On Monday a team of wildlife experts presented a critical report, not yet public, on which depends the fate of the much talked about Ken-Betwa Project – the first-ever-interstate rive linking project since independence.

Although the report neither endorses nor disapproves of the Ken-Betwa project, it warns of the dangers to the ecology and animal life due to the proposed project. The experts have stated, in the report, that if the Government were to begin the work on the project, it must make sure beforehand that the proposed canal does not obstruct tiger movement and there should be enough habitat forest land developed to compensate for the loss of tiger reserve land.

Must Read: Supreme Court on the Uttrakhand’s Constitutional Crisis

About the Ken-Betwa Project

The Ken-Betwa Project proposes the interlinking of Ken river in Madhya Pradesh to Betwa River in Uttar Pradesh, to irrigate the huge barren and hilly region of Bundelkhand

This interlinking of two rivers, though it has become a textbook case of development versus ecology as the Environment Ministry has raised many objections, is going to help in irrigating about 600,000 hectares of land and cater drinking water to 1.34 million people in both Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.

In this context it is interesting to note here that this is not the first time that the project has faced opposition; a panel of the Environment Ministry in Nov, 2015 refused to clear the project until a landscape management plan is finalized and reviewed by independent experts.

The principal feature of the Ken-Betwa Project is a 230-km ling canal, linking the Ken and Betwa rivers, that is going to irrigate 3.5 lakh hectares; it is also going to submerge about 400 of the 4300 hectare Panna Tigers Reserve in Madhya Pradesh.

The Ken-Betwa Project proposes the construction of a dam across river Ken in Chhatarpur district in Madhya Pradesh to irrigate 6.35 Lakh hectares of land with the purpose of availing drinking water and the generation of 78 MW hydropower.

The Ken-Betwa project is going to cater facilities for 6,35,661 hectares of land in Panna, Chhatarpur, Tikamgarh districts in Madhya Pradesh, and Banda, Mahoba and Jhansi districts in Uttar Pradesh.

The reason behind the Ken-Betwa Project being the first of the ambitions series projects that aimed to transfer surplus water from certain rivers into deficient ones, is that is the shortest. The 87% of the river Ken, the last tributary of the Yamuna before it connects to Ganga, lies in Madhya Pradesh and 12 % in Uttar Pradesh.

Read Also:Top 10 Tiger Reserves in India

Impact of the Ken-Betwa Project

The Environment Ministry, acknowledging the threat to the tiger reserve, tasked the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) to prepare an expert analysis on environmental impact. It must be taken into account that the clearance of the Environment Ministry is mandatory for the project.

The Ken- Betwa Project would cause ‘submergence of 58.03 sq. km (10.07%) of Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH) of the Panna Tiger Reserve and inflict 50% loss to existing unique habitat of highly endangered vulture species’ informed the inspector general of forest (wildlife) to the standing committee of the NBWL in its meeting held on February 26.

Because of the land fragmentation and loss of connectivity, in which it is going to destroy 10 villages, another 105.23 sq. km of CHT will be lost.

Mr. R. Sukumar, an expert member in the standing committee, has expressed his serious concern on the impact of the project that is going inflict huge submergence, habitat loss and affect adversely the Ghariyal Sanctury.

In the wake of this development the NBWL panel has taken a decision to set up a panel “comprising R Sukumar, HS Singh, a representative each from NTCA (National Tiger Conservation Authority), WIL (Wildlife Instituted of India), Madhya Pradesh Government, and user agency (water resource ministry) would conduct a site visit and submit the report in a month for further consideration.

The Union Government, in order to become sure of not facing any hurdle had earlier planned to start the project, that would take nine years to complete, but did not get green (Environmental) clearance.

This ambitious plan to connect country’s major rivers intended at transferring water from surplus areas to deficit areas first came into existence during the first National Democratic Alliance (NDA) Government in 2002. It is so that the present incumbent Government of NDA is vigorously promoting the Ken-Betwa Project.

NDA, in 2002, had identified 30 links comprising the Ganga and the Brahmaputra with an aim to address the problem of India’s water scarcity.

