Justice Dr. S.K. Panigrahi’s judgment in Kumarpur Sasan Juba Gosti Kendra v. State of Odisha marks a strong judicial stand against the rise of “bulldozer justice,” where state authorities act in haste, often with impunity, demolishing property without observing due process or waiting for judicial outcomes. The Court described the demolition not as an administrative misstep but as an act of executive aggression conducted “while the law was still at work.”

“This is not a procedural misstep. It reflects a troubling pattern, where the machinery of the State appears to act not in aid of the law, but in anticipation of avoiding its outcome. The space between a matter being heard and a decision being delivered is not an empty procedural formality. It is a phase in which the law is still at work. The authority of the appellate forum does not vanish simply because it is silent for a moment. That silence is deliberate. It reflects the court’s duty to think, not the executive’s opportunity to act.” (Para 12)

Factual Matrix: A community centre razed in defiance of judicial orders

The case concerned a community structure (Gosthigruha) situated on 0.05 acres of grazing land (gochar) in Balipur, Athagarh, Cuttack district. Though classified as Rakhita Anabadi land under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (OPLE Act), the structure had existed in some form since 1985, repaired after the 1999 cyclone, and reconstructed between 2016 and 2018 using public funds from the “Ama Gaon Ama Vikas Yojana” and the MLA-LAD fund.

For over three decades, the structure was actively used for public welfare activities—yoga camps, health check-ups, awareness campaigns, and outreach programmes. The State itself had funded the structure, and no recorded objection had ever been raised by authorities prior to 2024.

In July 2024, eviction proceedings were initiated under the OPLE Act. Petitioners challenged these proceedings before the High Court, which disposed of the petitions on August 16, 2024, directing them to apply for settlement under Section 8A of the Act. When this application was rejected on flimsy grounds—including lack of registration and documentary gaps—the petitioners filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector and simultaneously sought judicial protection.

On November 29, 2024, the Orissa High Court ordered that no eviction was to take place during the pendency of the appeal. A fresh eviction notice was nevertheless issued on December 5, 2024. The Court reiterated its protective order on December 13, 2024, restraining demolition until the appellate process concluded.

In open defiance of this, demolition was carried out the very next morning, on December 14, less than 18 hours after the Sub-Collector concluded the appeal hearing and reserved the order (at 4 PM), and just an hour after a demolition notice was suddenly affixed (at 5:15 PM).

Observations of the Court

“A deliberate act taken while judicial consideration was underway”: Justice Panigrahi’s ruling is remarkable for its constitutional clarity, moral tone, and emphasis on institutional accountability. The Court concluded that:

“What makes the episode all the more concerning is not merely the breach of procedural safeguards, but the deeper disregard to constitutional process and institutional boundaries. The demolition did not occur in a moment of administrative necessity. It was not the outcome of a duly completed adjudicatory process. It was carried out while the matter was still under active judicial consideration, with the appellate authority having reserved its decision. No final order had been pronounced.” (Para 11)

The Court noted that the executive had ample knowledge of pending judicial directions. The demolition, it held, was executed not just in violation of legal mandates but with the intent to frustrate judicial scrutiny. This conduct, the Court declared, not only breached the rule of law but constituted a direct assault on the very architecture of constitutional governance.

Condemnation of “Bulldozer Justice”: The Court also expressed concern about what it termed an emerging pattern of “bulldozer justice”—the use of demolition as a tool of state power without regard to legality, process, or proportionality.

“The facts of this case echo a growing and troubling pattern commonly referred to as “bulldozer justice”, where executive power, backed by machinery rather than reason, supplants legal process. The use of demolition as a tool of enforcement, absent procedural compliance and judicial finality, transforms what should be a lawful act into a coercive one. It is not the bulldozer per se that offends constitutional sensibilities, but the ease with which it is deployed before the law has spoken its final word. In a system governed by law, force must follow reason, not precede it. Where the reverse occurs, the legitimacy of State action begins to erode, and with it, the credibility of institutions tasked with upholding the rule of law.” (Para 25)

The judgment emphasised that in a constitutional democracy, force must follow reason, not precede it. The failure to uphold judicial restraint not only violated the rule of law but “demolished the dignity of law-abiding citizens who sought protection not through confrontation but through courts.”

