For a decade, the Tamil Nadu Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2003, which was to usher in a regime of controlling, regulating and administering the precious natural resource, remained only on paper, because the previous ADMK regime which enacted it did not issue G.O for guidelines to implement the Act.
Now the present ADMK regime promulgated and ordinance on September 14, to repeal the Act enacted during its own previous tenure from 2001-06.
The Bill to replace the ordinance was adopted in the Assembly on October 30, the last day of the session, as usual without any debate with DMK members suspended from the session.
The 2003 Act was found to be not workable due to a variety of reasons. Going by the reasons mentioned in the ordinance, the Act had not clearly defined terms such as marginal farmers and small farmers, due to which there would have been hardship to the agriculturists. Another reason adduced now is that the implementation of the provision in the original law, requiring persons having over one HP pump set to register with the proposed Groundwater Authority, would have led to “public outcry.”
Noting that the limits of municipal corporations such as Chennai, Coimbatore and Madurai have expanded in the last 10 years, the explanatory statement attached to the ordinance points to non-availability of adequate piped water supply in the extended areas. This necessitates tapping of groundwater. As the 2003 Act made it mandatory for obtaining permit for transporting of groundwater by lorry or trailer from notified areas, there might be difficulties in the supply of drinking water to the public.
The law had not addressed the issue regarding regulation of groundwater drawal for construction of multi-storeyed buildings and for commercial exploitation.
The officials say the use of groundwater for domestic consumption and agriculture has to be studied more closely, compelling the authorities to go in for the repeal of the 10-year-old Act. Till the fresh law is enacted, the stipulations mentioned in a government order issued by the Public Works Department in March 2012 on the status of groundwater extraction would apply. Besides, the department is to come out with regulations shortly.
As per the government order, no schemes should be formulated in 139 overexploited blocks and 33 critical blocks. In respect of 67 semi-critical and 136 safe blocks, proposals for the schemes have to be formulated through the State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre. Totally, there are 386 blocks in the State, of which 11 are saline/poor quality blocks. The categories of “over-exploited,” “critical,” “semi-critical,” and “safe” are determined on the basis of the rate of extraction in a given block.
S. Janakarajan, professor of the Madras Institute of Development Studies, who has carried out a number of studies on water for years, urges the government to come out with a fresh law at the earliest, as the absence of a legal framework is fraught with dangerous consequences. One has to keep in mind the level of transfer of water from agriculture to industry and the transportation of water from rural areas to urban areas. He refers to the mushrooming growth of packaged water firms in and around Chennai which, he says, can be controlled only if the new law is in force.
But the purpose of the new law enacted now by Jayalalitha regime is not to control growth of packaged water firms but to promote her own ‘pet’ scheme.
Recently, Jayalalitha launched ‘Amma’ kudi neer, drinking water filled in pet bottles with much fanfare on September 15.
Branded as ‘Amma’ drinking water after Chief Minister Jayalalitha, the product will be sold to passengers using State Express Transport Corporation buses, and also retailed at bus terminuses across the state. She also inaugurated the transport corporation’s packaging facility at Gummidipoondi in Tiruvallur district through video conferencing from the Secretariat. The plant has come up on a 2.47 acre facility. It can process three lakh litres of water every day. But where from do they draw water for the facility. Just like the mushrooming packaged water firms, this one will also draw out ground water with giant motor pump-sets depleting its level further. It is altogether different that government selling drinking water is an anti-people measure because it is the duty of it to supply protected drinking water to all citizens.
There had been concern about the depleting levels of ground water table and water turning brackish due to excessive drawing. First in 1987, an Act to regulate drawal of ground water without any limits in Chennai and integrated Chengulpet districts. According to it, permission had to be obtained from Revenue officers for drawing ground water in East Chengulpet district.
Though the reports of UN Development Programme committee is cited for Chennai Metro water Board to draw ground water for 20 km from South Chennai to Kovalam and supply drinking water to Chennai city, the history is the entire ground water in those areas in the last 20 years turning brackish.
