Latest news with #NarmadaBachaoAndolan
The Hindu
11-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
The women who remain largely invisible
Across India and South Asia, women have long been at the forefront of movements resisting unjust development, extractivism, and climate degradation. They have led protests against destructive mining, dams, and infrastructure projects. Yet, when it comes to decision-making, these women are largely invisible. From the forests of Odisha to the coastlines of Tamil Nadu, women have led some of the most sustained resistance movements. In Sijimali (Odisha), women continue to protest mining projects threatening their forest-based way of life, often facing police violence. In Jharkhand, Adivasi women in Dewas are blocking coal mining operations to protect ancestral land. In Tamil Nadu, women from fishing communities have been at the forefront of protests against the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant. These movements represent a powerful assertion of community-led development and environmental protection rooted in lived realities. Leadership not acknowledged Despite being central to the resistance, women are systematically excluded from consultations, especially those that claim to uphold free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). In many cases, community meetings and decisions on land are dominated by men, while women, who bear the disproportionate burden of displacement and environmental degradation, are sidelined. Women's perspectives are also frequently devalued or dismissed as emotional, despite being rooted in acute socio-environmental knowledge. In Bangladesh's Phulbari, women resisted an open-pit coal mining project, enduring police crackdowns while organising mass mobilisations. In India's Narmada Bachao Andolan, Medha Patkar's leadership brought global attention to the devastating impact of dams. Yet, policies designed in response to such movements have often remained blind to the gendered impacts of displacement and rehabilitation. Legal frameworks in South Asia do exist to protect women's land rights — at least on paper. India's Forest Rights Act (2006) and PESA Act (1996) recognise women's role in Gram Sabhas and grant equal rights to forest resources. Nepal's Joint Land Ownership Policy encourages land co-ownership between spouses. Bangladesh prioritises women in land distribution under its Khas land programme. However, these frameworks are undermined by systemic gaps: land titles often remain in the name of male household heads, with women rarely listed as joint or sole owners. Implementation mechanisms lack gender sensitivity, and Gram Sabhas are frequently held in male-dominated settings. Additionally, many displaced women are not counted as heads of households and are thus excluded from compensation. There is no comprehensive gender-sensitive land policy at the national level in India. State land redistribution programmes often overlook single women, widows, or women without formal documentation. Despite the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act granting equal inheritance rights, customary laws and local practices frequently override statutory provisions, particularly in tribal regions. The intersection of formal legal barriers with entrenched patriarchal norms leads to a practical erasure of women from land governance processes. This invisibility becomes even more glaring in the context of climate change. In India and beyond, extreme heat, water scarcity, and environmental pollution are deepening existing gender inequalities. Women walk farther for water, care for sick family members, and work longer for less — all while being excluded from decisions on climate resilience, rehabilitation, or mitigation. Yet, most climate adaptation frameworks fail to integrate women's traditional ecological knowledge or ensure their participation in planning. While FPIC is increasingly cited in international standards and development finance frameworks, its actual implementation rarely includes gendered perspectives. What use is 'consultation' if it takes place in spaces where women feel unsafe to speak? What legitimacy does consent hold if it is given without understanding the long-term ecological and social impacts, or if it is granted by male leaders who don't represent women's interests? Need for structural change If we are serious about gender justice, climate justice, and inclusive development, this must change. Governments and corporations must ensure that consultations are not only free and prior but informed and inclusive. This means scheduling meetings at times accessible to women, ensuring women-only spaces when necessary, and providing translation and legal aid. It means recognising women as independent landowners, not just as dependents of male household heads. At the same time, women's leadership within movements must be amplified. Too often, women do the groundwork — organising, protesting, feeding, and sustaining the movement — without having a seat at the table. Movement allies, NGOs, and policymakers must acknowledge and support women's leadership, not just on the streets but in negotiation rooms, legislatures, and compensation boards. If development is to be democratic, if climate policy is to be just, and if resistance is to be meaningful, the voices of women must not only be heard — they must lead. Their stories are not of victimhood, but of vision. It's time our policies, laws, and institutions reflected that truth. Bhoomika Choudhury, International lawyer and researcher specialising in business and human rights, corporate accountability, and labour rights
