13.02.2025..Untouchablity News.....अछूत समाचार.தீண்டாமை செய்திகள்.by Team சிவாஜி. शिवाजी .Shivaji.asivaji1962@gmail.com.9444917060.asivaji1961@gmail.com.facebook.sivajiyogatiruvannamalai.X.ShivajiA479023.
Please join our WhatsApp channel..
?127 crore compensation for intellectual property loss: Dalit researchers on 15-month delay say, “If we were Brahmins, Maharashtra government would have paid by now”
JNU researchers Kshipra Uke and Shiv Shankar Das had also proposed to form an expert panel of eminent economists – Professor Sukhdev Thorat, Dr. Bhalchandra Mungekar and Professor Narendra Jadhav – to assess the loss of their intellectual property.
Geetha Sunil Pillai
Nagpur- Dalit researchers Dr. Kshipra Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das, who set a legal precedent in India to get intellectual property recognised as a compensable asset – have been waiting for justice for the last 15 months.
On 10 November 2023, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court ruled in their favour and ordered the Maharashtra government to compensate them for the loss caused due to the theft of their research data.
Despite the Supreme Court dismissing the Maharashtra government’s special leave petition (SLP) on January 24, 2025, the state government is dilly-dallying in complying with the Bombay High Court’s direction to compensate them for their stolen research. Instead of ensuring compliance of the order, the Nagpur district administration has remained inactive.
Most recently, on February 10, the couple sent a formal mail to the Principal Secretary of Social Welfare, Maharashtra, demanding immediate compensation as per clause 36-E and section 15A-11(D) of Schedule I of PoA Rule 12(4).
In an exclusive conversation with The Mooknayak, they clarified their stance: “We will wait for three to four weeks maximum. If the government does not act, we will initiate contempt proceedings.”
However, the Dalit couple says the delay is not due to the huge compensation amount of Rs 127 crore but because of their ‘caste identity’.
“The Maharashtra government is very wealthy, allocates huge sums for infrastructure, roads and schools. It is India’s largest economy. Then why can’t they compensate us? Rs 100 crore is not a big amount for them,” says Shivshankar Das.
“If this claim had been made by a Brahmin or a person from a higher caste, the government would have agreed without hesitation – perhaps not even challenged the high court’s decision in the Supreme Court. But because this demand has come from the so-called ‘untouchables’, it is being opposed,” said Kshipra.
The couple, who fought their own case in the Bombay high court, have a deep legal understanding that comes from closely studying hundreds of cases under the Scheduled Castes/Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Drawing a comparison with the Hathras gangrape case, where the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had questioned the Uttar Pradesh government on why it denied government jobs to the victim’s family when such facilities were given to upper caste people, Dr Das said: “The victims had sought rehabilitation and government jobs in Delhi or Noida. But the Uttar Pradesh government expressed its inability to provide government jobs. The court’s response was remarkable. The court said, ‘You gave jobs to Tiwari and Gupta without any law or provision, why not here?'”
Questioning the Maharashtra government’s hesitation, Dr Uke said, “If Maharashtra claims to have made India the world’s third largest economy, what does Rs 127 crore mean to them? And yet, this amount hardly compensates for our actual losses – because there are some losses that cannot be measured by any court.” Kshipra said, “We have not thrown any figure in the air; we have submitted detailed calculations to assess our loss. Despite this, it seems inadequate. The Bombay High Court held that considering our education and the loss we have suffered, the amount quoted by us is not unreasonable. The court gave a clear direction to the government to consider our demand.”
Even the Maharashtra government had acknowledged the atrocities against the Dalit couple as a ‘unique and rare’ case. This acknowledgement is significant, especially because the deputy secretary of the government had sought guidance from the joint secretary of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on September 6, 2019. The letter revealed that the state government was confused about how to award compensation, as the Scheduled Castes/Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 did not have specific provisions for it. This uncertainty led the state to seek directions from the central government.
The government kept taking dates after dates
Since the High Court order in writ petition 759/2022 on November 10, 2023, directing the District Magistrate (DM) to investigate the 10-point demands of the petitioners, the Maharashtra government has repeatedly sought extension of the deadline, leading to non-compliance of the order even after more than 15 months. Despite multiple extensions, the DM has not been able to complete the investigation.
On March 14, 2024, the state government first sought 9 months to complete the investigation. Considering the parliamentary elections and the DM’s significant stake in the election process, the court granted a 3-month extension, with clear instructions that the petitioners should be informed before moving the court for any further extension.