Also Read: 50 NATIONAL PARKS IN INDIA

Environmentalists opinion on Ken-Betwa Project

A former number of NBWL and an eminent environmentalist, Prena Singh Bindra, said, “the entire project is located within Panna Tiger Reserve, directly submerging 89 sq. km. Over 58 sq. km. is in the core critical tiger Reserve habitat, which is deemed to be inviolate as per law. The impact area will be far greater with construction, staff colonies, power houses, blasting etc, which will disturb and impact over 200 sq. km of the tiger reserve, and all the wildlife within if. This includes over a dozen tigers, including breeding tigress, nearly half of Panna’s population.

Also Read: Appointment of New Judges in the Supreme Court (SC)

On Wednesday the Rajya Sabha passed the much debated and eagerly awaited Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Bill or Code, considered as a vital reform that is going to make it much easier to do business in India, was passed by the Lok Sabha last week.

In both Houses of Parliament a majority of parliamentarians belonging to all political parties voted in support of this legislation after it became obvious that all the proposed amendments by a joint parliamentary committee were accepted by the Government.

With the passage of his new code India, once the President gives his assent and signs the legislation, is going to have a new bankruptcy law that is set to make sure time-bound settlement of insolvency, capacitate faster turn around of business and form a database of serial defaulters.

Must Read: Bankruptcy Bill Cleared by Joint Parliament Standing Committee

What is New Bankruptcy Code

The new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is being considered as the most important economic legislation introduced and seen through by the Union Government.

The new code, that is set to replace existing bankruptcy laws, is going to cover individuals, companies, limited liability partnerships and partnership firms. It is going to become a comprehensive legislation (as it has been drafted by expertise, selected by the Union Government, within and outside Government) to deal with insolvencies of corporate sector. The code is able to help creditors in recovering their loans faster.

How the Code helps Indian’s Image

This Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Indi’s rank on the scale of resolving bankruptcy is 136 out of 189 countries. According to a report of the World Bank it takes, at present, more than four years to decide a bankruptcy case in India. There is a provision in the new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code that is going to shorten this period to almost less than year, this move is certainly going to help India in boosting its image in International Business Circle for providing a swift remedy to investors class.

In order to provide proper and accurate help to sick companies the code has proposed the formation of new class of specialist professionals. Along with this the new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is set to create uniformation utilities that is going to collect all information about debtors to restrict serial defaulters from neesusing  the system. In order to regulate these utilities and professionals the new Codes has proposed the formation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to function as a regulator. This move also will help India upgrade its image.

The new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code also puts the proposal of using exhausting infrastructure of National Company Law tribunals and debt recovery tribunals to approach corporate insolvency and individual insolvency.

Read Also: Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Criminal Defamation

Implementation: Key to success of the Code

As the new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code presupposed the entity of institutional infrastructures such as information repositories like stock depositories; a new regulator without having the burden of failings of existing regulators; and a high-quality infrastructure of adjudication; unless these four pillars exist on the ground, the code is going to fail in the context of the huge pendency now being faced in the debt recovery tribunals.

The Minister of State for finance Mr. Jayant Sinha responding to the debate in Rajya Sabha informed that the Government would attempt to follow a stage-wise process to secure smooth implementation, and for it the Government would notify provision as and when the required infrastructure because ready.

However, a well known corporate, who has termed the insolvency and bankruptcy Code processes a vast change, said that its implementation would take time. It has been claimed by the corporate pundits that since India has no dearth of professionals who can swiftly assume the role of insolvency professionals, the insolvency and bankruptcy Code is certain to set the framework for bringing in transformations in the debt recovery tribunals.

Also Read: LGBT – Supreme Court refers Curative Petition to Constitution Bench

Dealing with cross-border insolvency

The new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code incorporates provisions to handle cross-border insolvency through bilateral agreements with other nations.

Right from filing a bankruptcy application to the time available for filing claims and appeals in the debt recovery tribunals, National Company Law Tribunals and Courts, the Code has introduced much shorter and aggressive time frames for every stage in insolvency process. According to the new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code now applications for bankruptcy will have to be filed within three months; earlier this period was six months.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Workers’ interests

With a clear objective of safeguarding the workers’ interests the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has inserted the provisions to make sure that the money to be paid to workers and employees from provident fund, the pension fund and gratuity fund should not be added in the estate of bankrupt firm or individual. And, in case of liquidation of assets of a company, it is the workers’ salaries of about 24 months that is going to get priority ahead of secured creditors.