India Today
25-04-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Delhi High Court suspends Medha Patkar's sentence in VK Saxena defamation case
In a relief to activist Medha Patkar, the Delhi High Court on Friday suspended her sentence in a defamation case filed by Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena in which she was arrested and produced in a sessions court earlier in the filed the case 23 years ago when he was heading an NGO in April 2, a sessions court upheld Patkar's conviction in the defamation case but modified her sentence and released her on "probation of good conduct". It directed her to furnish a Rs 25,000 probation bond on April 8 and imposed a precondition of Rs 1 lakh Probation is a method of non-institutional treatment of offenders and a conditional suspension of a sentence in which the offender, after conviction, is released on bond of good behaviour instead of being sent to a non-bailable warrant (NBW) was issued against her after she failed to honour the conditions of probation on the prescribed Friday, Patkar was arrested and produced before a sessions court, following which the judge orally ordered her release subject to furnishing the the meantime, the high court's Justice Shalinder Kaur issued notice on her revision petition challenging her conviction and punishment and later suspended the was granted bail on a personal bond of Rs 25, the "contentious issues" raised over the suspension of the sentence, the court noted Patkar was taken into custody in execution of the in these circumstances, by way of an interim means, the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the ... (trial court)," the high court high court granted two weeks to Saxena's counsel to file reply to the revision petition and posted her plea against her punishment in the case on May 20."In the meanwhile, the order on sentence is deferred till the next date of hearing," it withdrew her plea challenging her conviction earlier in the day and filed a fresh 70-year-old Narmada Bachao Andolan leader has challenged the sessions court order which upheld her conviction by a magisterial advocate Sanjay Parikh, representing Patkar, said in the execution of the NBW, she has been arrested today and produced before the sessions said that if the petitioner furnished the probation bond before the sessions court, this revision petition would become infructuous and sought suspension of her Gajinder Kumar, who appeared for Saxena, opposed the plea and raised an objection, contending that it was an "abuse of process of the law" by the he said, was first required to furnish the probation bond and the revision petition could be heard on its magisterial court on July 1, 2024 sentenced her to five months' simple imprisonment and slapped a Rs 10 lakh fine after finding her guilty under Section 500 (defamation) of the now defunct filed the case as president of the National Council of Civil Liberties against Patkar for her defamatory press release against Saxena issued on November 24, May 24, 2024, the magisterial court held that Patkar's statements calling Saxena a "coward" and alleging his involvement in hawala transactions were not only defamatory per se but also "crafted to incite negative perceptions" about accusation that the complainant was "mortgaging" the people of Gujarat and their resources to foreign interests was a direct attack on his integrity and public service, it had April 2, an additional sessions judge had dismissed a challenge to the order and held Patkar was "rightly convicted" and there was "no substance" in the appeal against the verdict of her conviction in the defamation Watch
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Activist Medha Patkar released hours after arrest in defamation case
Social activist Medha Patkar was released on Friday after directions from a Delhi court. She was released at 4:30 pm, just hours after her arrest in connection with a defamation case filed by Delhi Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena. Additional Sessions Judge Vipin Kharb directed her release after she deposited the bail bond as directed by the court. Saxena's counsel, however, opposed the acceptance of her bail bond by the Court, stating that it was due to coercive action that she was furnishing the bail bond rather than voluntarily and therefore it should not be accepted. Earlier this month, Additional Sessions Judge Vishal Singh had convicted the 70-year-old activist and granted her probation on the condition of good conduct, paired with a ₹1 lakh fine. However, her absence from the hearing on April 23 and failure to meet the court's directives led to the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against her. What is the case against her? The defamation case dates back to the year 2000 and stems from remarks allegedly made by Medha Patkar, in which she referred to Vinai Kumar Saxena as a 'coward' and accused him of involvement in hawala transactions and of acting against the interests of the people of Gujarat. In May 2024, a magistrate held that her remarks were defamatory and aimed at damaging Saxena's public image. Patkar, a social activist who led the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), has long opposed large-scale infrastructure projects such as the Sardar Sarovar Dam, arguing that they result in the displacement of tribal communities and the destruction of forest and agricultural land. Over the years, she has become widely known for her peaceful protests, including arrests, physical assaults, and prolonged hunger strikes, in her struggle against forced displacement and environmental harm.