Violation of Supreme Court directives in “Demolition of Structures” case: The Court applied the binding procedural safeguards issued by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, W.P.(C) No.295/2022, decided on November 13, 2024. Those directives, issued under Article 142, mandate that:

1. A 15-day show cause notice must precede any demolition.
2. A reasoned order must explain why demolition is necessary.
3. Appellate remedies must be meaningfully available.
4. The act must be video-graphed and documented.
5. All orders must be uploaded to a public portal.

In this case, none of these were followed. The Court held in its order that:

“The binding procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (Supra), are not aspirational guidelines, they are enforceable mandates. The Supreme Court, invoking its power under Article 142, did not request compliance. It imposed it. These directives must be treated not as peripheral suggestions but as minimum constitutional thresholds. The failure to issue a 15-day show cause notice, the absence of a reasoned order, the denial of appellate remedy, and the lack of video documentation are not merely checklist oversights. They are compound violations that nullify the very idea of lawful governance. A Tahasildar who chooses to discard these procedural obligations in favour of expediency does not act on behalf of the State, he acts against it.” (Para 21)

Article 300-A as a shield, not an ornament: The Court grounded its reasoning in the constitutional protection of property under Article 300-A, holding that:

“What is even more troubling is that the consequences of such executive haste are not merely institutional or procedural, they are deeply human. Law is not merely a tool to regulate action; it is also a shield against arbitrary force. When the State fails to pause where law requires stillness, it is not only the structure that is lost, but the trust of those whose rights depend on the process being fair and complete. This case, therefore, cannot be assessed solely through the lens of administrative law. It must also be understood as an instance where a constitutionally protected interest in property was extinguished not through judicial determination, but through executive fiat.” (Para 14)

It drew upon the Supreme Court’s rulings in:

• N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, (2008) 15 SCC 517
• Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596

Both judgments affirmed that property rights cannot be extinguished except by due process and statutory sanction.

Justice Panigrahi added:

“What is at stake here is not the legality of one demolition, but the integrity of a constitutional culture. When executive action arrogates to itself the role of judge, jury, and executioner, the harm that follows is not merely institutional, it is civic. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, process is not an inconvenience to be bypassed when found burdensome. It is the very architecture that lends legitimacy to State action. The moment that process becomes expendable, so does the public’s faith in the neutrality of governance. This Court is duty-bound to restore that balance, for what is lost here is not only a building, but also the belief that law is a shield against arbitrariness.” (Para 17)

Decision of the Court

Responsibility and public trust- Tahasildar held personally liable: The Court did not stop at abstract condemnation. It fixed personal accountability upon the Tahasildar who directed the demolition, observing that:

“The office of the Tahasildar is not a mere administrative post. It is a position that carries the weight of constitutional responsibility, particularly when it comes to enforcing the law at the ground level. To act in a manner that anticipates and potentially frustrates the outcome of pending legal proceedings is a serious breach of duty. This Court cannot overlook the fact that the demolition was carried out not in compliance with the law, but in disregard of it, and such conduct undermines both the authority of the judiciary and the legitimacy of public administration.” (Para 20)

In a rare move signalling judicial intolerance for contemptuous state action, the High Court ordered:

• ₹10,00,000 in compensation, with ₹2,00,000 to be recovered from the Tahasildar;
• Departmental proceedings to be initiated against him;
• A copy of the judgment to be placed before the Chief Secretary and Revenue Secretary;
• Immediate framing and dissemination of detailed guidelines to all revenue and municipal officers, incorporating the directives of the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, W.P.(C) No. 295 of 2022.