“The first extension to the government was given by the court without hearing our side. So when time was sought again in the next hearing, we protested,” said Kshipra.
At the next hearing on 14 June 2024, the state sought an extension of 6 months, saying they needed more time. The petitioners vehemently opposed this and said that an extension cannot be sought to challenge the court’s order. However, citing the district collector’s preoccupation with parliamentary elections and the code of conduct as the reason for the delay, the court granted an additional 5 months.
At the third hearing on 21 November 2024, the state once again sought an extension of 6 months. The petitioners opposed this, but the court found that the only real reason for the delay was the DM’s preoccupation with the assembly elections and government work. As a result, the court granted a final extension of 8 weeks, which meant that the order had to be complied with by 16 January 2025.
But even after the deadline expired on 16 January, the officials remain undecided. “Since then the collector has held two meetings with us, yet he seems to be at a loss to figure out how to assess the damage we have suffered,” says Dr Uke.
Collector’s committee failed to assess intellectual property losses?
In compliance with the court order, the Nagpur district magistrate had some time ago constituted a committee to examine the demands. Kshipra and Shiv Shankar strongly criticised the committee’s failure to assess their losses and comply with the 10-point direction issued by the high court.
“While the case was going on, the state never denied that we had suffered huge losses. The government raised two objections to our claim: first, that the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides compensation only for tangible property – such as house or movable property – and does not apply to intellectual property or research data. Second, they argued that our losses were ‘incalculable’, claiming that the government had no way to calculate intangible losses,” Dr Uke said.
To counter this, Dr Uke and Dr Das themselves proposed two concrete methods of assessing the damage to their intellectual property, which were considered by the court:
The court order clearly directed the collector to review the calculations they had made in preparing the compliance report and refer to the pages where these methods were explained.
In compliance with the order, the collector constituted a committee of Nagpur University faculty members to assess the damages. However, the committee failed to provide a definitive assessment.
“As per our knowledge, the committee suggested instrumental damages of Rs 15 lakh. But strangely, despite filing several affidavits and applications, the state never mentioned this recommendation in court,” Dr Uke revealed.
“Why? Because they simply don’t want to officially record any figures. It seems they are comfortable giving us a mere ?5,000-?10,000 – which they think is ‘fair’ – rather than acknowledging our actual losses,” Shipra said sarcastically.
The Maharashtra government had also described the atrocities against the Dalit couple as a ‘unique and rare’ case.
Why did they replace experts with university teachers? – Couple questions government’s intentions
The couple also strongly questioned the collector’s selection of Nagpur University teachers to assess their intellectual property losses, calling it a deliberate attempt to undermine the credibility and accuracy of the assessment.
“Why did they bring in local university teachers? They don’t have the expertise to assess our losses, and more importantly, they can be easily influenced. These teachers are not even at the level of government officials, let alone experts in intellectual property valuation,” said Dr Das.
The couple had actively suggested the inclusion of three eminent economists and academicians – all leading policymakers and stalwarts in their fields – in the committee.
- Professor Sukhdev Thorat – former UGC chairman and leading economist
- Dr Bhalchandra Mungekar – former vice-chancellor of Mumbai University, held key roles in RBI and Planning Commission
- Professor Narendra Jadhav – former Rajya Sabha MP, economist and academician
All three experts are from the Dalit community and have significant experience in policymaking and governance, making them highly qualified to objectively assess the financial and intellectual scale of the losses suffered.
“Why doesn’t the Maharashtra government form a panel with these experts to assess our losses?” Dr Uke asks challengingly. “Let them examine our calculations – if they find the amount we have quoted or our methods of assessment unreasonable, we will reconsider. But how can we accept an assessment made by ordinary university teachers who have neither expertise nor authority in the matter?”
Dalit couple gets new identity after historic win, thanks ‘The Mooknayak’
The courage and intelligence of this couple, who set an example by getting judicial recognition of intellectual property as an asset in SC/ST atrocities case, is being discussed everywhere. Dr. Kshipra Uke and Dr. Shiv Shankar Das are constantly receiving phone calls, congratulatory messages. Messages are coming in their mailbox and social media handles from all over the world.
“We never thought that our fight would evoke such a wide response. Many major media houses covered our story, but the way ‘The Mooknayak’ reported first helped our community understand the deep importance of this issue. Thank you very much!” the couple said, overwhelmed by the response.
Anyway, the latest development in this fight for compensation is that the Nagpur Collector has forwarded their letter to the Principal Secretary of the Social Welfare Department. Now the matter has reached the ministry level, and the couple is keeping an eye on the next step of the Maharashtra government.
