Proposed amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 are now available in 11 regional languages including Hindi on the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) website.

On Thursday morning, the website showed versions of the proposal paper in Kannada, Hindi, Marathi, Nepali, Telugu, Malayalam, Odia, Punjabi, Manipuri, Bengali and Gujarati languages.

In a circular by the forest conservation division, officials said, “The consultation paper inviting comments of stakeholders on proposed amendment in Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 has been uploaded in the Ministry’s website and PARIVESH portal in Hindi and English languages. Subsequently, this consultation paper has been translated into various regional languages and such versions have been uploaded on the above two portals.”

The Ministry said that in case of any difference in interpretation between English and any other language in which the paper has been translated, the interpretation in the English version will be followed. 

It is noteworthy that the versions came 10 days after the Ministry extended the deadline for comments to November 1. The proposal was first introduced in English on October 2, 2021 on Gandhi Jayanti – a public holiday. 

Largely, the changes propose doing away with the requirement for government approval for industrial or commercial projects in forest areas while also switching projects that are considered “non-forestry” like mining. Adivasis and environmental activists across India had criticised the government for quietly sending the proposal to state governments in English alone. This excluded many concerned communities from the decision-making stage.

This is not the first time the Ministry has discreetly suggested changes to forest laws. On Wednesday, writing for the Morning Context, Akshay Deshmane reported that the Ministry had just scrapped a previous decision to invite private entities to amend the Indian Forest Act 1927. 

According to experts, these amendments would have given the central government more control over forested areas that nowadays enjoy local maintenance and conservation efforts. However, unlike the other forest Acts, the law bestows powers to the state government while dismissing forest-dwellers from decisions regarding the use and demarcation of forests. According to the aforementioned Morning Context report, the ministry has not given up on amending the law,just done away with the idea of bringing in private entities.

Related:

Jal, Jungle, Zameen: Chhattisgarh Adivasis march 300kms to oppose coal mining projects
Dilution of environmental laws, a persistent tactic: AIUFWP
India farmers, Adivasis and forest dwellers condemn FCA draft changes
Forest Conservation Act: GoI suggests fundamental changes Act, despite widespread objections

The post Nearly 20 days later, MoEFCC shares FCA proposal in regional languages appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG) is a collective of 92 former civil servants, all subject experts who retired at senior positions. They often issue sharp statements and analysis on current affairs, especially on issues concerning human rights. These former IPS, IAS officers bravely voice their concerns about events as they unfold.

An example is this  statement they issued on the farmers’ protest that is still holding strong on Delhi borders. They demanded withdrawal of cases against farmers, social media users and journalists, and asked that the vicious and sickening propaganda of calling farmers “Khalistanis,” to create a conducive atmosphere for resumption of talks be stopped. They advised the Government of India to “withdraw the three laws and think of other possible solutions, given the basic Constitutional position that the subject of agriculture is in the States’ list.”

Their missives, and that of other retired civil servants, who continue commenting on, writing about policy and politics seem to have rankled those in power. The Government has made an official move to curb their voice too by notifying an amendment to the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 that “prohibits” them from making media statements, publishing books, articles, opinions and letters on subjects that fall within the “domain” of the organisations they are writing about without prior clearance. This amendment in Rule 8: ‘Pension subject to future good conduct’. Any pensioner seen in “violation” of the latest amendment can have their pension docked.

The gazette notification issued on May 31, 2021  by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi states: “No Government servant, who, having worked in any Intelligence or Security-related organisation included in the Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), shall, without prior clearance from the Head of the Organisation, make any publication after retirement, of any material relating to and including:

(i)  domain of the organisation, including any reference or information about any personnel and his designation, and expertise or knowledge gained by virtue of working in that organisation;

(ii)  sensitive information, the disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, or relation with a foreign State or which would lead to incitement of an offence.“ It adds that “The Head of the Organisation shall vest with the authority to decide as to whether the proposed material for publication is sensitive or non-sensitive, and whether it falls in the domain of the organization.”  

There is also a declaration form where the retired Government Servant has to make this declaration: “I am aware that the pension which may be granted to me after retirement, in terms of the relevant pension rules, can be withheld or withdrawn, in full or part, for any failure of this undertaking given.”
 

The Gazette notification may be accessed here: https://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2021/227308.pdf

The 18 organisations covered by the new rule, reported The Wire, include: the Intelligence Bureau, the Research and Analysis Wing of the Cabinet Secretariat, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, the Enforcement Directorate, Narcotics Control Bureau, Aviation Research Centre, Special Frontier Force, Border Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, Central Industrial Security Force, National Security Guards, Assam Rifles, Special Service Bureau, Special Branch (CID) of the Andaman and Nicobar islands, Crime Branch-C.I.D.-CB of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and the Special Branch, Lakshadweep Police.

Now, none of the offices who have ever served in the above listed departments can only write news reports or opinions or comments on the subjects that they are experts on, after getting written permission from the concerned department. 

This comes close on the heels of the former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay retiring and being appointed Chief Adviser to Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Bandyopadhyay was issued notice under the Disaster Management Act, and the Centre asked him to explain in writing by Thursday as to why action should not be initiated against him for failing to attend a Cyclone Yaas review meeting presided over by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Kalaikunda. Meanwhile the hashtag ‘ModiAgainst_IAS_IPS’ has continued to trend for two days with social media users expressing support towards Bandyopadhyay and other former civil servants.