The Court further cited Delhi Airtech Services v. State of U.P. (2011) to underscore the doctrine of public accountability:

“Public officers are answerable for both their inaction and irresponsible actions… Greater the power to decide, higher is the responsibility to be just and fair.” (Para 24)

In a particularly important passage, it warned that arbitrary State action destroys the public’s faith in democratic institutions. This, the Court declared, was one such case—not just of wrongful demolition but of civic injury and institutional failure:

“What this judgment makes clear is that public power carries with it a continuing duty of care. The law is not self-executing. It depends on officers who are expected to act with fairness, honesty and within the limits of their legal authority. The doctrine of public trust is not a decorative ideal. It is a binding obligation that requires those in office to treat their role as a public responsibility. When decisions are taken in haste, or authority is used without proper justification, the consequences are not merely administrative. They touch the core of democratic governance. The rule of law is sustained not only by enforcement but by trust. That trust is built slowly and can be lost quickly. When it breaks, the harm is not always visible, but it runs deep. It affects not just the immediate parties but the public’s confidence in institutions. This Court has a duty to uphold both the legal framework and the public belief that the law is a shield, not a weapon.” (Para 24)

He stressed that the use of force before judicial finality undermines not just legal rights, but public trust in the constitutional order.

Conclusion: Law must prevail over expediency

Through this judgment that will likely reverberate through cases of arbitrary demolitions across India, the Orissa High Court reminded the executive that constitutional governance is not a choice—it is an obligation.

In allowing the writ petition and disposing of the contempt petition, the High Court has made a critical intervention in defence of constitutional order, judicial supremacy, and citizen dignity.

“What is at stake here is not the legality of one demolition, but the integrity of a constitutional culture. When executive action arrogates to itself the role of judge, jury, and executioner, the harm that follows is not merely institutional, it is civic. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, process is not an inconvenience to be bypassed when found burdensome. It is the very architecture that lends legitimacy to State action. The moment that process becomes expendable, so does the public’s faith in the neutrality of governance. This Court is duty-bound to restore that balance, for what is lost here is not only a building, but also the belief that law is a shield against arbitrariness.” (Para 17)

By grounding its decision not only in statutory and procedural norms but in the civic ethos of constitutionalism, the Court made clear that the real damage caused by “bulldozer justice” is not to buildings alone—but to public trust in the rule of law.

The complete judgment may be read below.

Related:

Encroachment or erasure? India’s demolition wave and the law

Public officials must face accountability for unlawful demolition actions, rule of law to be upheld: Supreme Court

Bulldozer Justice: SC orders Rs 25 Lakhs interim Compensation for illegal demolition by UP Govt in 2019

Bulldozer Justice: How Unlawful Demolitions are Targeting India’s Marginalised Communities

2022: A year when Bulldozer became a ‘lawful’ means of punishment

The post “Bulldozer Justice” rebuked: Orissa High Court orders 10 lakh compensation for illegal demolition of community centre appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This public interest litigation (PIL) was filed citing 11 such children, four of whom were either severely malnourished (SAM) or acutely malnourished (MAM) and was brought to the attention of the Court. After detailed affidavits and responses, the Court has not just underlined that government schemes to mitigate malnourishment and hunger should be inclusive but sought commitments from the Union of India (Women and Child Welfare Department-WCD) and state government that sincere efforts would be made to reduce these malaises and government schemes would be proactively made available.

The Order was delivered on May 18, 2023 and the matter has been listed on August 1, 2023.

A public interest litigation filed before the court dealt with severe malnutrition of children that emerged in Danagadi Block in the district of Jaipur which brought to notice the non-coverage of PDS and NFSA. In its Order, the court observed that it is a fact that there are still several poor and vulnerable people in the country who do not possess an Aadhaar card or mobile number and these people cannot be excluded from availing the benefits of the welfare schemes which are meant to cater to the needs of the poorest and vulnerable sections of the society.

The court while suspecting the exclusion of some vulnerable people from PDS or NFSA directed the Department of Women and Child Development to ensure that the coverage of these schemes is increased progressively every year which can take place only when there are systems in place that incentivise ‘inclusion’ rather than ‘exclusion’.

