Posted on

BJP government wants to establish surveillance state; accused Mamata Banerjee

mamata Banerjee

On Wednesday, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee accused the BJP-led Government of trying to establish a “surveillance state”, latching on to the Pegasus snooping row.

The Trinamool congress supremo also asked the Supreme Court to take cognizance of snooping scandal that purportedly targeted politicians, activists, journalists and even judges using the Pegasus spyware. She also asked opposition parties to come together to defeat the BJP in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

Also See: Cyber warfare from China-part-II

Addressing the Martyrs’ Day rally in Kolkata online, she said, “The BJP wants to convert a democratic country into a surveillance state rather than a welfare state.”

Every year on July 21, the TMC observes Martyrs’ Day to commemorate the killing of 13 people in police firing on a rally of Youth Congress workers against the then Left Front government in 1993 when Mamata Banerjee was in the Congress.

The West Bengal CM and TMC chief also accused the Centre of spending the money collected through tax on fuel & other commodities for spying using a “dangerous software” instead of funding welfare schemes.

Also Read: Rahul Gandhi, Prashant Kishor & Ashok Lavassa among those targeted for NSO-Pegasus surveillance which has drawn attention of UN

Mamata Banerjee told the rally, “I know my phone is being tapped. All Opposition leaders know that our phones are being tapped. I cannot speak to NCP leader Sharad Pawarji or other Opposition leaders or Chief Ministers because we are being snooped and spied on by the Centre. But snooping on us would not save them in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls.”

West Bengal CM slammed the BJP-led NDA government for its “monumental failure” in handling the second wave of the Covid19-crisis. The TMC supremo also termed the saffron party a “highly loaded virus party” which needs to be defeated at any cost.

Also Read: Suvendu Adhikari blamed the overconfidence of Bengal BJP leaders for the election defeat

Mamata Banerjee thanked leaders of the Congress, NCP, SP, Shiv Sena and several other parties for joining her rally virtually from New Delhi. She said that all those opposed to the BJP and its “authoritarian regime” should defeat it.

The Bengal leader, who is being looked as an integral part of an opposition, said, “The BJP has taken the country to darkness, we all have to come forward to take it to new light.”

Renewing the battle cry she made during the state Assembly elections, Ms Banerjee declared, “Khela Hobe” (will play). The West Bengal CM further added that the fight will continue till BJP is ousted from power.

Posted on

Apex court issued notice to centre, ECI & West Bengal government over plea on post-poll violence

On Thursday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea seeking direction to the Centre to impose President’s Rule in West Bengal. This development comes in view of deteriorating law and order situation in the state. Post-poll violence which allegedly started on May 2, the day of assembly election results, is behind the perceived worsening of law and order situation.

Also See: Shadow of Narada-sting case over West Bengal

The plea also sought direction to the Centre to deploy armed/paramilitary forces. The deployment is to the aid of the administrative authorities to bring normalcy in the state and to save it from internal disturbances. But, it has been alleged that the centre has been trying to meddle in the affairs of the state after BJP lost the assembly election.

The PIL has sought setting up of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for probing the causes and reasons of post-poll violence in West Bengal.

On the plea, a bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari issued notice to the Centre, West Bengal and Election Commission of India. The plea also sought central and state governments to award compensation to the victims and their family members after ascertaining the nature of loss sustained by them in post-poll violence in the state.

Advocate Hari Shankar Jain appeared for petitioners Ranjana Agnihotri, a UP based practicing lawyer and social worker Jitender Singh. He said that the plea is against post-poll violence in West Bengal.

The Apex Court bench said, “We are issuing notice to respondent number 1, (Union of India), respondent number-2 (West Bengal government) and Respondent number 3 (Election Commission of India).”

The Supreme Court bench, however, did not issue notice to respondent number 4-Mamata Banerjee as the president of Trinamool Congress Party (TMC).

