Latest news with #JusticeOka
Indian Express
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
From loudspeaker ban & pothole-free roads to mangrove protection: As Bombay HC judge, Justice Oka's rulings shaped civic, environmental rights
Justice Abhay S Oka of the Supreme Court, set to retire on May 24, served 16 years as a Bombay HC judge (2003–2019), delivering key verdicts on civic issues, laying down directives on civic issues and citizens' rights to better living conditions and environment. His landmark rulings on noise pollution, illegal hoardings, potholes, mangrove protection and Mahul's air quality among others have set precedent for courts and authorities. At a farewell function in Delhi, Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai, who has been his colleague for nearly four decades as a lawyer and judge, highlighted Justice Oka's 'distinguished tenure' at Bombay HC, saying his 'contribution to environmental jurisprudence and constitutional values…would leave an indelible imprint.' Noise pollution: Curbs on use of loudspeakers In August 2016, Justice Oka, while ruling on PILs, directed strict enforcement of noise pollution norms. He noted that 'use of loudspeakers (or public address system) is not an essential part of any religion,' and hence not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution that provided the fundamental right to profess, propagate and practice religion. He added that the same right was not available to pandals erected for religious celebrations and other functions on streets or footpaths, 'There is no fundamental right to celebrate religious festivals on streets.' The verdict banned loudspeaker use between 10 pm and 6 am across Maharashtra with certain exceptions and completely restricted horn use in silence zones and during night hours in residential zones. Though the Maharashtra government made allegations against Justice Oka of bias against state machinery and sought case transfer, it later issued an unconditional apology, which the HC accepted. In January 2024, a Bombay HC bench led by Justice A S Gadkari reiterated Justice Oka's 2016 observations and directed graded penalties related to noise pollution complaints by citizens. Action against illegal hoardings, banners In January 2017, a bench led by Justice Oka passed several directives to pull down illegal hoardings and banners and put a responsibility on civic and police officers for removal of illegal hoardings, banners or sky-signs and to register FIR against offenders. 'There is a competition amongst the political parties when it comes to the size of the sky signs displaying photographs of their prominent leaders…It is high time that the political parties and especially their leaders and workers do not adopt arm twisting tactics and take recourse to pressurising the municipal and police office,' the judgment noted. Thereafter, HC last year revived the 2017 PIL and has passed several directions to authorities and political parties to pull down illegal banners and hoardings. Pothole-free roads In February and April 2018, a Justice Oka-led bench at Bombay HC passed a judgment on a suo motu PIL, directing repair of potholes along all major roads in the city and sought uniform mechanism to redress citizens' grievances. He observed that citizens had the right to have good roads and footpaths and no city can become a smart city without them being in better condition. In September 2022, BMC assured another HC bench that it would concretise over 2,000 km of city roads. The court from time to time slammed BMC for its 'slackness' in fulfilling these assurances. Protection of mangroves In September 2018, Justice Oka-led bench held that 'there shall be total freeze on destruction and cutting of mangroves in the entire state of Maharashtra.' Justice Oka in his verdict on PIL by Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG) noted that 'the mangroves cannot be destroyed by the state for private, commercial or any other use unless the court finds it necessary for the public good. It said such destruction 'offends the fundamental rights of the citizens under Article 21 (Right to life) of the Constitution.' After the 2018 judgment, any public development or infrastructure project involving cutting of mangroves requires the HC's approval. Mahul's air quality A month before his elevation as Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, in April 2019, Justice Oka passed an order on a PIL related to projected-affected persons (PAPs) residing in Mahul surrounded by highly polluting industries. He had observed that 'PAPs cannot be forced to take accommodation in polluted areas, where air pollution is life threatening…' He said improper rehabilitation would infringe right of life of the people. Among other key rulings, in 2016, Justice Oka upheld Maharashtra's beef slaughter ban but struck down the prohibition on consuming beef from other states, calling it a violation of privacy under Article 21. In 2019, his bench pushed for a new HC building, leading to the Bandra (East) site being finalised last year.