Pertinently, the Court sharply observed that human lives and health of persons, especially children should not be measured as cold statistics and percentages alone but by acknowledging that they are actual persons.

To have in Odisha in 2023 nearly 30,000 SAM and 86,000 MAM children is a cause for alarm not just for the State of Odisha but for the Government of India as well. If one were to understand the national percentages of 2.26% SAM and 4.75% MAM on a 1.8 billion population, and translate them into actual numbers, the severity of problem would become evident.

Facts of the Case

One child, Subhalaxmi Tarai, who was suffering from cerebral palsy and secondary malnutrition had died. Records suggest that young Subhalaxmi Tarai had been abandoned by her family. She was found dead on April 20, 2023. According to the affidavit filed by the Collector of the district, thereto, ASHA health activist of the area is supposed to have visited the child on two dates in January and one date in February, 2023. The Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakrama (RBSK) team is also said to have visited her.

The finding that “as she was suffering from cerebral palsy, she could neither move nor inform the neighbours of the plight” is a pointer to the fact that here is a “a child in need of attention, who is unable to get it despite the existence of a plethora of schemes both at the level of the Central Government and the State Government which will be referred to hereafter,” observed the Court. (Paras 2, 3)

Another child who also died, Arjun Hembram, whose name, does not find mention’ in the records of the Mobile Health Team (MHT). “This,” observed the High Court, “is a pointer to the fact that there could still be families and children, who are not covered by the schemes. The fact is that these are all children in the age group of 0 to 6 years and belong to tribal community and the poorest sections of the society.” (Para 4)

The Court cautioned one Mr Pandey, Secretary to the Women & Child Development (WCD) ministry in the Union government that

“…Human lives and health of persons, especially children should not be measured as cold statistics and percentages alone but by acknowledging that they are actual persons. To have in Odisha in 2023 nearly 30,000 SAM and 86,000 MAM children is a cause for alarm not just for the State of Odisha but for the Government of India as well. If one were to understand the national percentages of 2.26% SAM and 4.75% MAM on a 1.8 billion population, and translate them into actual numbers, the severity of problem would become evident.”

The Court impressed upon Mr. Pandey that at the level of Government of India, it has to be ensured that the coverage under the schemes is increased progressively year after year and that can only happen if there are systems put in place that incentivise ‘inclusion’ rather than ‘exclusion’. “

For e.g., the failure to possess an Aadhaar Card or a mobile phone or a proper ‘identity’ paper of a particular kind can result in a child or a family being denied the basic support in terms of food and supplements which are so essential for basic survival. The absence of these documents cannot become obstacles to availing the benefits under the schemes.” (Para 7) 

A fact that emerged in course of deliberations before the Odisha High Court during the hearing of the PIL, was that even in a district like Jajpur in Odisha the coverage of the population by public distribution system (PDS) under the National Food Security Act (NFSA) is not ‘universal’. Discussions in the court discussion threw up expressions like ‘allocation’ and ‘vacancies’ pointing to the fact that there might be sections of our society, and this includes the most vulnerable, who may not be covered under the PDS system. Since the distribution of nutritional supplements and rations happens only through the PDS, there is every likelihood that a child or an expectant mother in a family in need of such supplements and rations may not receive them.

This, therefore, points to a larger problem of the coverage attempted to be achieved by the NFSA. This also shows that the absence of pending ‘applications’ for coverage under the PDS in a particular district may not explain how many people there are in actual need of such rations and supplements for their children, who may be either in the SAM or MAM categories. What compounds this issue further is that all the statistics are projected on the basis of 2011 census and not on the actual figures on the ground as of 2023. Therefore, the number of persons ‘excluded’ from the coverage of all the schemes could be much larger than what is projected in these affidavits. This is a matter for reflection both by the Government of India and the State of Odisha when they sit down to address the issue of gaps in the implementation of the schemes. (Para 9)

