Skip to main content

The Lakshadweep Controversy

                        The Lakshadweep Controversy

 Lakshadweep is the largest union territory of India. It is an island close to the coast of Kerala. It is one of the most peaceful places in the country. 

         IN 2017, the government formed an agency called the Island Development Agency to revamp the island and make it a lucrative tourist destination, chaired by the Home Ministry and Convener is the CEO of Niti Aayog.  An IIMP (Integrated island development plan) was formulated on the basis of a report, headed by Justice R V Raveendran, a former judge of Supreme Court. It includes holistic island development plans prepared by the National Centre for Substantial Coastal Management (NCSCM).

              In August, 2020 a matter of indiscriminate cutting of coconut trees in Agatti Islands went to The NGT (National Green Tribunal). Due to falling of tress in a large scale, it led to loss of income to the locals of Lakshadweep. Also large tress at the coastline helps prevent intensity of cyclone, and thus became very crucial on the coastline.

NEW REGULATIONS IN LAKSHADWEEP

There were 4 new regulations adopted in Lakshadweep.  They are:-

  • The Lakshadweep Animal Preservation Regulation, 2021

  • The prevention of Anti- Social Activities Regulation, 2021

  • The Lakshadweep Panchayat Regulation Act, 2021

  • The Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation, 2021

The Lakshadweep Animal Preservation Regulation, 2021

This seeks to ban the Slaughter of Cows, Calves, Bulls and Buffaloes without a certificate from a competent authority. It prohibits the sale, transport and storage of beef and beef products. The penalties include a jail term up to 1year and a fine of Rs. 10,000. 

             The residents view the rule as a direct infringement of their culture and eating habits. They say it is a violation of the Article 21 which includes right to eat also.


The prevention of Anti- Social Activities Regulation, 2021

It provides the state with powers to detain a person for up to 1 year. It allows detention for anti-social activities from six months to 1 year without legal representation.


The Lakshadweep Panchayat Regulation Act, 2021

Under this draft, the administrator aims to bar people with more than two children from becoming a member of Gram panchayat. For those who already have more than two children, the regulation does not disqualify them provided that they do not have further children after date on which the rule comes into effect. The administration has decided to allow liquor to be served at restaurants and resorts on inhabited islands. It is to be mentioned that only abouyt 7% of the people, consume alcohol, lowest in India and thus the crime rate is low. The locals allege that this will lead to rise in crimes due to consumption of more alcohol.


The Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation, 2021

It empowers the administrator, to constitute planning and development authorities under it to plan the development of any area indentified as having ‘bad layout or obsolete development’. The authority would be a body corporate with a government appointed by the Chairman, a town planning officer and there will be 3 expert government nominees as well as 2 local authority representatives. If someone interferes in the following development, he/she will be penalized such as an imprisonment.

Conclusion

Thus these regulations created a lot of controversies and hate all around the world calling it a violation of Human rights.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more