Indian Express
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Justice Oka: The people's judge, a champion of liberty
On May 23, as we say goodbye to Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, who started his legal practice at the Thane District Court, it is an occasion to let his judgments do the talking. He championed free speech, liberty and equality. He has been instrumental in relaxing bail conditions in special statutes like the UAPA, and often came down heavily on authorities for arbitrary and illegal demolitions. In Sheikh Zahid Mukhtar's case (2016), a bench comprising Justice Oka struck down two amendments to the Maharashtra Animal Prevention Act, 1976. It was held that Section 5D (incriminating possession of flesh of any cow, bull, etc, slaughtered outside Maharashtra) infringed the right to privacy. This was done at a time when privacy had yet to be recognised as a fundamental right in K S Puttaswamy's case (2017). The arrests of students, political activists have become frequent and securing bail has turned out to be a tedious exercise. But in Jalaluddin Khan vs Union of India (2024), Justice Oka held that even in UAPA, bail is the rule and jail is the exception. In February 2025, pulling up the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for keeping Indian Telecommunication Service officer Arun Kumar Tripathi in custody under PMLA, Oka said, 'Concept of PMLA cannot be to ensure that a person should remain in jail.' In a PIL filed by Tushar Gandhi, a bench of Justice Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reaffirmed that the Uttar Pradesh government must bear the educational expenses — including tuition, uniforms, books, and transport — of a seven-year-old Muslim boy who was assaulted by classmates in Muzaffarnagar in 2023 after a teacher allegedly made communal remarks and instigated her students. The bench emphasised that while charitable organisations or schools could provide assistance, the primary responsibility lies with the state. During Covid, anti-CAA protests were on the rise across the country and Section 144 was imposed in Bengaluru in December 2019. Justice Oka, back then, was the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, and in Sowmya R Reddy's case (2020), he said the prohibitory order under Section 144 was illegal and violative of the fundamental right to hold peaceful protests. A bench led by Justice Oka also came to the rescue of a professor who was charged under Section 153A for updating his WhatsApp status, which was critical of the abrogation of Article 370. The Court in Javed Ahmad's case (2024) not only quashed the criminal case against the professor but also observed that if every criticism or protest against the state is to be held as an offence under 153A, then democracy will not survive. In Zulfiquar Haider's case (April 2025), calling the act of demolition 'illegal and arbitrary', Justice Oka came down heavily on the Prayagraj Development Authority and other state authorities for demolishing the houses of six individuals and directed them to pay Rs 10 lakh each to the aggrieved. He remarked, 'There is something called the right to shelter and due process.' In contrast to the Ali Khan Mahmudabad case (May 2025), when a bench led by Justice Surya Kant, even after granting interim bail, remarked that one must be careful while expressing their opinion, Justice Oka, in Abdul Sathar's case (May 2025), granted bail to a Popular Front of India secretary and observed that we cannot put someone in jail because of their ideology. He will be remembered not only for his judgments but also for his commitment to promoting litigation, pushing young lawyers to take up pro bono cases and reconstructing bail jurisprudence in the case of special statutes like UAPA and the PMLA. He will remain a beacon of hope and an inspiration. Upon his retirement, he must have looked forward to cherishing moments with his own. Yet, in a cruel twist of fate, he lost his mother, who passed away on May 21. Still, he returned to the bench on his final day, delivering 11 judgments with remarkable resolve. His influence will remain, ensuring that compassion, integrity, and tireless service shape future generations. The writer is an advocate practising at the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow
United News of India
17-05-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SC strikes down ex-post facto environmental clearances, bars Centre from issuing future approvals
New Delhi, May 16 (UNI) In a landmark decision with significant environmental implications, the Supreme Court on Friday categorically barred the Central Government from granting ex-post facto Environmental Clearances (EC) for any projects in the future. The Court also invalidated past Office Memoranda (OMs) and notifications that permitted such retrospective approvals, especially in the mining sector. A two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the ruling, holding that prior environmental clearance is a non-negotiable legal prerequisite under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. Reading out the operative part of the judgment, Justice Oka said, 'There are no equities in favour of those who committed gross illegalities without obtaining prior ECs. These are not cases of ignorance. The violators include companies, real estate developers, PSUs, and the mining industries. They knowingly proceeded without mandatory clearances,' Justice Oka said. The Court declared that the 2017 notification, the 2021 Office Memorandum, and all related circulars or orders