Telangana government tells Supreme Court it is committed to sustainable land development
HYDERABAD: The state government has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court affirming its commitment to develop the Kancha Gachibowli land in a sustainable and environmentally responsible manner, fully aligned with applicable legal and ecological standards.
The affidavit explained how the Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TGIIC), which is overseeing the master plan for the area, is prioritising the conservation of ecologically and historically significant landmarks. Specific protective measures are being taken to preserve features such as the iconic Mushroom Rock.
TGIIC has also pledged to safeguard Chilakala Kunta, ensuring the maintenance of a buffer zone up to full tank level (FTL) to protect the water body and its surrounding ecosystem.
These assurances were made in the affidavit submitted by Chief Secretary K Ramakrishna Rao, ahead of a scheduled hearing in the Supreme Court on Thursday before a bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai. The case pertains to alleged ecological damage in 400 acres within the Kancha Gachibowli area.
According to the affidavit, TGIIC is identifying, marking and preserving all non-exempt trees in the development area. In instances where in-situ preservation is not feasible, the agency will relocate and rehabilitate the trees following scientific and ecological guidelines.
'As part of its environmental stewardship, TGIIC will intensify compensatory plantation efforts related to the current development. These plantations will not only offset any loss of trees but will also enhance the area's green cover and ecological resilience,' the affidavit states.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Preventive detention extraordinary power of state that must be used sparingly: SC
New Delhi, 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 to detain a man indulging in money lending in Kerala. A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan said 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 in cases against him, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. "Therefore, 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, 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, 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 detention. It 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 noted. It referred to the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Act, 2007, and said that the object of the statute was to provide for effective prevention of certain anti-social activities in the state. The bench said Section 2 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 others. The 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 magistrate. The police stated that the detainee was a "notorious goonda" in the district and a threat to the society at large. Aggrieved 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 husband. The 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 decision. On December 10, 2024, the top court ordered the detainee to be released as his maximum period of detention under the Act was over.
Indian Express
38 minutes ago
- Indian Express
As Pune gears up for Pride March tomorrow, a transgender couple faces bureaucratic hurdles as they wait to tie the knot
Nearly two years ago, the Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, affirmed the rights of transgender persons in heterosexual relationships to marry under existing laws. Priti, 29, a transgender from Jamshedpur who aspires to be a beautician and is waiting to tie the knot with Pune-based Trinay, 34, a transman legally recognised as male on his Aadhaar card, however faces several challenges to exercising this right. 'I have my TG Identity card and like any other woman, I want to be a wife, parent, and live with my husband. However, it has been more than one and a half years since the judgment but our transgender community still awaits this right,' Priti said. She hopes to raise this issue at the 13th Annual Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, and Queer Pride March to be held in Pune on Sunday. Priti, who has passed Class 12 and worked in the hotel management sector, is yet to be accepted by her family. 'I am a transgender person, not a sex worker. I want to become a beautician and earn my living. Mujhe jeena hai (I want to live),' Priti said. She met Trinay on an online portal, and before long, they forged a deep connection as they opened up about their personal struggles, finding strength and understanding in each other's stories. Trinay, assigned female at birth, but who always felt like a male deep inside, had experienced several challenges due to his situation. 'I wanted to pee like a boy, and wear tight T-shirts. Menstruation would give me panic attacks,' recalled Trinay, who works at a tech firm in the city. Deciding that he could not live this dual life anymore, he eventually transitioned to a male after undergoing gender affirming surgery. Speaking to The Indian Express, Trinay said, 'Priti and I have been doing the rounds of the marriage registrar's office only to return disappointed. Instead of guiding us on the online application process and other details, we were asked to obtain a court order.' The duo met Bindumadhav Khire, an LGBTIQ activist and director of Bindu Queer Rights Foundation, Pune, and spoke about their difficulty in registering their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 'Both of them have the requisite IDs. The transman has a collector-issued ID with gender stated as 'male' and the other transgender person has a collector-issued ID with the gender stated as 'transgender' as per provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and the corresponding Rules (2020). I too approached the Marriage Registrar, but was told that they have not received any notification with regard to the legality of registering the marriage of transgender people. So they have to obtain an order from the high court or a notification from the government in this regard,' Khire told The Indian Express. The activist later filed a grievance in May on the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System to the Ministry of Home Affairs/Legislative Matters seeking a notification by the central government, to all states and Union territories, on the legality of registering the marriage of a transgender person in a heterosexual relationship. Khire, who received a response on June 6, said that suggestions made in the grievance have been noted by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. 'We now hope that action will be taken in this case,' Khire said. When contacted, senior lawyer Anand Grover said that as per the top court's ruling, there was no legal prohibition on transgender individuals from getting married. Meanwhile, at the Marriage Registrar's office, authorities said that the process is now online and they have not received any application from transgender persons so far. While experts said it was likely that some registration offices may require guidance from higher authorities, if they have not previously handled such registrations, Khire said that it was important that LGBTIQ rights granted by the Supreme Court do not remain only on paper. 'This LGBTIQ Pride Month, it is important that LGBTIQ rights granted by the Supreme Court are implemented in letter and spirit. Transgenders who were granted legal recognition in the 2014 judgment (National Legal Services Authority v/s Union of India) still await their right to marry the person of their choice,' Khire added. As per the Supreme Court judgment dated October 17, 2023, in the case involving one Supriyo Chakraborty, the apex court stated, '…..Consequently, we agree with the conclusion…that transgender persons in heterosexual relations have the right to marry under existing laws, including in personal laws regulating marriage. The court's affirmation of the HC judgment in Arun Kumar v Inspector General of Registration…is based upon a correct analysis.' In Arun Kumar's case, the Madras High Court had said in 2019, 'A marriage solemnized between a male and a transwoman, both professing Hindu religion, is a valid marriage in terms of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Registrar of Marriages is bound to register the same. By holding so, this Court is not breaking any new ground. It is merely stating the obvious. Sometimes, to see the obvious, one needs not only physical vision in the eye but also love in the heart.' Anuradha Mascarenhas is a journalist with The Indian Express and is based in Pune. A senior editor, Anuradha writes on health, research developments in the field of science and environment and takes keen interest in covering women's issues. With a career spanning over 25 years, Anuradha has also led teams and often coordinated the edition. ... Read More
United News of India
3 hours ago
- United News of India
US SC gives Trump admin's DOGE dept full authorisation to access social security data
Washington, June 7 (UNI) The US Supreme Court on Friday authorised officials from the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access Social Security Administration data, giving it complete access to all sensitive private data of American citizens. The Supreme Court issued the authorisation after allowing an emergency petition filed by the administration of President Donald Trump to ask for a lifting of an injunction issued by a district judge in Maryland, who stated that privacy must be safeguarded, reports said. 'Under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in a three-paragraph order. The order didn't, however, give the reasoning behind its ruling, which has become a very controversial issue. The order was also challenged by the court's three liberals — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — all of whom dissented. In an opinion joined by Sotomayor, Jackson said the court was 'creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans.' In the SSA case, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that 'the government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs.' The DOGE department, which was created by the Trump administration and was until recently headed by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, before his resignation following his spat with the POTUS, while not an official government department, was designed specifically to monitor data fraud and misinformation. The disputed data includes Social Security numbers, addresses, birth and marriage certificates, tax and earnings records, employment history, and bank and credit card information. The lawsuit challenging DOGE's actions alleged that allowing broader access to personal information would violate a federal law called the Privacy Act, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander had ruled that DOGE had no legitimate need to access the specific data in question, according to Xinhua. The 4th circuit court of appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, declined to block Judge Hollander's decision, prompting the Trump administration to file an emergency request with the Supreme Court. In a separate order issued Friday in another case involving DOGE, the Supreme Court granted an additional request filed by the Trump administration, allowing it to shield DOGE from Freedom of Information Act requests for the time being. UNI ANV PRS