The plea was filed through advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain. The plea said that the PIL has been filed in extraordinary circumstances. It described the circumstances where thousands of residents of West Bengal are being terrorized, penalised and tortured by the workers of TMC for supporting the opposition party BJP during the assembly polls.

It must be noted that this is the perception of the BJP that lost the assembly election. Also, it is worthwhile to note that many fence-seating supporters of BJP had publicly apologized for joining BJP in Kolkata and other cities & towns. It was also indeed found that post-poll violence had impacted supporters of both TMC and BJP.

Also Read: Fake news being circulated regarding the post-poll violence in West Bengal

The plea said, “The petitioners are espousing the cause of thousands of citizens of West Bengal who are mostly Hindus and are being targeted by Muslims to take revenge for supporting BJP as they want to crush Hindus so that for years to come the power may remain with the party of their choice.”

The plea sought that the court should direct the central government to exercise its power conferred by Article 355 and Article 356 keeping in view the deteriorating condition posing a threat to sovereignty and integrity of India.

The plea further alleged that during the assembly elections, TMC party had contested the polls purely “on communal basis arousing the feelings of the Muslims and appealing to them to remain united and vote for their party for their better future”.

The plea said that subsequently BJP made a complaint to ECI against the communal appeal made by TMC party. It also added that the poll panel failed to hold free and fair election conforming the democratic norms and failed to enforce the mandatory provision of section 123 of Representation of People Act which has to be implemented during the election.

Also Read: What led to BJP’s defeat-Important highlights at the conclusion of the West Bengal election

The plea referred the Abhiram Singh case of 2017. It said that in the 2017 case, a seven-judge bench of the top court had ruled that no person can be allowed to contest election by making religious appeal. In the 2017 judgement, SCI had stated that appealing to the ascriptive identities of any candidate and that of the voters constitutes a ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

With respect to complaints against displacement of people due to the violence, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has submitted a brief report to the Calcutta High Court. To examine the report, the High Court has adjourned the matter till July 2.

Last week, the Calcutta high court had dismissed a petition by the West Bengal government to recall the June 18 order. In that order a five-judge bench of the High Court had directed the chairperson of the NHRC to constitute a committee to examine all the cases of alleged human rights violations during post-poll violence.

On June 21, NHRC Chairperson Justice (retd) Arun Mishra had constituted the panel headed by former Intelligence Bureau chief Rajiv Jain, following the court’s orders.

The plea seeking president’s rule said, “The election commission remained a silent spectator and the provision (of RP Act) was flagrantly violated.” It added that the Muslim population is about 30 percent in West Bengal due to “illegal Bangladeshi migrants and Rohingia Muslims have been registered as voters without making any proper scrutiny and enquiry”. In about 100 constituencies Muslims’ votes decide the fate of the candidates, the plea further added.

The Apex court is already hearing a batch of pleas related to post-poll violence in the state. It is seeking a probe by an independent agency into the alleged killing of BJP workers and sympathisers.

Posted on

Centre updated SCI on the vaccination after being pushed by the Court

Covid19 and Supreme court

After wasting nearly a year in election campaigns in the midst of Covd19, ignoring experts’ views on Kumbh in second wave, mishandling the Oxygen crisis, the centre is now scampering to get the huge population vaccinated.

Supreme Court held the centre’s vaccine pricing policy “irrational” and raised questions of access and equity. The Apex court has literally scolded Central government over the issue of vaccination. Following this, the centre told the court that until the end of this year, it expected to get 188 crore vaccine doses. The centre said that it expects to get vaccine doses from at least five manufacturers which would fully inoculate the total 94-crore population above 18.

The centre said that 51.6 crore doses would be “made available” by July 31.  In an affidavit filed by Manohar Agnani, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, it presented a roadmap to show how it proposes to procure the balance 135 crore from August to December 31 (see chart) from five manufacturers.

Also See: New mutants of Coronavirus

In its affidavit, the Centre said that it estimates 51.6 crore cumulative vaccinations by the end of July based on supply estimates.

