Fire that destroys the forest
Few days ago 300 cars were reduced to cinders in Bangalore and this news was covered by the media.
Since this accident happened at the Aero show organised under the aegis of defence ministry, naturally a lot of apprehensions were raised about the security arrangements.
Simultaneously, fire head begin to district the world famous tiger corridor in the state, Bandipur burning hectares of forest to ashes. The fire that burnt the forest did not get as much importance as the fire that burnt the cars.
We have put forest fire under the list of natural disaster. Since the trees, animals and birds that get burnt to death in this fire do not fight any elections even politicians are not too interested in this occurrence.
As a result of this forest fire continuous to destroy a cause of forests every year. Last year forest in Chikmagalur and Nagarhole were destroyed by the fire. we have clearly escaped our responsibility by putting this under natural calamity list.
it is time we understood that forest fire is not just a phenomenon but also a dimension of politics in India. Clearly, human hands are working behind this forest fire. Corporate forces see forest as an unending treasure of riches and hence they need an undeterred access into the forest.
Playing into their hands, even the supreme court recently gave a verdict desirable to them and has ordered for the eviction of forest dwellers. The number of tribals who live inside forests and will be forcibly evicted runs into lakhs. The judiciary has dealt a strong blow to the tribals who worship the forest around them and live there in harmony with nature.
Tribals had posed a big challenge to the looters of forest. Now the stumbling block has been removed to make things convenient for the corporate forces.
This is an indication that the forest fire will be even more destructive in the coming days. The human hand in forest fire has come to light many a times in the past. Forest fire rages hard when the combination of corporate vested interests, local politics and responsibility of forest officials works together.
There are times when the forest staff would have played a major role in starting the fire. After having helped the timber smugglers take away the riches, they clear the information without traces by starting a fire. Sometimes an artificial creation of fire helps remove the tribals and force them to migrate elsewhere.
Lakhs of tribals have been made homeless by many such forest fires in this country. Or a fight between forest smugglers sometimes concludes in a forest fire getting started. There are vested interest who start a forest fire to settle scores with forest officials.
On one hand while there are many who start a fire in the forest on the other there are many politicians who warm their hands in this fire.
In North eastern states forest often catches fire mysteriously when the corporates need to enter it. There are evil forces that use a forest fire to start something as destructive as a mining activity in the middle of a forest.
this cruelty by corporates has forced the forest dwellers in North eastern India to take weapons in their hands to be able to fight them. all illegal activities happening in the forest have also given rise to this fire. And it is not like the governments are oblivious to this fact.
Sometimes the governments would have played a role in encouraging this directly or indirectly. Which is why the country witnesses lakhs of acres of forest being burnt year after year rather helplessly.
Forest is not just about the trees. The animals the insects the birds all of them share a bond of coexistence in this. Fire breaks this chain rather cruelly and abruptly. This in a way is the destruction of human beings as well. And when the fire rages inside the forest, the humankind loses some really precious herbs and medicinal plants.
It is not sufficient to estimate the loss of lives and trees in terms of money. Instead, we need to focus on the bond they share with the ecology.
Forests help maintain the overall atmosphere and temperature. Nature loses its balance when the forests are destroyed. The man will have to bear the brunt of this year after year. This is already happening. Though the forest fire is becoming news year after year the governments are not able to have proper system of tackling in place.
When fire rages across hundreds of acres of forest, can a handful of staff help control or douse it?
Why are the governments hesitating to use modern technology such as the helicopters repellents across the line of fire and stop it from spreading further?
Governments talk about starting new forests. What we do not have any plan to stop the existing forest from being destroyed further. The governments respond only after the fire has destroyed fast tracts of forest. They announce a few schemes that never get implemented.
At least the Bandipur forest fire must serve as a lesson to the government.
The forest staff need to be trained in modern techniques to check the fire. Forest department needs to possess helicopters to be able to take up rescue operations on immediate basis.
Government should set aside more funds for this purpose of the realisation that the cities won't survive without forests. Forest staff work under a sense of threat from smugglers who raid the forests. In this backdrop the number of forest staff needs to be increased along with providing them some modern gadgets.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC reserves verdict on ex-CM Yediyurappa's plea against revival of corruption case
New Delhi(PTI): The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on a plea of senior BJP leader and former Karnataka chief minister B S Yediyurappa against an order reviving a corruption case against him.
The Karnataka High Court, on January 5, 2021, allowed a plea of complainant A Alam Pasha, who hails from Bengaluru, and revived his complaint.
Pasha alleged corruption and criminal conspiracy against Yediyurappa and former Industries minister Murugesh R Nirani and Shivaswamy KS, former managing director of Karnataka Udyog Mitra.
The high court ruled the absence of prior sanction for prosecution—leading to the quashing of an earlier complaint—did not bar the filing of a fresh complaint once the accused had demitted office.
It, however, did not allow criminal prosecution of V P Baligar, a retired IAS officer and former principal secretary of the state government, in the corruption case.
On April 4, a bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra concluded the hearings and framed several key legal questions for its adjudication including whether after a judicial magistrate has ordered probe under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), would a prior sanction of the appropriate government authorities be still required under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
Section 156 (3) of the CrPC permits a judicial magistrate to order a police investigation into a complaint and it may include order for a preliminary inquiry or registration of an FIR.
Section 17A of the PC Act says, “No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval...”
The top court framed seven crucial legal questions, primarily focusing on the interplay between various provisions of the PC Act and the CrPC on the issue of prior sanction to prosecute a public servant and power of the judicial magistrate to entertain a private complaint and order probe and an FIR.
“What are the relevant considerations as contemplated by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which the appropriate authority or government is expected to look into before the grant of approval for initiation of any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation by the police?” read the first question the bench framed.
Whether the considerations which weigh with the appropriate authority or government while granting approval under Section 17A of the PC Act are fundamentally so different from the one that a magistrate is ordinarily expected to apply while passing an order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, read the second issue.
“In other words, whether the considerations under Section 17A of the PC Act are of such a nature that they are necessarily beyond the ambit or scope of consideration by a Magistrate while directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC,” the bench said.
The top court asked if it could be said that once a magistrate has applied his mind under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the requirement of a prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act is meaningless, redundant and no longer necessary.
“Could it be said that a police officer, despite a direction under Section 156(3) by a Magistrate, would remain inhibited from conducting any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation without prior approval as required by Section 17A,” it added.
Whether a magistrate could proceed with inquiry under Sections 200 (examination of private complainant) and 202 (postponement of a criminal case) of the CrPC without prior sanction, and whether such actions are limited only to the pre-cognizance stage, read another question.
The top court asked the counsel of the senior BJP leader to file the written submissions within two weeks, along with relevant case laws addressing not just the framed questions, but any additional issues that may arise.
Pasha had initially filed a complaint alleging Yediyurappa and others conspired to forge documents to revoke the high-level clearance committee’s approval for allotting 26 acre of industrial land to him at Devanahalli Industrial Area.
The complaint, which invoked provisions under the IPC and the PC Act, was initially investigated by the Lokayukta Police, but in 2013, the high court quashed the complaint for a lack of mandatory sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act.
Subsequently, after the accused officials vacated their offices, Pasha filed a fresh complaint in 2014, arguing that sanction was no longer required in light of Supreme Court judgment in the A R Antulay case.
The special judge dismissed the second complaint in 2016, again citing lack of sanction.
Challenging this dismissal, Pasha approached high court which passed a partly favourable ruling.
_vb_67.jpeg)