In its judgement, “the Court impressed upon Mr. Pandey that at the level of the Government of India, it has to be ensured that the coverage under the schemes is increased progressively year after year and that can only happen if there are systems put in place that incentivise ‘inclusion’ rather than ‘exclusion’. For e.g., the failure to possess an Aadhaar Card or a mobile phone or a proper ‘identity’ paper of a particular kind can result in a child or a family being denied the basic support in terms of food and supplements which are so essential for basic survival. The absence of these documents cannot become obstacles to availing the benefits under the schemes. (Para 10)

The Collector, Jajpur had stated in court on affidavit that no person in Jajpur district in Odisha has been denied any ration only because such person does not possess an Aadhaar card or a mobile phone. The Secretary, WCD Department, Odisha confirmed that this was the position elsewhere in Odisha too. The Court is of the considered view that given the unfortunate happenings in the Danagadi Block in Jajpur district spoken of in the petition, this needs to be made abundantly clear at both the State level as well as the National level since this welfare schemes are meant to cater to the needs of the most vulnerable and poor sections of our society who cannot be excluded on any ground including the lack of an Aadhaar Card or a mobile phone. The fact is that there are still several poor and vulnerable individuals, in the State of Odisha and in the country, who may not possess either. (Para 11)

Responding to the Collector, Jajpur’s stand that families of Scheduled Tribes are “not willing to have their children treated at the public health facilities and it requires great persuasion and sometimes even coercion to get them to have their children, who are obviously in the SAM and MAM categories, treated at the CHCs or DHHs. This points to the fact that more active efforts would have to be made by the Tribal Welfare Department to spread awareness of the existence of the schemes and to convince the tribal populations that they are intended to positively benefit them and their children. (Para 15)

Commitments have been given by both Commissioner-cum-Secretary, WCD Department and the Collector, Jajpur have stated that concerted efforts will be made to ensure that there is a progressive reduction in the numbers of children falling in the SAM and MAM category in the immediate short term i.e. in the next two months and those efforts will be kept up to ensure that there is no child in the SAM category in the near future in Odisha. (Para 16).

Other districts of Odisha also suffer from chronic malnutrition. While this PIL has highlighted the alarming situation concerning SAM and MAM children in the Danagadi and Sukinda Blocks in Jajpur district in Odisha, figures made available by the GOI’s WCD Department it appears that in Keonjhar district there are 2,820 children in the SAM category that require immediate attention.

The High Court through this Order therefore extended the scope of the present petition to include Keonjhar district as well and the Collector and the CDMO, Keonjhar have been directed to undertake visits to the Blocks in Keonjhar district in the next one month to ascertain for themselves the factual position regarding children in the SAM and MAM categories, but not stop at that. Just like the Collector, Jajpur has been able to identify the broader category of ‘vulnerable’ children and has undertaken to also identify the category of ‘vulnerable women’. Thereafter joint reports have to be submitted before the Court says the judgement also flagging the issue of ‘universal’ coverage under the PDS.

The High Court has also highlighted the fact that other departments like the apart from the  WCD Department are involved and SME Department, the Health and Family Welfare Department and the Tribal Welfare Department too should work together on the issue including also with Food and Civil Supplies, hold a review meeting within one month of the order, draw in participation of the Odisha Child Rights Commission too. (Para 17)

Case Title: Mantu Das v. Union of India & Ors.

Related

Aadhaar number mandatory to get govt benefits, subsidies: UIDAI

What does the UIDAI’s flip-flop on Aadhaar mean?

SC directs Aadhaar cards be issued to sex workers without insisting on the residential proof

The post ‘Don’t deny govt welfare schemes if people don’t have Aadhaar cards or mobile nos,’ Orissa HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On May 12, 2022 the Orissa High Court presided by Single-judge Bench of Justice V. Narasingh granted bail to a Child in Conflict with the Law (CCL) who had been under custody for almost three and a half years. The Court does not want the accused child to suffer because of apathy of investigating agency.

