5 April 2025 Current Affairs

S.C On Forest Land In Kancha Gachibowli, Telangana

Introduction

On March 3, 2025, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the destruction of nearly 100 acres of forest land in Kancha Gachibowli, Telangana. The Court expressed grave concern over the flattening of trees and excavation by heavy machinery, allegedly carried out in the name of developmental activity. It directed the Telangana Chief Secretary to provide an explanation and issued strict warnings regarding any further activities on the land.

1. Supreme Court's Observations

• A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih observed large-scale environmental destruction in Kancha Gachibowli.
• The Court criticized the use of heavy machinery and tree felling, stating it presented an "alarming picture."
• The Chief Secretary was warned of personal accountability and threatened with temporary imprisonment if any further harm occurred.

2. Court Proceedings and Reports

• A suo motu case was registered by the SC on March 3, 2025.
• The Telangana High Court Registrar was directed to visit the site and submit an interim report with photographs.
• The report confirmed mass tree felling and signs of biodiversity, including deer, birds, and peacocks.

3. Disputes on Forest Status

• Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, representing the State, claimed the land was not forest, but this claim arose after development began.
• He also downplayed the damage, saying only "shrubs" were cleared.

4. Court’s Rebuttal and Remarks

• The Court noted that over 100 acres were affected, comparable to protected areas like Corbett.
• Justice Gavai remarked that “no one is above the law.”
• The destruction allegedly violated the SC’s March 4, 2025 order to protect forest cover nationwide.

5. Legal Orders and Further Action

• The Court ordered the Chief Secretary to answer:

- Whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was conducted.

- If permissions were taken from forest authorities.

- What happened to the felled trees.

• A detailed affidavit is to be submitted by April 16, 2025.
• The Central Empowered Committee was asked to inspect the site and report to the Court.

6. Background from the High Court

• The Telangana High Court had already ordered a halt to the activities a day earlier.
• Petitions by conservationists and Hyderabad University students argued the area was protected under the Forest Conservation Act, containing rare flora, fauna, rock formations, and three lakes.

Brief Background of Tree Conservation Case Laws in India

1. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996)

• Landmark judgment that gave a broad definition to “forest” irrespective of land ownership.
• The SC initiated continuing mandamus to monitor forest conservation.
• Led to creation of Central Empowered Committee (CEC).

2. Lafarge Umiam Mining Case (2011)

• Emphasized need for environmental clearance before any forest diversion.
• Highlighted the concept of inter-generational equity and sustainable development.

3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Various Orders)

• Addressed tree cutting in Delhi and emphasized the importance of green cover in urban areas.
• Ordered replantation and regulation of deforestation in cities.

4. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C. Kenchappa (2006)

• SC held that development must balance with environmental protection.
• Stressed mandatory EIAs before developmental projects.

5. N.D. Jayal v. Union of India (2004)

• Reaffirmed public trust doctrine-natural resources including forests belong to the public, and the State acts as a trustee.

Kannadippaya To Receive A Geographical Indication (GI) Tag

Introduction

Kannadippaya, a traditional tribal handicraft mat from Kerala, has become the first tribal handicraft from the state to receive a Geographical Indication (GI) tag. The recognition ensures both market protection and global exposure for this eco-friendly, bamboo-based product.

1. What is Kannadippaya?

• Literal Meaning: “Mirror mat” – named for its unique reflective design.
• Material: Made from the soft inner layer of reed bamboo (Teinostachyum wightii), known locally as Njoonjileetta, Ponneetta, etc.
• Utility: Provides warmth in winter and a cooling effect in summer.

2. Recognition and Agencies Involved

• GI tag granted to:

- Unarvu Pattikavargha Vividodesha Sahakarana Sangam, Venmani

- Vanasree Bamboo Craft & Vanavibhava Shekarana unit, Moolakkad, Uppukunnu

• Location: Idukki district, Kerala
• Supported by: Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI), IPR cell of Kerala Agricultural University

3. Cultural Significance

• Traditionally woven by tribal communities: Oorali, Mannan, Muthuva, Malayan, Kadar, Ulladan, Malayarayan, Hill Pulaya
• Regions involved: Idukki, Thrissur, Ernakulam, Palakkad
• Historically offered to kings by tribal communities as a mark of honour.

4. Importance of GI Tag

• First tribal handicraft from Kerala to receive this tag
• Ensures legal protection, prevents unauthorized use
• Opens national and international markets
• Empowers artisans to become independent entrepreneurs

5. Challenges and Way Forward

• Absence of structured market still a concern
• Need for government intervention to promote the product
• Importance of involving younger generation to sustain the craft
• Seen as a milestone for tribal empowerment and eco-friendly entrepreneurship

Background on GI Tags in India

1. What is a GI Tag?

• A Geographical Indication (GI) is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin.

2. Law Governing GI Tags in India

• Governed by: Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
• Administered by: Geographical Indications Registry, Chennai

Important GI-Related Case Law in India

1. Tea Board of India v. ITC Limited (2011)

• Dispute over the use of the term Darjeeling for a tea lounge.
• The court held that mere use of a GI name in a commercial space, without misleading the public, did not infringe the GI right.

2. Khoday Distilleries v. Scotch Whisky Association (2008)

• Case involved use of the word “Scot” for Indian whisky.
• Emphasized that misleading consumers using names associated with GI goods can be barred.

3. Basmati Rice Dispute (India vs. USA)

• India successfully defended the GI status of Basmati rice against American firm RiceTec.
• Highlighted India’s global efforts to protect traditional and native products.

SC Judges To Declare Their Assets

Introduction

In a landmark move to enhance judicial transparency, all 31 judges of the Supreme Court of India will publicly declare their assets. The decision was taken during a full court meeting on April 1, 2025, presided over by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's successor, CJI Sanjiv Khanna.

1. What the Decision Entails

• All SC judges will submit declarations of their assets to the Chief Justice of India.
• The declarations are expected to be uploaded on the Supreme Court website for public access.
• Timeline for implementation will likely align with income tax return filing deadlines (i.e., post July 31).

2. Context and Trigger for the Move

• The decision follows recent allegations of unaccounted cash discovered after a fire at the residence of High Court judge Yashwant Varma.
• Though Justice Varma denied any connection, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court, and an in-house judicial inquiry is underway.

3. Current Transparency Scenario in the Judiciary

• As of September last year, only 13% (98 out of 749) High Court judges had publicly disclosed their assets.
• Disclosures were mainly from Kerala (37), Punjab & Haryana (31), and Delhi (11) High Courts.

4. Historical Developments

• 1997: A full court resolution stated that judges should declare assets to the CJI.
• 2009: A resolution allowed for voluntary disclosure of assets on the SC website.
• Since 2018, citing privacy, no disclosures were made public.

5. Legal Developments in RTI & Judicial Accountability

• 2009: Justice Ravindra Bhat (then in Delhi HC) ruled that the CJI’s office falls under the RTI Act and must disclose judges’ assets.
• The ruling was contested by the SC administration.
• 2019: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, stating that disclosure of assets is not personal information and is subject to public interest and transparency under the Right to Information Act.

Background on Judicial Asset Disclosure & Transparency in India

1. Legal Basis

a. Right to Information Act, 2005:

• Promotes transparency in public institutions.
• Public offices, including the judiciary, fall under its scope as per judicial pronouncements.

2. Key Case Laws

a. CIC v. Supreme Court of India (2019)

• SC ruled that CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act.
• It upheld that judges’ asset declarations are not exempt from disclosure.

b. Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (2009–2019)

• Landmark case filed by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal.
• Led to eventual transparency in judicial functioning and asset declarations.

Quick Bits –