The concerned ministry claimed that the new code protects the interest of workers who are undoubtedly the most vulnerable lot, the code enables workers in starting the insolvency process and they are going to be first in line to have the proceeds of liquidation.

The key to success of the new code will be the implementation as the it is augured on the formation of a complementary ecosystem incorporating insolvency professionals, information utilities and a bankruptcy regulator.

Don’t Miss: Appointment of New Judges in the Supreme Court (SC)

In a judgement upholding the validity of the law on criminal defamation, the Supreme Court has ruled that the law relating to criminal defamation is constitutionally valid and further elaborated that the law has a “chilling effect” on freedom of speech.

Supreme Court Observations

According to the Supreme Court, as a person’s right to freedom of speech must be balanced with the other person’s right to reputation, sections 499 and500 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) make ‘defamation’ a criminal offence and that is quite necessary.

Rejecting the contention that defamation could become a criminal defamation offence only if it fomented to make an offence, the apex court said that defamation had its own independent identity through which the State maintains a balance between fundamental rights.

Pointing out the difference between Sections 499 and 500 and Section 66 A (prosecution for obscene social post) of the Information Technology Act, the Supreme Court said that the Section 66 A of IT Act had been struck down it on the ground of procedural unreasonableness and vagueness.

Must Read: Supreme Court’s Ruling on Drought in India

Section 499 and 500 of IPC and Defamation

Section 499 of the Indian Constitution while defining defamation says “whoever, by word either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said except in the cases herein after expected, or defame the person”.

Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, that deals with the punishment of defamation, says, “Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”.

The ruling’s background

The ruling came in the wake of the petition filed first by Subramanian Swamy, now a Rajya Sabha member, and a Bhartiya Janta Party politician against provisions, which criminalize defamation. Later, Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi and Delhi Chief Minister, who are facing criminal defamation proceedings, became party to the case. Now they have to face the charges initiated against then under the section making defamation a criminal offence..

The petition, challenging the constitutional validity of sections 409 and 500 of IPC, argued that both section went beyond the limitations interwoven in the Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, were cramping the freedom of speech beyond the fair limits.

Read Also: Supreme Court on the Uttrakhand’s Constitutional Crisis

Kernel Arguments against section 499 and 500 IPC

The main contention against sections 409 and 500 are that they are not fair in imposition of restriction on speech. The example provided for the contention is that if a person speaks truth, then truth is going to be defence if the statement is made for the public good. Otherwise, a person can be tried for defamation even for speaking truth.

Under these sections, a person can be prosecuted on the ground that s/he has conspired with the person who makes the defamatory statements; this is perhaps the reason, as the petitioners contended, that the people are reluctant while criticizing the Government or its officials as it could lead to a legal action.

Constitution’s Stand on Freedom of Speech

Guarantee to the right to freedom of speech and expression citizens has been provided in the Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. However, freedom of speech and expression is not absolute.

Clause 2 of the Article 19 of the Constitution permits States to make laws to prescribe fair restrictions on the right to free speech in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State…. etc. However, the Constitution too cautions that ‘the reasonable restrictions must not be arbitrary and excessive’…., if the restriction is too broad, then it will be unconstitutional’.

Also Read: LGBT – Supreme Court refers Curative Petition to Constitution Bench

Present Stand of Supreme Court

A bench comprising Justice Dipak Mishra and PC Pant dismissed demands to strike down Section 199(2) to (4) of Criminal Procedure Code. Objections were registered against the Vague terminology used in section 199 that make ‘aggrieved person’ file a defamation complaint opening the floodgates for frivolous litigations. On this the apex court merely said this would be determined by courts in each case as per the fact situation. The apex court also rejected the arguments that these have no rationale and do not bear constitutional scrutiny.

Giving sanctity to a public  servant’s right to use State’ machinery to pursue a defamation case against another citizen, the Supreme Court elaborated, “One is bound to tolerate criticism, dissent and discordance but not expected to tolerate defamatory attack”.

Read Also: Supreme Court Lifts Ban On Tourism In Core Areas Of Tiger Reserves

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court expressed its anguish over “Ostrich-like” attitude of the centre and some states, for poor drought management and preventive measures to cater relief to an estimated 50 crore affected people that is one third of the country’s population.

Passing various directions to the Central government the Supreme Court said that the Union government could not wash its hands of matter and pose to have done its duty by releasing some funds to the States.