While hearing the bail application of the CCL, the Bench came down heavily on the investigating agency for its apathetic approach and said, “Proceedings of the High Court cannot be held hostage to the whims of the investigating agency and for their lackadaisical attitude, rights of an accused cannot be marginalized, needs no emphasis.” The Court even suggested for the necessary corrective action to be taken to make the Police machinery more responsive to the needs of Justice.

In this case, the Child in Conflict is an accused in a murder case which is registered with the Bijepur Police Station in Bargarh district. She had filed the Bail Application in Orissa High Court in 2021.

Brief background of the case

The CCL, an accused in a murder case registered at Bijepur police station in Bargarh district, was arrested on December 8, 2018. Since then, she has been under custody. She was charged under section 450, 307, 302, 34 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.

The accused had filed her bail application before the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Court at Bargarh, which was rejected by Additional Session Judge-Cum-Special Judge, on July 23, 2019. In challenge to the POCSO Court Order, the CCL had filed Bail Application in the High Court of Orissa on June 22, 2021.

This High Court presided by Justice Dash had passed an Order dated, June 24, 2021 in which he directed the Learned Council for the State to obtain the case diary and the report related to the conduct and behaviour of the child in conflict with law during her stay in the observation home for the period, by next date. Since then, the adjournments were sought to produce the case diary.

Court’s Observations

After the Order passed by the High Court dates June 24, 2021, numerous adjournments were sought by the Advocate for the state to produce the case diary.

The Court observed that two letters were sent from the office of the Advocate General dated June 24 and June 28, 2021 to the IIC Bijepur District Bargarh to inform about the production of the up-to-date Case Diary. The concerned authorities did not respond.

Similar letter was sent from the office of the Advocate General dated November 6, 2021 to the Superintendent of Police Bargarh and IIC Bijepur in the District Bargarh. But till date the up-to-date Case Diary was not submitted to the Court.

The Court thus observed, “As noted petitioner is in custody since 08.12.2018 and cannot be allowed to suffer because of the apathy of investigating agency.” The Court also held the investigating agencies responsible for the delay in the matter and stated, “Proceedings of the High Court cannot be held hostage to the whims of the investigating agency and for their lackadaisical attitude, rights of an accused cannot be marginalized, needs no emphasis.”

The Court on observing the repeated adjournments and the Investigating officers were seen not following the Court Orders held, “It is indeed disconcerting that the concerned District police administration have scant regard for the orders passed by this Court and have chosen to disregard repeated communication from the office of the Advocate General for submission of Case Diary for which the Case has to suffer adjournments.” The Court, considering the age of the Petitioner and the time she had spent under custody, constrained itself from granting any further adjournments to the State’s Counsel.

The Court further stated, “It is fervently hoped that necessary corrective action shall be taken so as to make the Police machinery more responsive to the needs of administration of justice.”

Court’s Judgment

On May 12, 2022 while granting bail to the child in conflict with law after perusing the materials on record, the Bench stated, “On a conspectus of the materials on record this Court directs the petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin over the matter.”

The Court further requested the Registry to send a copy of this order to Principal Secretary Home Government of Odisha, Director General of Police, Range DIG and the concerned Superintendent of Police for their knowledge and necessary action.

The entire Judgment may be read here: 

Related:

Delhi Violence: Delhi HC issues notice in Gulfisha Fatima’s bail plea

Jahangirpuri violence: Delhi Court refuses bail to eight accused

Cruel, diabolic, barbaric, gruesome and inhuman: Allahabad High Court on Lakhimpur Kheri massacre

Delhi HC adjourns hearings in bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam

The post Orissa HC grants bail to child in conflict with law after three years in custody appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Orissa High Court has sought the status of compensation to families of persons deceased due to manual scavenging from the Water Corporation of Odisha (WATCO). The compensation is with respect to two deaths, one in Bhubaneshwar and the other in Cuttack and the court has sought copies of the receipts as proof of payment from WATCO by next date.