However, they are firm on their stance: “If India fails to uphold the rule of law and deliver justice, we will not hesitate to take our case to international agencies,” the couple reiterated.
After the Supreme Court verdict, the question now is: will Maharashtra protect justice, or will these Dalit researchers have to fight another legal battle to claim their rights?
Courtesy : Hindi News
Adivasi Land Rights Erosion: The effects of the 2023 Forest Conservation Amendment Act
By redefining forests, facilitating land diversion, and permitting corporate projects, the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, jeopardises Adivasi land rights by increasing the risk of ecological loss, displacement, and a weakened legal framework for Indigenous people
A bench of Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, while hearing a batch of petitions against the 2023 amendments to the 2023 Forest Conservation law, prohibited the Centre and States from taking any actions that would result in loss of forest area until further orders. The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 came into force on December 1, 2023, significantly altering the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Experts and citizens expressed concerns that the modifications would facilitate the authorities to reroute restricted forest areas for public infrastructure and commercial uses.
Thirteen petitioners, twelve of whom were former civil personnel, petitioned the Supreme Court to address their concerns regarding changes to the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 after the Amendment Act was passed. The amendment permits the diversion of forest land for linear projects related to “national security” and “defence” within a 100-kilometer radius along border territories, which was one of their primary concerns. In other words, it makes way for highway construction in biodiverse and ecologically sensitive regions of India’s frontier states.
Challenges to Forest Conservation Amendment Act, 2023
The petition emphasised how the amendment threatens India’s long-standing forest governance system, which was established by the implementation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and the Supreme Court’s expansive definition of “forest,” which was established in its landmark ruling in T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India (1996).
The petition also argued that the modification exempted certain types of projects and activities from the Act’s provisions while arbitrarily permitting others on forest land. Safaris, zoos, and ecotourism establishments were haphazardly added to a list of activities for approved “non-forest purposes.”
The court asked in its interim decision that the states and Union Territories conduct in accordance with the definition of “forest” established by the Apex Court in its 1996 ruling in the case of TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India. The petitioners claimed that Section 1A, which was added to the modified law, limited the broad meaning of a “forest” in the Apex Court’s ruling. According to the modified law, a piece of property cannot be considered a “forest” unless it is officially listed as such in a government record or is notified as such.
The amendment limited the Act’s application to two categories of lands as reported by Downtoearth:
Areas that have been formally designated or notified as forests under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (IFA) or any other applicable law, and
Lands that do not come under the first category but are listed as forests in government records since October 25, 1980.
The Apex Court in February, 2024 noted that approximately 1.99 lakh square kilometres of forest area were excluded from the term of “forests” under the 2023 amended law on forest conservation, and instead were made accessible for other uses. The bench stated that any new plans to construct a zoo or start a “safari” on forest territory would now require permission from the Supreme Court as reported by Supreme Court Observer.
A bench of Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran while hearing the petitions against the 2023 amendment to the forest conservation law noted that, “We will not permit anything which leads to reduction of forest area. We further order that until further orders, no steps will be taken by the Union of India and any state which will lead to reduction of forest land unless compensatory land is provided by the Centre and the states.”
Reverting to a colonial-era mentality that prioritises control over nature and legal recognition without recognising its inherent worth and value, regardless of its utility to humans, the Amendment Act is a regressive step. It is not in accordance with the developments in environmental law, which are generally moving towards acknowledging the “Rights of Nature.”
Adivasi Land Rights
Significant concerns have been raised by the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, especially in light of its potential effects on Adivasi (Indigenous communities) land rights. The reforms include significant changes that could jeopardise the livelihoods and cultural links of communities living in forests by weakening the legal protections that are now in place.
The amended law’s reduction of the concept of “forest” presents one of the biggest obstacles. Previously, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 protected all statutorily recognised forests, whether or not they were registered, according to the expansive interpretation set by the T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India (1996) ruling. The 2023 Amendment, however, limits this description to land that is notified under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or officially listed as forest in government records. Large areas of community forests, traditionally used land, and sacred groves—all of which Adivasis have depended on for centuries—are not included in this. This raises the possibility of relocation and the loss of ancestral areas because these lands can now be diverted for non-forest uses without needing the stringent clearances that were previously necessary.
These risks are increased by the amendment’s exemptions for particular projects. For activities pertaining to border security, defence infrastructure, ecotourism, and public utilities in specific regions, the Act permits the government to circumvent the customary forest clearance regulations. These exclusions facilitate the establishment of major infrastructure projects, including roads, railroads, and industrial zones, in tribal areas without requiring approval from Gram Sabhas, or village councils. Adivasis are entitled to this privilege under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, and the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act PESA, 1996. Their independence in deciding how to use the land is directly compromised, and the legal protections against forcible evictions are weakened.
