Latest news with #OfficeMemorandum
India Gazette
22-05-2025
- Business
- India Gazette
Government mandates 4% housing reservation for people with disabilities
New Delhi [India], May 22 (ANI): Union Minister Manohar Lal on Thursday took a milestone decision to provide a reservation of 4% in the allotment of central government housing for the person with disabilities. The decision was taken with an aim to reaffirm the commitment to equal opportunities for all citizens under the Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan, the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs said in a release. 'In alignment with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, the Directorate of Estates has issued an Office Memorandum to ensure fair access to central government residential accommodations for persons with disabilities,' the release added. According to the ministry, this initiative is a reflection of 'the government's dedication to the empowerment of every citizen and also strengthens the foundation of an inclusive and accessible India.' Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the eKYC (digital Know Your Customer) process must be made accessible to people with disabilities. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, while pronouncing a judgement on PIL pleas seeking directions to the government regarding problems faced by acid attack victims and blind or persons with low-vision in being able to complete the eKYC process, stated that the right to digital access is intrinsic to Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Additionally, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is directed to issue guidelines to ensure that alternative, inclusive methods are available for verifying customer 'liveness' during Digital KYC or e-KYC processes, moving beyond methods like eye blinking, which may not be accessible to persons with disabilities. Furthermore, the RBI must clarify that customer onboarding through video-based KYC (V-CIP) does not require eye blinking, making the process more directions also state that KYC templates and customer acquisition forms must be redesigned to record the type and percentage of disability, enabling institutions to provide accessible services or reasonable accommodations to customers with disabilities. (ANI)
Indian Express
20-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
A win for the environment
Environment clearances are guardrails that ensure developmental projects do not injure ecosystems, wildlife and natural resources and harm people's health. One of the defining elements of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Rules of 2006, these screenings were meant to enable policymakers to strike the right balance between the imperatives of development and sustainability. The precautionary principle behind this provision has, however, been substantially undermined in the past eight years. In 2017, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued a notification that allowed developers to obtain an environmental clearance after beginning work on a project. The notification provided a one-time window to defaulters to comply with due procedure. However, in the process, it inaugurated a regime of post-facto clearances, which was consolidated in 2021 when the Centre issued an Office Memorandum (OM) to 'identify' and 'handle' violation cases. Now, the Supreme Court has called out the government for 'going out of its way… to protect those who harm the environment'. On May 16, a two-judge-bench struck down the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM. The verdict is not the first time that the SC has admonished the Centre for diluting the EIA. In Common Cause vs Union of India (2017), a two-judge-bench ruled that the government had committed 'serious lapses' in allowing large-scale mining to be 'carried on without forest and environmental clearances'. Such 'violations of laws and policy need to be prevented,' it underlined. Three years later, in Alembic Pharmaceuticals vs Rohit Prajapati, the Court held that post-facto clearances go against the 'fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence', and that they were an 'anathema to the EIA notification'. Then, in January last year, the SC stayed the 2021 OM. However, as an analysis by this newspaper in February revealed, the regulatory laxity precipitated by the 2017 notification allowed more than 50 defaulting projects to go unpunished — coal, iron and bauxite mines, steel and iron factories, cement plants and limestone quarries were approved without proper scrutiny of their impacts on people's health and ecology. The weakening of the EIA goes against the SC's environmental jurisprudence, where it has continuously expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to a healthy environment. In its latest verdict, too, the Court has drawn attention to urban India's pollution crisis and reaffirmed the links between regulatory diligence and the Right to Life. The problem, however, is that governments tend to view sustainability and development as binaries — their ease-of-doing-business drives very often pay short shrift to the imperatives of environmental protection. The Court has rightly questioned the tendency to see industry and ecology as locked in a zero-sum game. Its words — 'conservation of the environment and its improvement is an essential part of the concept of development' — must resonate among policymakers and inform regulatory processes.
The Hindu
19-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
‘Damning indictment of government': Congress on Supreme Court barring granting of retrospective environmental clearances
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh on Monday (May 19, 2025) hailed the Supreme Court decision striking down the measures enabling the grant of ex-post facto environmental clearances and said it was a "damning indictment" of the Modi government whose domestic walk is completely at variance with its global talk on environmental protection. The Supreme Court last Friday (May 16, 2025) said the right to live in a pollution free atmosphere was a part of the fundamental right as it struck down the Centre's office memorandum allowing ex post facto or retrospective environmental clearances to projects in violation of norms. A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made scathing remarks in its judgement delivered on a plea filed by Vanashakti organisation and said, 'The Union Government, as much as individual citizens, has a constitutional obligation to protect the environment.' Former Environment Minister Mr. Ramesh hailed the judgement which he claimed was a 'damning indictment' of the Modi government. 'In a landmark decision reaffirming the principles and practices of sustainable development, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on May 16, 2025 struck down the Modi Government's measures enabling the grant of ex-post facto environmental clearances. It declared such clearances illogical and illegal,' Mr. Ramesh said. In a landmark decision reaffirming the principles and practices of sustainable development, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on May 16, 2025 struck down the Modi Government's measures enabling the grant of ex-post facto environmental clearances. It declared such clearances illogical and… — Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) May 19, 2025 The Supreme Court held that the 2017 notification issued by the Modi government had the sole purpose of shielding violators who knowingly did not secure the mandatory requirement of prior environmental clearance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, he said. 'It further ruled that the 2017 Notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum jointly violated binding precedents, encouraged polluters, and legitimised the degradation of air and water quality—blatantly infringing upon the fundamental right to a clean environment guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,' Mr. Ramesh said. 'Pre-emptively disallowing for all measures granting ex-post facto environmental clearance in any manner, the Supreme Court noted 'it is not possible to understand why the Central Government made efforts to protect those who committed illegality by not obtaining prior EC in terms of the EIA notification',' he said. Mr. Ramesh claimed that the judgment is a "damning indictment" of the Modi government whose domestic walk is "completely at variance" with its global talk as far as environmental protection is concerned. The court said it "must come down very heavily" on the Centre's attempt to do "something which is completely prohibited under the law". It added, "Cleverly, the words ex post facto have not been used, but without using those words, there is a provision to effectively grant ex post facto EC. The 2021 OM has been issued in violation of the decisions of this court…." The Bench, therefore, declared the 2021 office memorandum (OM) and related circulars 'arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006". The Centre, as a result, was restrained from issuing directions for grant of ex post facto clearances in any form or manner or for regularising the acts done in contravention of the EIA notification.