The amicus curiae, Pami Rath, informed the bench of Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Savitri Ratho that two more deaths of sanitation workers occurred in Kandhamal and the court has allowed her to file an application to bring the facts on record. The court was also informed that as per Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) affidavit, the two victims in the Bhubaneswar incident were not sanitation workers since they were involved in construction of the sewage tank, and not its cleaning and therefore not covered by the Supreme Court’s order. The amicus curiae contended that this stand is not tenable under The Prohibition Of Employment As Manual Scavengers And Their Rehabilitation Act (PEMSR Act). The court has agreed to consider this argument on the next date, July 6.

Rath also submitted two detailed notes regarding the replies filed by the Opposite Parties which according to her do not address certain key issues and also pertaining to implementation of the provisions of the statutes (SC/ST Act and PEMSR Act) referred in the court’s April 19 order.

Accordingly, the court directed the state government, BMC and Cuttack Municipal Corporation (CMC) to file separate additional affidavits addressing the issues raised in the amicus curiae’s notes.

Background

In April, the court had taken suo moto cognizance of deaths of four sanitation workers; two suffocated to death after entering into a septic tank in Bhubaneswar and two others died in Cuttack while working in sewer lines.

The bench led by the Chief Justice had said, “The shameful practice of making persons belonging to the underprivileged and poorest sections of Indian society undertake the hazardous manual cleaning of sewers and septic tanks continues unabated notwithstanding the enactment of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (‘PEMSR Act’). It shocks the judicial conscience, as it should the society’s collective conscience.”

The court had issued notice and sought response from the Chief Secretary, Secretaries of housing and urban development and SC-ST welfare departments, commissioners of municipal corporations of the two cities. The bench had also asked the respondents to ensure that by May 10, a compensation of Rs 10 lakh each is disbursed to the family of the deceased workers.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Shocks the judicial conscience: Odisha HC on death of four manual scavengers
Delhi HC raps govt for delay in paying salaries of employees
K’taka HC questions State on steps taken to use modern technology to replace manual scavenging

The post Orissa HC seeks proof of payment of compensation to families of manual scavenging victims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Odisha High Court has passed significant directions to ensure that all prisoners and undertrials lodged in prisons of the state are vaccinated against coronavirus.

Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice BP Routray have been hearing two petitions concerning the prison conditions and facilities in the state jails. Senior Advocate Gautam Mishra, who is also the Amicus Curiae in this matter, informed the Bench that with respect to vaccination in jails, many prison inmates may not have identity documents for registration on the COWIN portal.

To this, the court ordered, “Accordingly, it is directed that the State Government will make appropriate arrangements to ensure that no prison inmate is denied vaccination only on the ground that the inmate is unable to get registered on the COWIN portal. Alternate arrangements should be made to ensure that vaccination is not denied to such inmates.”

Besides vaccination for all, the court also considered that some inmates in jails across the state are eligible for commutation and remission. The order read, “On the issue of commutation and remission of the sentences of prisoners found eligible for that benefit, the Member Secretary, OSLSA is directed to coordinate with the State Government and take steps in that regard in a time-bound manner. The Member Secretary will apprise this Court of the developments on the next date.”

Bombay and Gauhati High Courts have also passed orders on vaccination for all prisoners in their respective states. The Gauhati High Court has asked the Assam Government to file its response on a suo motu PIL concerning jail inmates, who are allegedly not being vaccinated against Covid-19.

In Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court has directed the authorities to inoculate all accused persons above the age of 45, immediately upon their arrest. Considering the pathetic conditions in Delhi jails, People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) has written an open letter to Chief Justice DN Patel (Delhi High Court) to increase testing capacity and other medical resources within jails.

There are presently 67 active cases of Covid among jail inmates and eleven among jail staff, including a jail superintendent and two prison doctors. Overall, around 200 prisoners and 300 staff members had tested positive across Delhi jails and there has been very little reporting of the status of health of inmates over the past one week.