The Centre submitted that the projected availability of vaccines from August to December will cover the balance 135 crore doses as per a break-up. The breakup includes 50 crore doses of Covishield; 40 crore doses of Covaxin; 30 crore doses of Bio E’s sub unit vaccine; 5 crore doses of Zydus Cadila DNA vaccine and 10 crore doses of Sputnik V.

GOI added that this “does not include other vaccines which are at various stages of development as on date within the country and may come and become available”.

Meanwhile, in May, the head of India’s Covid-19 task force had said that 216 crore doses would be available in India between August and December.

Also Read: Indemnity from liability to be granted to vaccine manufacturers like Pfizer and Moderna

However, the latest affidavit does not include the projected availability from Novavax (20 crore), Bharat Biotech’s Nasal vaccine (10 crore), and Genova’s mRNA vaccine (6 crore).

Central government underlined that the drugs regulator has permitted Bharat Biotech to conduct clinical trials on children between 2 years to 18 years of age for Covaxin and enrolment for this trial has begun.

Also Read: An uncertain wait for vaccines by India despite a liberalized regulatory framework

The Centre has told the Supreme Court, “It is submitted that Zydus Cadila which is developing DNA vaccines has concluded its clinical trial for between the age group of 12 to 18 years of age and subject to the statutory permissions, the same may be available in near future for children of the age group of 12 to 18 years of age.”

GOI further added that the vaccination drive would be ramped up if the Government were to procure vaccines from overseas including Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and Moderna. To that effect, the Centre said that negotiations were going on at the highest political and diplomatic levels.

Centre added, “Since these efforts are at a very advanced stage, it is neither desirable nor possible to give comprehensive details. As and when these efforts materialise, the speed of vaccination will be further augmented and enhanced.”

Also Read: Issues faced by India in dealing with Covid 19 resurge- Is it too late to contain the Second Wave

On the role of the private sector in vaccination, centre said that it has flagged that 55 percent of the population “seeks and gets medical services” from private hospitals and 45 percent from government hospitals.

The Centre argued that by roping in the private sector, it is “incentivising manufacturers” to augment their production capacity and “thereby cross subsidize.”

The Centre said, “The rationale and the object behind this policy decision is the same as it was earlier i.e. permitting private supply of vaccines by the manufacturers to private hospitals so as to widen the reach, reduce stress on public facilities, reducing crowding in public utilities and incentivising manufacturers to augment their production capacity and thereby cross subsidize the price at which they are supplying 75 per cent of their manufactured vaccines to the Central Government.”

Posted on

Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s bail order for Tanha, Narwal and Kalita

Delhi High Court’s

On Friday Supreme Court of India refused to stay the order given by Delhi High Court that gave bail to the three students implicated in Delhi riots case. The Apex Court commented on the impact of the bail. SCI said that the decision on the bail for Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, has “pan India ramifications.” The three students were released on Thursday night after spending more than a year in jail over alleged links to the violence in northeast Delhi last year.

Also Read: Officials of Election Commission should be booked for murder, said Chief Justice of Madras High Court while castigating ECI

The Supreme Court said, “The issue is important. It has pan India ramifications and so we would like to issue notice and decide the matter for the good of the country.”

The Apex Court also issued a notice on Delhi Police’s appeal challenging the remarks made by the Delhi High Court while granting bail to the 3 student-activists. SCI held that the order will not be treated as a precedent and the same shall not be relied upon by any parties in the case before any proceedings in any Court. The Apex court further clarified that it has not interfered with the bail granted to the three accused at this stage.

The matter on the bail will be taken up after July 19.

Also Read: Supreme Court said that media cannot be stopped from reporting any court hearing

Pinjra Tod activists-Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Students’ Islamic Organisation activist Asif Iqbal Tanha walked out of Tihar prison in Delhi on Thursday, two days after being granted bail. Delhi High court’s order asked for their immediate release in a case related to the Delhi riots 2020.

The activists were in jail despite the bail order by the Delhi High Court.