enabling ex-post facto environmental clearance were illegal and hence struck down. It also restrained the Centre from issuing any future guidelines or notifications that would permit such retrospective approvals. However, the Court clarified that ECs already granted under the now-struck-down 2017 and 2021 directives would remain valid and unaffected by the judgment. The ruling came in response to a batch of petitions led by the environmental NGO Vanashakti, which contested the legal basis of the government's Standard Operating Procedures that allowed the regularisation of projects already operational without prior EC. The petitioners highlighted that the term 'prior environmental clearance' appeared 34 times in the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, underlining its compulsory nature. The Centre had defended its position by arguing that the 2021 OM and earlier 2017 notification were necessary to deal with legacy violations, claiming that a rigid interpretation would lead to mass demolitions and disrupt essential services. The government further asserted that these instruments were aligned with the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and intended to assess and mitigate environmental damage. However, the Supreme Court rejected this rationale, reiterating that legal compliance cannot be an afterthought, particularly in matters concerning environmental protection. The Court's interim stay on the impugned OMs, granted in January 2024, has now been made permanent with this final verdict. The decision sets a precedent for stricter adherence to environmental laws and curbs the recurring practice of regularising violations post-facto. UNI SNG RN
Hindustan Times
17-05-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
SC bans retrospective environment permits
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down Centre's office memorandums and notifications that allowed retrospective environmental clearances to projects that began without mandatory approvals, holding that development cannot come at the cost of the environment. The ruling reinforces the sanctity of the environmental assessments process for construction and mining work and the principle of precautionary protection, experts said, welcoming the decision. A bench led by Justice Oka ruled that projects that commenced without obtaining mandatory prior environmental clearance cannot be regularised by granting them clearance in future. The 2017 notification that first allowed this and a 2021 office memorandum, along with all related circulars and orders, were declared 'illegal and hereby struck down' while restraining the government from issuing any similar provisions. 'There are no equities in favour of those who committed gross illegalities without obtaining prior environmental clearances,' Justice Oka said while reading the operative portion of the judgment. 'The persons who acted without clearances were not illiterate persons. They are companies, real estate developers, public sector undertakings, mining industries... who knowingly committed the illegalities.' The bench, also comprising justice Ujjal Bhuyan, added that, 'hereafter the Central Government shall not come out with any version of the 2017 notification which provides for grant of ex-post facto EC (environment clearance)'. HT reached out to the ministry of environment forest and climate change for a response but did not get one immediately. The issue relates to what was released through a 2017 notification as a 'one-time opportunity' for six months for industries to seek ex-post facto (after-the-fact) environmental clearance as part of the mandatory environment impact assessment (EIA) for industries and projects. In 2021, and then in a follow up memorandum in 2022, the internal directives extended and systematised the approach, creating what activists said was a regularisation mechanism for violating projects. Critics stated this effectively established a parallel pathway for environmental compliance—one that allowed projects to begin first and seek approval later, contradicting the preventive intent of the EIA framework. To be sure, Friday's verdict, which came on petitions filed by NGO Vanashakti and others, clarified that environmental clearances already granted under the now-invalidated rules would remain unaffected. The bench said 'the 2021 OM talks about the concept of development. Can there be development at the cost of environment? Conservation of environment and its improvement is an essential part of the concept of development.' The 2021 memorandum, the court added, was 'an attempt to bring in an ex-post facto or retrospective regime by craftily drafting the SOP... we have no manner of doubt that the 2021 OM which permits grant of EC is completely arbitrary and illegal'. The ruling came down on the government for 'going out of the way' in order 'to protect those who have caused harm to the environment'. This, it said, 'has to be deprecated by the courts which are under a constitutional and statutory mandate to uphold the fundamental right under Article 21 and to protect the environment.' Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to protection of life and personal liberty. On past cases on this issue, the bench noticed that the matter of ex-post facto EC has been dealt with in two earlier decisions; in Common Cause (2017) and Alembic Pharmaceuticals (2020), where it was held that such approvals is 'completely alien' to environmental jurisprudence. Environmental activists welcomed the judgment as a significant victory for ecological protection. 