A two-judges bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice N.V. Ramana expressing the bench’s serious concern said, “We are also quite surprised that the National Disaster Mitigation Fund (NDMF) has not yet been set up even after 10 years of the enforcement of the Disaster Management Act (2005). Risk assessment and risk management also appear to have little or no priority as far as the Union of India and State Governments are concerned”.

Must Read: Supreme Court Asks to Treat Drought as Disaster

Pretext of the SC ruling

While entertaining a Public Interest Litigation, filed by an organization Swaraj Abhiyan the Supreme Court has passed this ruling. The Swaraj Abhiyan in its PIL had complained of complete apathy by the Centre and various States which were affected by severe drought conditioned.

Supreme Court’s directions to the Centre

The Supreme Court instructed the centre to set up a National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) within six months from the date of the passing of its ruling, with an adequate and regular cadre strength.

Not only this the Supreme Court directed the Central Government to constitute a Disaster Mitigation Fund (DMF) within three months period and formulate a National Plan under Section 11 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 as soon as possible.

The two-judges bench , with a tone of caution, further directed the Centre that the Disaster Management manual must be revised and updated on or before 31 December 2016 proving measures like “prevention, preparedness and mitigation”.

Read Also: Supreme Court on the Uttrakhand’s Constitutional Crisis

Supreme Court on Drought States

In his written judgement Justice Lokur, particularly quoting the name of Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana, said, “States of Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana are hesitant to even acknowledge, let alone address, a possible drought-like situation or a drought by not disclosing ful facts about the prevailing conditions in these states”.

Showing its displeasure at the attitude of the Governments the bench said that a frank admission does not imply a loss of face or invite accusations of ineffective Governance –“it is an acknowledgement of reality. An ostrich-like attitude is a pity, particularly since the persons affected by a possible drought like situation usually belong to the most vulnerable section of the society.

The bench, further elaborating its stand, said that the sound of silence emanating from these States subjected the vulnerable to further distress. Mentioning the name of Gujarat the bench in its judgement remarked that “ironically, towards the fag end of the hearing, Gujarat finally admitted the existence of a drought in five districts – a fact that could have been admitted much earlier. But at least, it is better late than never. However, Bihar and Haryana continue to be in denial mode.

The Court even invoked an article of the Constitution of India and said, “the failure of these States to declare a drought (if indeed that is necessary) effectively deprives the weak in the State the assistance that they need to live a life of dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Also Read: Supreme Court Panel is to Monitor MCI

What the Article 21 States

Dealing with Protection of life and personal liberty the Article 21 of the Constitution of India States that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.

The Supreme Court in case in 1997 delivered a judgement that enhanced the scope of Article 21; it said that article 21 lays down that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty, except according to procedure established by law. “Life” in Article 21 is not merely the physical act of breating.

In 2011, in a ruling the Supreme Court said that Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty can be said to be  “heart and Soul” of fundamental rights.

In fact, the importance of Article 21 can be comprehended by the sheer fact that under the protective lap of the Article 21 of the Constitution many ‘rights’ have found shelter, growth and nourishment. An intelligent citizen must be aware of the developments in this matter, as they have evolved from judicial decisions.

The Disaster Management Act, 2005 (DM Act)

Although the Disaster Management Act, 2005 was passed in December 2005 by both Houses of the Parliament, it came into force after getting assent from the President of India on 9 January, 2006.

The Act has 11 Chapter and 79 sections and extends to the whole of India. The Act has been promulgated for “effective management of disasters and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Read Also: LGBT – Supreme Court refers Curative Petition to Constitution Bench

National Authority under the DM Act, 2006

Under clause 1 of section 3 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 a National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, was establish on 27 September 2006 for “laying down the policies, plans and guidelines for disaster management” and to ensure “timely and effective response to disaster”.

Section 6 of the DM Act says that NDMA is responsible for laying “down guidelines to be followed by the State Authorities in drawing up the State Plans”.

National Disaster Response Force

The section 42 of the DM Act, 2005 asks for setting up a National Disaster Response Force (for which the judgement on Wednesday also asked for) for the purpose of specialist response to a threatening disaster situation or disaster”. Sections 46-50 mandate funds for Disaster Mitigation at various levels.

Don’t Miss: Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Courts