After being released, Asif Iqbal Tanha said, “Kept hope that I will be released one day; fight against CAA, NRC, NPR will continue.” Additional Sessions Judge Ravinder Bedi had issued the release warrants.

Posted on

Supreme Court posed questions to government on vaccine procurement and CoWin app

The centre was again in a tight spot when the Supreme Court of India pointed out different flaws in the vaccination and vaccine procurement policy, including the need of making CoWin registration mandatory.

On the Covid-19 vaccine procurement policy, the Supreme Court posed searching questions to the Centre, on Monday. The Apex Court also posed questions on the need for a mandatory registration on the CoWIN app for people to get vaccinated without keeping in mind the real ‘digital India’ situation, observing that the policymakers must have an ear to the ground.
A special bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, L N Rao and S Ravindrabhat raised the issue of digital divide faced by India. It said that since the Centre has made CoWIN registration mandatory for vaccination, how is it going to address the issue of the digital divide facing the country.

Also See: New mutants of Coronavirus

The bench sought to know from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and asked, “You keep on saying the situation is dynamic but policy makers must have their ears on ground. You keep on saying digital India, digital India but the situation is actually different in rural areas. How will an illiterate labourer, from Jharkhand get registered in Rajasthan? Tell us how you will address this digital divide.”

It also said, “You must smell the coffee and see what is happening across the country. You must know the ground situation and change the policy accordingly. If we had to do it, we would have done it 15-20 days back”.

On this, Mehta replied that registration is mandatory as a person needs to be traced for a second dose and as far as rural areas there are community centres where a person can get registered for vaccination.

Also Read: An uncertain wait for vaccines by India despite a liberalized regulatory framework

The bench further questioned Mehta whether the government thinks that this process is viable and asked him to place the policy document on record.

The Apex court was hearing a suo motu case on management of Covid19 situation in the country.

At the outset, the Supreme Court asked the Centre about the vaccine procurement policy of the Centre. In doing so, it referred to the fact that states like Punjab and Delhi are in the process of issuing global tenders to procure foreign vaccines for COVID-19.
The Apex court bench said that even Municipal Corporation like Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has received bids.

The bench further said, “Is this the policy of the central government that the state or municipal corporation can procure the vaccine or the Union Government is going to procure for them like a nodal agency? We want clarity on this and rationale behind this policy.”

Centre said that the entire eligible population would be vaccinated by the end of 2021. The law officer said that the government is in talks with companies like Pfizer and if it succeeds then timeline for completing the vaccination would change.

For saving lives of Covid19 patients and to facilitate a public health response to the pandemic, the Apex court had constituted a 12-member National Task Force to formulate a methodology for the scientific allocation of Oxygen to states and UTs.

Posted on

Fake news being circulated regarding the post-poll violence in West Bengal

West Bengal faced post-poll violence as the vote counting showed a massive victory of TMC over BJP in the assembly election. The social media storm triggered by this post-poll violence in the state has led to a plea being filed in Supreme Court by a trust based in Chennai.

An aspect of the violence that has been overlooked by many is that the casualties range across parties.

Among the 12 dead in the post-poll violence, six were from BJP, five were from TMC and one was from ISF.

Incidents at Arambagh and Belaghata were under focus of many News agencies. In parallel, there was an incident where people associated with TMC in Sandeshkhali were attacked, which got next to nil attention.

Local people in these areas alleged that BJP leaders are stoking the violence as the party is unable to digest its defeat in the assembly election.

Also Read: What led to BJP’s defeat-Important highlights at the conclusion of the West Bengal election

There was also a case where fake news was being circulated and peddled through Twitter. In a Twitter post, a claim was made regarding alleged gangrape of women poll agents of BJP and incidents of molestation in Birbhum.

This turned out to be a fake news as it was found to be false by West Bengal police.

There has been a disinformation campaign regarding the violence, which many fear can take dangerous turns fuelled by the fake news circulated around. The citizen’s group ‘No Vote to BJP’ has urged the people and leaders within various political parties including the Left front to prevent the spread of disinformation on social media.