The possibility of greater land alienation and privatisation is another significant problem. The amendment makes it easier for businesses like zoos, safaris, and tourism projects to access forest land, which may lead to the transfer of vast tracts of forest to private organisations. Adivasi tribes may experience financial hardship as a result of the commercialisation of their ancestral lands since they rely on these forests for farming, grazing, and gathering minor forest products. Conflicts, loss of livelihood, and forced migration could result from corporate interests superseding community rights in the absence of robust legal protections.
Furthermore, Adivasis residing in Fifth Schedule Areas, where constitutional protections were created expressly to stop the alienation of tribal territory, are disproportionately affected by the relaxing of forest diversion standards. Without taking into account the historical injustices and displacement that tribal communities have experienced, the amendment facilitates the government’s allocation of land for development projects. This gives rise to concerns that the amendment might be utilised to expedite projects without providing impacted Adivasi families with adequate consultation, rehabilitation, or compensation.
In essence, by limiting the definition of forests, avoiding consultation procedures, permitting extensive land diversion, and facilitating corporate access to forest resources, the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 erodes vital safeguards for Adivasi land rights. Legal protections are being diluted, endangering Indigenous groups’ identity, culture, and means of subsistence in addition to the environment. Stricter enforcement of tribal land rights, increased community involvement, and making sure that development doesn’t result in marginalisation and displacement are all necessary to address these issues.
Other Challenges to Adivasi Rights
The Madhya Pradesh government has taken a major step by deciding to withdraw nearly 8,000 forest criminal cases against Adivasi communities. Long-standing complaints about the criminalisation of Indigenous customs in forest regions are intended to be addressed by this ruling. But according to new data gathered under the Right to Information Act, the state only intends to withdraw roughly half of these cases, meaning that many Adivasis are still facing legal issues.
The persistent challenges Adivasi communities face with regard to their land rights and customary forest activities are highlighted by this partial withdrawal. Even with legislative frameworks that acknowledge the rights of forest dwellers, such as the Forest Rights Act of 2006, many Adivasis still face potential displacement and legal challenges. The narrow range of case withdrawals emphasises the necessity of more extensive steps to guarantee the recognition and preservation of Adivasi land rights, particularly in view of recent legislative developments that could have an even greater effect on these people.
Conclusion
There are serious concerns about how the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, may affect Adivasi land rights, environmental preservation, and legal protections since it marks a dramatic change in India’s forest governance structure. The amendment erodes the rights of Indigenous communities who have lived sustainably in these forests for generations by limiting the definition of forests and exempting certain initiatives from clearing requirements. Legal protections are being weakened, and corporate and infrastructure projects are being facilitated at the expense of environmental degradation, livelihood loss, and displacement.
The government contends that these modifications advance economic growth and national security, but they also jeopardise ecological balance, democratic involvement, and constitutional protections. Adivasi views must be heard, Gramme Sabha clearances must be respected, and compensating measures must be rigorously implemented going ahead. The destruction of forest ecosystems and the marginalisation of Indigenous communities cannot be the price of sustainable development.
Courtesy: Sabrang India
Congress walks out of Rajya Sabha over BJP allegations on changes to first copy of Constitution
Congress walks out of Rajya Sabha over removal of Constitution illustrations, sparking controversy over disrespect to Ambedkar
Updated - February 12, 2025 01:31 am IST - NEW DELHI
Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge speaks during the Budget Session, in New Delhi on Tuesday, February 11, 2025. | Photo Credit: ANI via Sansad TV
The Congress walked out of the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday (February 11, 2025) over remarks by BJP MP Radha Mohan Das Agarwal during zero hour that over 22 illustrations from the original Constitution were removed without Parliament’s approval. Opposition leader Mallikarjun Kharge said the BJP was trying to disrespect the drafters of the Constitution, including Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, to create a controversy. Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar agreed with Mr. Agarwal and asked the government to ensure that only the original version of the Constitution is printed and circulated. Leader of the House J.P. Nadda said the Congress should have supported Mr. Agarwal.
Mr. Agarwal said the Constituent Asembly asked artist Nandlal Bose to paint illustrations for the Constitution, including paintings of Lord Sri Ram, Lord Krishna, Lord Buddha, and Lord Mahavir. “The photos of Mahatma Gandhi, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Rani Lakshmi Bai were removed by these people. They could not accept the photo of Netaji Bose,” he said, adding that the illustrations were removed in an unconstitutional manner.