The matter before the Odisha High Court will be taken up on May 12.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

PUDR writes open letter to Delhi HC’s Chief Justice over Covid surge in prisons

Covid-19: Bombay HC directs State to vaccinate accused persons above 45 years upon arrest

Gauhati HC seeks State’s response on vaccinating prisoners

Bombay HC takes suo motu cognisance of Covid surge in prisons

The post No prisoner to be denied vaccination for not registering on COWIN portal: Odisha HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Dr. BR Sarangi of the Orissa High Court have observed that there is no justifiable reason for industrialisation at the cost of a healthy ecosystem.

The Bench said, “No doubt, industrialization is required for enhancement of revenue, but that does not mean at the cost of the lives of human beings by destroying ecosystems.”

The court was hearing a petition of New Light Yubak Sangha, a club established for the purpose of development of the poor, unemployed and downtrodden. The petition sought directions to initiate an inquiry on the basis of the grievance made by the villagers of Sodamal. The Club further sought cancellation of the notification through which eight acres of forest land in Sodamal village was allotted to a Waste Management Firm by the Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO).

The land in question, was handed over to IDCO on a lease basis, and IDCO handed over the same to opposite party no.8 (Mahanadi Waste Management Services) for setting up of the industry by allotting the area measuring Ac.8.00 decimals for the project.

After the allotment notification, the local people, who belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities immediately put their grievance before the Collector and District Magistrate, Jharsuguda. The petitioner club also took steps for the local people for their welfare and protection which resulted in cancellation of the handing over of land to IDCO. But, again in the year 2019, Tahasildar, Kolabira published a notification that the land in question, which is jungle kisam, would be handed over to IDCO on lease basis.

In the wake of this, the petitioner stated that if an industry would be set up on the land in question, there would be destruction of the ecosystem by felling down the trees at the cost of livelihood of the local people and it would be in gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

After hearing the parties, the court noted, “The steps taken by opposite party no.8 at the cost of local people is serious one, thereby as has been stated earlier if the lease was allotted in the year 2011 and 2015 and the said proposal was cancelled, subsequently there was no valid justifiable reason to set up the industry by opposite party no.8 in the said land by destroying the ecosystem without hearing the grievance of the local people.”

The court further opined, “Equity has to be maintained between industrialization and the ecosystem itself. Unless there is equilibrium between the two systems, the ultimate result will be devastated.”

Finally, the court directed the Collector and District Magistrate, Jharsuguda to consider the representation made by the petitioner that was already pending for consideration before them. It also ordered them to pass a “reasoned and speaking order” by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner vis-à-vis opposite party no.8 and other affected persons, if any, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months before setting up of the unit of opposite party no.8 in the locality.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Will increased vigilance in Bengal forests, adversely impact forest dwellers?

Gujarat HC upset with state’s poor  track record on protecting forest rights

The post Equity to be maintained between industrialisation and ecosystem: Orissa HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Orissa High Court, while delivering a judgment on December 16, raised concerns over delays in deciding appeals. A two-judge bench of Justices SK Mishra and Savitri Ratho recommended that the State of Orissa along with the High Court take some measure for expeditious disposal of Criminal Appeals where appellants are still in custody.

The bench was deciding an appeal filed by an accused charged with murder of his wife and it was argued by the appellant that the appeal was taken up after 17 years and 6 months of his arrest. The appellant thus pleaded that his life imprisonment be remitted to the period already undergone in prison.

The court observed, “As regarding the delay in disposal of the appeal is concerned, we are constraint to observe that because of things or matters not in the hands of the judiciary, the appeals are being taken up at a belated stage for which we consider all the stake holders including the judiciary responsible for the same. But at the same time we do not say that judiciary is alone responsible for delay in disposal of the cases”.

The court also stated that “We hope and trust that appropriate measures should be taken by the State of Odisha and the High Court of Orissa for expeditious disposal of the Criminal Appeals in which the appellants are still in custody.”

The Supreme Court is already apprised of the matter as bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat directed High Courts of UP, Rajasthan,Madhya Pradesh, Patna, Rajasthan, Bombay and Orissa to submit their plan of action for deciding the criminal appeals that have been pending for a long time.

The complete order may be read here.

The post We hope measures will be taken to expedite criminal appeals of persons in custody: Orissa HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.