Also Read: Mamata Banerjee wins Bengal election but loses Nandigram to Suvendu Adhikari

Some observers opine that these developments are part of machinations by BJP after it’s humiliating defeat in West Bengal, in a possible attempt to paint a lawless picture in the state and bring in President Rule.

It is worthwhile to note that phrases like President Rule, and Governor rule are being tweeted by accounts which visibly support BJP.

This is not an unfounded claim. There has been a development in this regard.

Indic collective trust, a Chennai based trust has moved the Supreme Court to impose President’s rule in West Bengal claiming that the law and order situation has worsened in the state. Response of the Apex Court is yet to come.

The situation is more or less peaceful but there is a subtly tense environment in the state which has returned TMC to the helm of power.

Mamata Banerjee, whose party has secured a resounding victory against BJP, is set to take oath on May 05.

Posted on

Supreme Court said that media cannot be stopped from reporting any court hearing

SCI

Adding chagrin to the election commission, the Supreme Court of India said on Monday, that the media cannot be stopped from reporting any court hearing. The observation by the Apex court came as the Election Commission complained to the SCI against the Madras High Court’s observation that the poll watchdog was singularly responsible for the rise in Covid-19 cases

The Supreme Court said in its observations, “Media is a powerful watchdog in democracy; it cannot be stopped from reporting discussions in higher courts. Seeking relief such as the media should not report on observations is too far-fetched.” Adding importance to the High courts, the Apex Court further said today, “We do not want to demoralize HCs as they are vital pillars of democracy.”

Election Commission of India had complained that the Madras HC’s comment was “uncalled for, blatantly disparaging and derogatory” and moved the apex court on Saturday.

Also Read: Officials of Election Commission should be booked for murder, said Chief Justice of Madras High Court while castigating ECI

The Madras High Court had come down heavily on the Election Commission of India for “not stopping political parties” from violating protocols related to Covid19 during their campaign rallies for Assembly polls in four states and a Union Territory over the last month. The Madras HC had further said that murder charges should probably be imposed on the panel for being “the only institution responsible for the situation that we are in today”.

On Friday, the Madras High Court had refused to entertain a petition by the poll-body seeking to restrain media from publishing the court’s oral observations blaming the ECI for the rise in Covid-19 cases.

The election commission has been left in huge discomfort with regards to the comment made by the Madras High Court. Mamata Banerjee had also alleged that the election commission was working on behalf of the central government under the direction of BJP.  The poll body would also probably be tasked with recounting if TMC goes to the judiciary regarding alleged malpractices in vote-counting in Nandigram. It is also worthwhile to note that Election commission had neither clubbed the last four phases of the West Bengal election nor banned the rallies, even when the second wave was rising in the daily number of Covid19 infections. INC was the first political party to unilaterally cancel the election rallies in West Bengal in the wake of the second wave of Covid19.

The ECI is eager to salvage its image, when the awarding of Goa’s governorship to chief election commissioner Sunil Arora has been trolled, criticized and described as a reward to the poll-body to silently act in favour of BJP. The latest statement by the Supreme Court of India on media and election commission adds to the discomfort of the poll body, which has to deal with the allegations of working for BJP and being responsible for the second wave.

Posted on

PIL moved before Calcutta High Court seeking investigation into the incident of alleged attack on Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee

high court

A PIL petition has been moved before the Calcutta High Court seeking Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or some other Central Agency probe into the incident of the alleged attack and manhandling of the Chief Minister of West Bengal Mamata Banerjee in Nandigram while she was in a rally for filing nomination.

The Petition has been moved by three lawyers Shubham Awasthi, Akash Sharma, and Sapta Rishi Mishra through Advocates Bibek Narayan Sharma & Debanjan Mukherjee. Union of India, State of West Bengal, the Election Commission of India, and the Central Bureau of investigation (CBI) have been impleaded as respondent parties.