He is for the Direct Entry of his favourite people for completely destroying the well laid #System #ModiAgainst_IAS_IPS

— Wg Cdr Anuma Acharya (Retd) (@AnumaVidisha) June 2, 2021

Related:

Handling of electronic evidence by agencies a perversion of criminal justice: CCG
If the gov’t wants a resolution, it should repeal laws: CCG

The post Why is the government scared of ex-bureaucrats’ writing books, articles? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Odisha High Court has opined that the law holding that having sexual intercourse on a false promise to marry amounts to rape, “appears to be erroneous”.

Justice SK Panigrahi has denied the bail application filed by a person accused of raping a woman after getting involved in a physical relationship with her on the false pretext of marrying her.

The survivor alleged that the applicant/accused caused her abortion twice, by giving her medicines. Thereafter, the accused denied marrying her even after her parents contacted his family get their consent for marriage. The said proposal was denied and in view of this, the family of the woman fixed her marriage elsewhere.

Further, on April 26, 2020, the accused posted their personal photographs using a fake account on Facebook and used a caption stating that she is of ‘bad character’. As a result of this, her marriage was broken.

Thus, an FIR was registered under sections 376(1) (punishment for rape), 313 (causing miscarriage without woman’s consent), 294 (obscene acts) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code and section 66(E) (punishment for violation of privacy) and 67(A) (punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, in electronic form) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.

While hearing this matter, the court analysed the relationship between section 90 (Consent known to be given under fear or misconception) and section 375 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code. It observed that even though the judiciary has dealt with the use of such concepts, however, “a certain viewpoint has not been reached and still under the shroud of confusion.”

Justice Panigrahi reportedly said, “There is a need for the amendment in the legislation defining what constitutes ‘sexual intercourse’ with the prosecutrix on the ‘pretext of a false promise of marriage’. As in the present scenario, the law on this matter lacks clarity for the conviction of the accused.”

The Single-judge Bench then referred to Anurag Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2019), wherein the Apex Court had held that if an accused from the very beginning has given a promise of marriage without any intention to fulfil that promise, then consent for a physical relationship would not amount to valid consent.

The High Court also opined, “The rape laws should not be used to regulate intimate relationships, especially in cases where women have agency and are entering a relationship by choice. However, it needs to be brought forward that many of the complaints come from socially disadvantaged and poor segments of the society and rural areas, women from these sections are often lured into sex by men on false promises of marriage and then dumped as soon as they get pregnant. The rape law often fails to capture their plight.”

The court also noted that section 375 of the IPC, fails to address the issue of consent for sexual act on the pretext of marriage. Hence, the court said, “the automatic extension of provisions of Section 90 of IPC to determine the effect of consent under Section 375 of IPC deserves a serious relook. The law holding that false promise to marriage amounts to rape appears to be erroneous, however, the plight of the victim and the probability of the accused tarnishing the dignity of the victim and her family need to be looked at while deliberating on the question of bail.”

Since the FIR showed prima facie specific allegations against the applicant/accused, the Court denied him bail after noting that there is a possibility of the survivor’s family being coerced into withdrawing the case or repetition of similar type of offence.

The judgment may be read here:

Related:

Agra: Couple waylaid, woman gangraped on Holi evening
Uttar Pradesh: Three men sentenced to death for teenage girl’s rape, murder

The post Need amendment in rape laws: Odisha High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Information accessed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act shows that the Central Information Commission (CIC) was not consulted before amending the RTI Act in July this year or subsequently when the rules made to implement it. Revealing this, senior RTI activist Anjali Bharadwaj has said, “CIC has confirmed, in response to an RTI application, that the government did not seek its comments.”

The RTI Act’s sections 13, 16 and 27 which were amended this July, empower the Central government to prescribe rules to decide tenure, salaries, allowances and other terms of service of the chief and other information commissioners of CIC and all state information commissions (SICs).

The government brought in amendments to the RTI Act, despite protests across the country and opposition from several political parties. There were no public consultations on the amendments and the bill was not referred to a Parliamentary deliberative committee for detailed discussions.

Pointing out that the rules were also “not put through any process of public consultation”, Bharadwaj said, “The surreptitious manner in which the amendments were brought, and the rules promulgated, constitutes a violation of the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy of 2014 which requires all draft rules to be placed in the public domain for comments/suggestions of people.”

Further, she said, “Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act puts an obligation on the government to publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect the public”.

During the debate in Rajya Sabha on the Amendment Bill, the concerned minister, Dr Jitendra Singh, responding to why there were no public consultations, had said, when the Act was being formulated in mid-2000s, these took place because the government was dealing with the “RTI’s gamut, its spectrum”.

However, during the recent amendment, he asserted. the government was dealing with “certain functionaries” and the question of salary etc. “between the government and the officers, not the public.”

Courtesy: counterview.net

The post Public consultation? Govt of India ‘didn’t consult’ even CIC before amending RTI Act appeared first on SabrangIndia.