'The judiciary has upheld the constitutional obligations of the state to protect the environment and forests. The balance should always be in favour of conservation. You cannot give a freehand to environmental destruction and incentives to people who destroy. The court has correctly observed that people involved in these violations are literate, wealthy and powerful who knew the consequences. We are so thankful that judiciary saw through this game,' said Stalin D, director of Vanashakti. Stalin emphasised the practical impossibility of undoing ecological damage: 'Once you lose an ecologically important area, how can you recreate it? You destroy a mountain, how do you recreate it?' Debadityo Sinha, lead-climate & ecosystems at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, described the verdict as 'a victory for environmental rule of law' that reinforces the mitigation hierarchy of 'avoid, minimise, restore, offset' in development projects. 'The practice of granting post-facto environmental clearance subverts this process, violates the Precautionary Principle, and is ultra vires the parent legislation—the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,' Sinha said. The ruling marks a significant departure from a March 2022 Supreme Court judgment, which had permitted ex-post facto clearances 'in exceptional circumstances' while setting aside a National Green Tribunal order on closure of non-compliant industries. Debi Goenka, executive trustee of Conservation Action Trust, offered a more measured response: 'The order sounds great on paper, but it is actually seems meaningless since all the violators have got away scot free along with the decision makers who have connived with them. In contrast, the Order issued by the Bench headed by Chief Justice Gavai yesterday has mandated the return of the lands illegally allotted, and if that is not possible, payment of costs and penalties. I do hope this Order also includes similar provisions (since the actual Order is still not available). However, one of the fundamental principles of law is that you cannot benefit from your own illegality— even that principle seems to have been forgotten.' The ministry of environment, forest and climate change had previously justified the provisions as necessary to bring violating projects 'under the environmental compliance regime' rather than leaving them 'unregulated and unchecked.' In its March 16, 2017 statement, the Ministry described the notification as providing an opportunity to bring 'such projects and activities in compliance with the environmental laws at the earliest point of time' while emphasising that 'the process for such violators has to be stringent and punitive.' Industry representatives reacted negatively. 'Ex post facto applications which were under consideration by the ministry should have been allowed since the memos allowed these with penalties. This will now have economic impacts. We should consider that too,' said BK Bhatia, additional secretary general, Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI).
Indian Express
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Will notify in a week cashless treatment scheme for road accident victims: Centre to SC
Justice Oka told the Secretary, who appeared before it Monday: 'People are dying in road accidents. You are constructing huge highways but people are dying there because there is no facility. There is no scheme for golden hour treatment. What is the use of constructing so many highways?' The Central Government under Section 162(2) of the Act is required to frame a scheme to provide cashless treatment to motor accident victims during the 'golden hour'. Section 2(12-A) of the Act defines 'golden hour' as the period of one hour following a traumatic injury when prompt treatment has the highest likelihood of preventing death. The scheme is yet to be implemented though Section 162 came into force on April 1, 2022. On January 8 this year, the SC had asked the Centre to frame the scheme by March 14. Hearing it on April 9, the SC noted that the scheme was yet to be framed and asked the Secretary, MoRTH, to appear before it through videoconferencing. On Monday, the bench told the Secretary that he was in contempt of court and wondered why he had not even filed an application seeking extension of time.'You are in contempt. You have not bothered to seek extension of time. What is this going on? You tell us when will you frame the scheme? You don't care for your own statutes. This is one of the welfare provisions. Three years (since) this provision has come into place. Are you really working for the welfare of common man?' asked Justice Oka. The Secretary said that a draft had been prepared but the government faced a roadblock due to issues raised by the General Insurance Council (GIC). 'The GIC has not been cooperative,' he said, adding that it has contended that it should be permitted to check the status of insurance policy of the motor vehicle involved in an accident. Justice Oka asked, 'Can you be so casual? Are you not serious about this provision?' The bench pointed out that another agency could be appointed if GIC is not cooperating. The Secretary agreed to do this. Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, who is amicus curiae in the matter, said the issue could be sorted out by authorising the State Health Agency (SHA) to release payments directly to hospitals. In its order, the SC also recorded that the 'Secretary states that the government tenders an apology for non-compliance with the direction' to frame the scheme and notify it.