Also Read: Officials of Election Commission should be booked for murder, said Chief Justice of Madras High Court while castigating ECI

The petitioners had filed a similar plea before the Supreme Court seeking issuance of guidelines and directions for investigation of future similar incidents which affect the Electoral machinery, to uphold the basic tenet of free, fair, and transparent elections in the Country. However, the Apex Court declined to entertain this plea filed seeking directions to CBI to investigate the incident injuring West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. A three-judge Bench led by CJI had granted the petitioners liberty to withdraw the plea and approach the Calcutta High Court.

The plea states that such an attack on a Constitutional Functionary violates the idea of a free and fair election and has given free rein to Political Parties to influence voters and that since the alleged attack, the atmosphere in West Bengal had become one filled with allegations and counter-allegations by different political parties.

Also Read: Election commission has torn down the page of “impartiality” from its rulebook, says Priyanka Gandhi Vadra

The plea also states that poll violence is anathema to the idea of free and fair elections and need to be investigated in order to nip them in the bud, and achieve the goals which guide the functioning of a democracy. According to the petitioners, if the investigation is not allowed it would create difficulties as any constitutional functionary could allege an attack to garner such sympathy which might result in them gaining votes.

(Input from LiveLaw)

Posted on

Supreme Court judges not to be addressed as Your Honour, said Chief Justice of India

Sharad Arvind Bobde

Chief Justice of India, Sharad Arvind Bobde said on Tuesday that Judges of the Supreme Court are not to be addressed as “Your Honour”. He explained that such salutation befits judges of the Supreme Court of the United States or the magistrate courts in our country.

The remark came while the CJI, heading a three-judge bench, was hearing a public interest petition filed by law student Shrikant Prasad. As soon as the petitioner, who sought filling up of vacancies in subordinate judiciary, addressed the bench as “Your Honour”, the CJI stopped him, and said, “You either have the US Supreme Court or the magistrate court here in your mind when you call us ‘Your Honour’. We do not want you to address us as ‘Your Honour’.”

This is the second instance when CJI Bobde has spoken out against the use of “Your Honour”. He had earlier expressed the sentiment in August 2020 when addressed as “Your Honour”.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules, which regulate uniform standards of professional etiquettes to be followed by lawyers across the country, had in 2006 amended the law making it binding on lawyers to address judges of High Courts and Supreme Court as “Your Honour” or “Your Lordship”.

In Part VI of the BCI Rules Governing Advocates, Chapter IIIA was added by way of a Gazette notification in May 2006 which said, “…Consistent with the obligation of the Bar to show a respectful attitude towards the Court and bearing in mind the dignity of judicial office, the form of address to be adopted whether in the Supreme Court, high courts or subordinate courts should be as follows – “Your Honour” or “Hon’ble Court” in Supreme Court and High Courts and in the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals it is open to the Lawyers to address the Court as “Sir” or the equivalent word in respective regional languages.”

This amendment carried an explanation with it for introducing this change. It said, “As the words ‘My Lord’ and ‘Your Lordship’ are relics of British colonial past, it is proposed to incorporate the above rule showing respectful attitude to the Court.”

Since this amendment, the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in July 2019 resolved that lawyers shall be requested to “desist” from addressing judges of the High Court as “My Lord” and “Your Lordship”. Clearly, the High Court allowed the use of “Your Honour”.

Lawyer bodies of the Kerala High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court have issued resolutions in line with the BCI amendment shedding the practice of using “My Lord” and “Your Lordship”. State Bar Councils are already bound by the 2006 Gazette notification.

On one hand, while the Rules permit the use of “Your Honour”, the preference shown by the CJI in being addressed by anything other than “Your Honour” has put lawyers in a fix. In 2014, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court by a lawyer Shiv Sagar Tiwari seeking a uniform standard to be adopted across all courts in the country for addressing judges of the higher courts and subordinate judiciary. Citing the ‘2006 BCI Rules’ laying down uniform standards, Tiwari demanded that the practice of addressing Supreme Court and High Court judges as “My Lord” and “Your Lordship” must end.