New Indian Express
17-05-2025
- Health
- New Indian Express
Contract nurses seek Delhi L-G help for regularisation
NEW DELHI: Despite clear directions from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the Delhi government has yet to frame a policy for the regularisation of contractual nurses and paramedical staff working against sanctioned posts in various health facilities. With many of them nearing retirement age and staring at the loss of service benefits, the affected employees have now knocked on the doors of the Lieutenant Governor, seeking his urgent intervention to expedite the process. In a letter to the L-G, the Delhi State Contractual Employees Association urged the administration to address their long-pending demand with empathy and seriousness. They highlighted that the CAT, in its order dated March 12, 2025, had directed the Delhi government to re-examine its regularisation policy for nursing and paramedical staff. This directive came after the Tribunal scrutinised the Office Memorandum issued on October 11, 2020, which had only offered age relaxation to contractual staff, while still requiring them to compete in open recruitment for regular posts. The Association reminded the L-G that the Tribunal had asked the government to reconsider the matter in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Jaggo vs. Union of India delivered in December 2024. The Tribunal had emphasised that the exercise should be completed in a time-bound manner, preferably within six months. The employees pointed out that despite serving over two decades in Delhi's public health system and being appointed against sanctioned posts through proper recruitment procedures, they continue to remain on contract. 'In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is respectfully requested that appropriate directions be issued to the Health & Family Welfare Department to comply with the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The department may be directed to frame a comprehensive policy for the regularization of contractual Nursing and Paramedical employees of the Government of NCT of Delhi, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court,' the letter read. 'It is also earnestly requested that status quo be maintained, and no contractual Nursing or Paramedical employee be disengaged or removed until a new regularization policy is duly framed and implemented,' it added.
The Hindu
16-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court strikes down ex post facto environmental clearances to building projects, constructions
The Supreme Court on Friday (May 16, 2025) held the grant of ex post facto or retrospective Environmental Clearances (EC) by the Centre to building projects and constructions a 'gross illegality' and an anathema against which the courts must come down heavily. A Bench of Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, in a judgment, restrained the Union government from granting ex post facto clearances in any form to regularise illegal constructions. The court struck down the 2017 notification and 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) of the Centre, which in effect recognised the grant of ex post facto ECs, and connected government circulars, orders and notifications as illegal and completely arbitrary. However, the Bench clarified that ECs already granted till date under the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM would be unaffected by the judgment. Accusing the Centre of 'crafty drafting' to clear illegal constructions through retrospective ECs, the court said the government was only protecting project proponents who had committed gross illegality by commencing construction or operations in these illegal constructions without obtaining prior EC. 'Before undertaking a new project or expanding or modernising an existing one, an EC must be obtained… The concept of an ex post facto EC is in derogation of the fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence and is an anathema to the EIA Notification of January 27, 1994,' Justice Oka observed. The judgment said the government had issued the 2017 notification despite a clear declaration of the law in favour of prior EC by the Supreme Court in the Common Cause judgment the very same year. 'The reason why a retrospective EC or an ex post facto clearance is alien to environmental jurisprudence is that before the issuance of an EC, the statutory notification warrants a careful application of mind, besides a study into the likely consequences of a proposed activity on the environment,' Justice Oka explained. The effect of granting an ex post facto clearance would amount to giving permission to complete the construction of a project which had started without prior EC. In cases in which the construction was already completed and activities had begun, the retrospective EC would facilitate continuation. Thus, in effect, the ex post facto EC regularised something which was illegal with retrospective effect. Referring to the 2021 OM, the court said the Union government had not 'cleverly' avoided the words 'ex post facto', but the provisions had the effect of allowing a retrospective regime. 'The 2021 OM talks about the concept of development. Can there be development at the cost of the environment? Conservation of the environment and its improvement is an essential part of the concept of development. Therefore, going out of the way by issuing such OMs to protect those who have caused harm to the environment has to be deprecated by the courts… Even the Central government has a duty to protect and improve the natural environment,' Justice Oka underscored.