Scroll.in
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Activist Medha Patkar arrested, released hours later in 24-year-old defamation case
Activist and Narmada Bachao Andolan leader Medha Patkar was released from custody on Friday hours after being arrested by the police in a 24-year-old defamation case filed by Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena, The Indian Express reported. This came two days after a Delhi court issued a non-bailable warrant against Patkar for not furnishing probation bonds in the case. The case was filed in 2001, when Saxena was heading the Ahmedabad-based non-governmental organisation National Council for Civil Liberties. Saxena alleged that Patkar had defamed him in a press note titled 'True face of patriot', which the activist had issued on November 25, 2000. On Friday, Additional Sessions Judge Vipin Kharb of Saket Court directed the Delhi Police to release Patkar and allow her to furnish the bail bonds. In May, Patkar was convicted in the case. She was found guilty of criminal defamation under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and was liable to serve two years' jail time, pay a fine, or both. On April 8, Additional Sessions Judge Vishal Singh had granted Patkar one year's probation in the case, noting that the offence she had committed was not grave enough to warrant imprisonment. Patkar was expected to appear before the court on Wednesday, furnish probation bonds and deposit a fine of Rs 1 lakh. As the activist did not appear in court or comply with other orders, the judge on Wednesday said that Patkar was deliberately violating the directions and issued a non-bailable warrant. Patkar's release on Friday came after her counsel told the court that the probation order was still valid, The Indian Express reported. The activist will furnish the probation bonds on Friday, said the lawyer. The case was filed in an Ahmedabad court and transferred to the chief metropolitan magistrate's court in Delhi in 2003. Patkar pleaded not guilty to the charges in 2013. The judgement passed in May had said that Patkar's press note was a direct attack on Saxena's personal character and loyalty to the nation. The court also observed that Patkar had accused Saxena of 'mortgaging the people of Gujarat and their resources to foreign interests' and held the allegation to be a 'direct attack' on his integrity and public service. 'Such allegations are particularly grave in the public sphere, where patriotism is highly valued, and questioning someone's courage and national loyalty can cause irreversible damage to their public image and social standing,' the court had said.
Hindustan Times
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Hours after arrest, Medha Patkar withdraws HC plea against defamation conviction
New Delhi: Social activist Medha Patkar on Friday withdrew her petition in the Delhi High Court challenging a city court's order that upheld her conviction in a 2001 criminal defamation case filed by Delhi lieutenant governor Vinai Kumar Saxena. The development came just hours after she was arrested by the Delhi Police, following a non-bailable warrant (NBW) issued by the city court for failing to comply with the conditions required for release on probation. The case stems from a press release issued by the Narmada Bachao Andolan leader on November 24, 2000, in which she alleged that Saxena, who was the president of non-profit organisation National Council of Civil Liberties at the time, had given a cheque to NBA, which subsequently bounced. Saxena, who was actively involved in ensuring the timely completion of the Sardar Sarovar Project, filed the defamation case on January 18, 2001, alleging that Patkar's press release contained false accusations intended to harm his reputation. On May 24, 2024, metropolitan magistrate Raghav Sharma convicted Patkar concluding that her actions were deliberate, malicious and aimed at tarnishing Saxena's reputation. On July 1, 2024, judge Sharma sentenced Patkar to undergo five months imprisonment along with ₹10 lakh as fine. Also read: Activist Medha Patkar arrested in defamation case filed by Delhi L-G On April 2, sessions judge Vishal Singh had upheld metropolitan magistrate Raghav Sharma's May 2024 order convicting Patkar in the defamation case. On April 8, Singh had granted Patkar probation directing her to deposit ₹1 lakh as compensation and furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000 by April 23. However on Wednesday, judge Singh issued the NWB, upon her failure to fulfil the conditions, noting that Patkar instead of appearing in court for compliance of the order on sentence, was absent and deliberately failed to comply with the same. A high court bench of justice Shailender Kaur dismissed Patkar's petition as withdrawn, after the social activist's counsel submitted that his client would file the same afresh by also challenging the order on sentence. 'The counsel for the petitioner submits that he seeks to withdraw the criminal revision petition with liberty to file afresh. In view of the submissions made, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed as per law,' the order read.