The top court refused to pass any order. Leaving this choice to the lawyers instead, the bench added a caveat that any form of addressing the judges should be dignified and respectful.

Posted on

Panel of Supreme Court decides the monetary value of a tree- age multiplied by Rs74.5k

A tree’s monetary worth is its age multiplied by ₹74,500, a Supreme Court-appointed committee has submitted in a report, setting a guideline, for the first time in India, on the valuation of trees.

The five-member committee of experts added that a heritage tree with a lifespan of well over 100 years could be valued at more than ₹1 crore, and that the monetary value of a project, for which hundreds of trees are cut, is sometimes far less than the economic and environmental worth of the felled trees.

The report was submitted before a Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde, which had asked the committee members in January 2020 to determine the economic value of trees, based on cost of oxygen they release, and other benefits to the environment.

The bench, which also included justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, stressed on the necessity to do away with the evaluation of trees only on the basis of their timber value and rather focus on the positive impact of trees on the environment.

For this purpose, the court, while hearing a case relating to cutting down of 356 trees for construction of five railway over-bridges (ROBs) in West Bengal, appointed a committee of five experts, Nishikant Mukherjee (managing director, Tiger Environment Centre), Soham Pandya, (secretary and executive director at the Centre of Science for Villages), Sunita Narain (director, Centre for Science and Environment), Bikash Kumar Maji (assistant chief engineer, ROB unit, West Bengal government) and Niranjita Mitra (division forest officer, North 24 Parganas).

According to the report filed in February last year but made public on Wednesday, a tree is worth ₹74,500 a year. Out of this, the cost of oxygen alone is ₹45,000, followed by the cost of biofertilizers, which are worth ₹20,000. Upon adding costs of micronutrients and compost, the report stated,  that living trees will more often than not outweigh the benefit of most of the projects they are felled for.

Commenting on the West Bengal government’s plea to cut 356 trees, some of which were heritage trees, the committee evaluated their worth at ₹220 crore.

The Supreme Court has not accepted the report yet, and sought the responses from the central government, West Bengal government and an NGO involved in the case.“The committee’s recommendation will make every government go bankrupt. So, we need to fine-tune a few suggestions,” the court observed on Wednesday.

The committee also suggested that instead of cutting trees for highway projects, the governments should first explore alternatives such as using existing waterways and railway lines to facilitate traffic and transport infrastructure.

In case trees must be removed, the committee said, that the first endeavour should be to relocate them, making use of modern technology, and if they must be felled; it also added that planting five saplings in lieu of one tree was not good enough since a 100-year-old tree cannot be equated with a few fresh saplings. It recommended that for a tree with a small crown size, 10 saplings should be planted; 25 saplings for a tree with medium crown size; and 50 saplings for a tree with large crown size. Crown is part of the tree from which branches grow above the trunk.

The bench, during the hearing on Wednesday, commended the committee’s efforts, adding that it was inclined to lay down certain new guidelines for all future projects which required felling trees in view of the report. It found favour with the recommendation that a developer must look to use existing waterways and railway lines before insisting on a road project that required cutting trees.

The top court further expressed its displeasure at a central government notification that did away with the need for an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) for a road project of less than 100km.

“Your notification is untenable. It is based on an assumption that no damage is done to the environment if a project is less than 100km in length. We will examine validity of your notification,” the bench told additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared for the Union government in the matter.

Apart from Bhati, the Apex Court also asked the West Bengal government and advocate Prashant Bhushan, who represented the NGO-Association for Protection of Democratic Rights, which challenged the decision to cut the trees for the ROB project, to submit responses to the committee’s report. The bench will hear the matter next after two weeks.

Sunita Narain, a committee member, said: “It is very important to identify and assess the historical and ecological significance of the heritage trees. They cannot be equated with fresh saplings, given the exceptional historical, cultural aesthetic values such trees  have because of their age or their association with an event or a person. All efforts must be made to accord them special protection.”

(Source: HT)