Kasaragod police allegedly attack Adivasi family while chasing wife-beater; ignore their complaint
Onmanorama Staff
Published: February 11 , 2025 10:06 PM ISTUpdated: February 12, 2025 09:44 AM IST
4 minute Read
Kasaragod: On January 26, as India celebrated its 76th Republic Day, Kerala Police barged into the house of a mason from the Malavettuvan Scheduled Tribe community in Kasaragod's Bekal and allegedly assaulted him, his daughter, and another female relative, initially mistaking him for a suspected wife beater in the neighbourhood.
Though Kannan B K (58), a heart patient, and his daughter Sinija B K (33) lodged complaints with Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and District Police Chief Shilpa Dyavaiah on January 27, they went public with their grievance on Tuesday, February 11.
Bekal police confirmed that Sub-Inspector Ajay S Menon, who is on probation, entered Kannan’s house but claimed it was Kannan who assaulted, abused, and demeaned the officer.
They booked him under Sections 121(2) and 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for voluntarily causing hurt and assaulting a police officer. On the other hand, the police have not only refused to register an FIR against the officer but have also remained dismissive of the family's complaint, even 15 days after it was filed.
What happened?
Around 6.10 pm on January 26, Bekal police received a message on the Emergency Response Support System (112) that one Ashraf was assaulting his wife at Usmaniya Nagar in Pallikkara grama panchayat. Responding immediately, Sub-Inspector Menon and two other officers reached Ashraf's house. His wife told them that he had sneaked out moments before they arrived.
At the same time, pegged around 6.30 pm, Kannan said he was returning from Bekal Junction after buying groceries and snacks for his two granddaughters, aged 12 and 7. "I left my bicycle at the gate because the police jeep had blocked the way. I was walking home when the sub-inspector caught hold of my collar and dragged me towards the jeep," he told Onmanorama.
Kannan said he initially thought it was routine police behaviour and ignored it but asked the officer what was happening. "When I reached the jeep, the other two officers asked me whether I was Ashraf. That’s when I realised it was a case of mistaken identity," he said.
Ashraf was his neighbour. "When I told them I was not Ashraf, the sub-inspector asked why I ran on seeing them," he said. Kannan. He said doctors had taken the saphenous vein from his calves for the bypass surgery, making it impossible for him to run. "I shrugged off the sub-inspector and walked back home, saying I was Kannan. Just as I was about to reach my house, the officer came from behind, put me in a chokehold, and dragged me to the jeep again," he alleged.
Hearing the commotion, his daughter Sinija came out shouting that he was a heart patient. "The officer ignored my plea and bent my father forward and elbowed him on his back and neck," she said.
Sinija, who is preparing for PSC exams, told the sub-inspector that they belonged to a Scheduled Tribe and that police could not barge into their property without women officers and assault them. "Hearing this, the officer’s expression changed. He then assaulted my father again, saying, 'So you are Adivasis'," she said.
Sheela (45), Sinija’s sister-in-law, tried recording the incident on her phone, but Sinija alleged that the sub-inspector snatched it and threw it to the ground, breaking the screen. "My phone also broke in the commotion," she said. She added that while the two officers accompanying Sub-Inspector Menon asked him to let go of Kannan, they did not intervene.
Bekal DySP V V Manoj denied that the sub-inspector had assaulted Kannan or the women. He claimed that the officer let Kannan go as soon as he was informed that he was a heart patient.
"When the officers reached Ashraf's house, his wife told them he had slipped out and pointed towards Kannan’s house. Around the same time, Kannan was passing by, and the sub-inspector confronted him. But soon, Kannan started abusing and assaulting the officer. The whole issue happened because he was drunk," said the DySP.
Sinija countered the police claim, saying her father did not drink alcohol. "After my mother died, I moved in with him. Do you think I would stay with my two daughters in his house if he was a drunkard? You can ask anyone in Bekal Junction, where he has lived for 48 years if he has ever consumed liquor," she said.
Kannan questioned how the police could mistake him for Ashraf, who was in his twenties. "I am nearing 60," he said. Yet, in the FIR against Kannan, his age is mentioned as 29 years. The FIR was filed based on a complaint by Sub-Inspector Menon.
Kannan said he underwent treatment in the District Hospital for five days after he was allegedly assaulted. "Police came to the hospital to take my statement. I did not know it was to book me instead of the officer who is a disgrace to the state and the police department," he said.
Comments
Post a Comment