that it will not be applicable to those who came for reasons like religious persecution,' he said. Sarma was speaking after multiple opposition MLAs, including Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition Debabrata Saikia and AIUDF MLA Ashraful Hussain, spoke at length in the assembly during Zero Hour and Special Mention raising concern over the manner in which these pushbacks have been taking place, alleging that in multiple instances, Indians are being 'persecuted' in the name of a drive against foreigners. 'These pushbacks will be intensified. Because the way Pakistani elements have entered our state, Bangladesh fundamentalist elements have entered, to save itself, the state has to become more proactive than before. That's why the state government has decided that we will bring the Illegal Expulsion Act into action, and whoever the DCs think are foreigners, we will push back without referring to tribunals… Deportation will now be a reality. Even if their names are in the NRC,' he said. Sarma's statements led to a furore in the assembly, with opposition MLAs questioning the validity of the actions. Congress MLA Zakir Hussain Sikdar asked on what basis the DCs would identify 'foreigners' under this course of action, to which Sarma replied, 'The DC has to be satisfied about it.' This drew more opposition, with Sikdar shouting, 'That can't be the system.' Speaking in the assembly after Sarma, Leader of Opposition Saikia said the Act in question 'does not mention anything about pushback.' 'We are a state of India and in the Parliament of India, Union Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar had said it is the obligation of all countries to take back their nationals if they are found to be living illegally abroad. This is, however, subject to an unambiguous verification of their nationality. This is not a policy practised only in India; it is a generally accepted principle in international relations. Therefore, if Bangladeshis come to India, they have to go back, Bangladesh has to accept them and they have to be proved to be Bangladeshis,' he said. He said that even when the Act had first been introduced in 1950, it did not remain in force for very long. 'The Act they are talking about had been used for only a couple of days in Assam because at that time, it invited trouble for many Bengali Muslims and after an old resident was asked to leave his residence in Upper Assam town within a few days, Nehru was furious and wrote to Gopinath Bordoloi (the then Chief Minister) on April 10 to suspend the enforcement of the Act. It was in force for only a few days, and it was stopped,' he said. The system at present and the 1950 Act Under the existing system in the state, the identification and declaration of 'foreigners' is done through Foreigners Tribunals (FTs). FTs are quasi-judicial bodies that determine whether a person presented before them – usually referred by the border police or 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. One of the 13 questions that had been framed for and deliberated by that Constitutional Bench had been: 'Whether the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 being a special enactment qua immigrants into Assam, alone can apply to migrants from East Pakistan/Bangladesh to the exclusion of the general Foreigners Act and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 made thereunder.' In the judgement, after upholding the validity of Section 6A, the court had issued a set of six directions, of which one was: 'The provisions of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 shall also be read into Section 6A and shall be effectively employed for the purpose of identification of illegal immigrants.' The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 had commenced from March 1, 1950 and stated that if any person had been an ordinary resident of a place outside India and entered Assam, and the Central government is 'of opinion… that the the stay of such person or class of persons in Assam is detrimental to the interests of the general public of India or of any section thereof or of any Scheduled Tribe in Assam', then the central government may 'direct' them to 'remove himself or themselves from India or Assam within such time and by such route as may be specified in the order.' It states that the Central government can delegate this power to any officer of the Central government or the Assam government.