Besides the Metro Board drawing ground water through giant bore-wells, individual land owners also started drawing ground water from their lands and supplied through lorries to star hotels and flats. In spite of opposition by people of villages and farmers, sale of water picked up very fast. As the Revenue officials pacified agitating village people of Vengaivasal village, who were protesting against village ponds drying, by telling them that this law could not be implemented and the government has decided to somehow provide drinking water to Chennai residents, the legislation was only on papers.
The 2003 Act was enacted only to pacify the anger of people all over Tamil Nadu against looting of ground water. It was first promulgated as ordinance and then passed in the Assembly thus commercial harvesting of ground water was prevented. A petition filed by one Ramamirtham challenging this Act was dismissed by the Madras High Court in 2005. It was held that the legislation was done based on the report of experts group and the court could not interfere in the policy decision of the government.
Whenever private individuals moved the court against this Act and sought the right to draw ground water during the last 10 years, the court refused to intervene in public interest. It is altogether different as to how effectively this Act was implemented so far. There was no demand for any amendment to this Act in the last 10 years.
But suddenly on September 14, 2013, a day prior to the launch of ‘Amma’ drinking water pet bottles, the Jayalalitha Cabinet recommended the Governor to issue an ordinance to repeal the law, enacted by them in their previous regime. Why should a law that was in force for 10 years repealed through ordinance to avoid debate in the Assembly?
The reason was simple. There was no other reason than ‘Amma’ drinking water could not be launched for commercial sale on Sep 15, and a packaging unit to draw 3 lakh litres a day at Gummidipoondi and a second unit there itself could not be started. Jayalalitha makes and breaks law for her own agenda, but the ‘all-knowing’ media in Tamil Nadu will close its eyes to the acts of this anarchist regime!
v v v
‘Prohibitory’ regime in TN!
A committed democrat he is, DMK President Kalaignar has said that generally prolonging prohibitory orders under Sec. 144 is not in keeping with healthy democracy. He was referring to the ADMK regime keeping the entire Dharmapuri district under this prohibitory order for more than two months now, which only showed the inability of this regime and its attempt to curb freedom of speech. With the concerned person committing suicide now, the problem was over. But the 144 order has not been revoked. The PMK has filed a petition in the High Court and the Judge has sought clarification from the State government.
Section 144, or the “prohibitory order” as it’s otherwise called, has an old and notorious history. Introduced into Indian law through the first ever Cr PC in 1861, it was used frequently during the British Raj to clamp down on nationalist protests. But it survived independence and found its way, little changed in basics, into today’s criminal code. It not only survived, it thrived.
Much of the debate around section 144 revolves around the idea of “unlawful assembly” - put simply, the banning of any kind of protests whatsoever in areas where section 144 comes into play. But the ambit of section 144 is actually much wider - indeed the letter of the law doesn’t even talk about protests or demonstrations (though it does mention “riot”).
The law, in fact, kicks in when a local magistrate foresees any danger to life, or a “disturbance of the public tranquillity, or a riot”, or even wants to prevent any “obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed”. In such cases, he or she can ask anyone to abstain from a certain act, or indeed, to take an action that can ward off that danger. Such orders can be directed to a specific person or even to the public at large.
The general nature of section 144 and the wide powers it gives a local magistrate, have made it a target of sharp criticism for well over a century. It was used to clamp down on pretty much every nationalist agitation, including some of the most famous ones, such as that against the salt tax, and issued against Jawarharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi and Madan Mohan Malaviya, to name just a few.
Post-independence-era governments adapted it smoothly to their needs — it was served on everyone from Ram Manohar Lohia to VP Singh to Baba Ramdev and justified by all governments, from Congress to communist, often comprised of the very same politicians who were targeted by such orders during the colonial era.
Given the wide use of section 144, it is little surprise that the Supreme Court has been often asked to rule it unconstitutional - the court instead upheld it in 1970, but laid down standards for its use. “The gist of action under section 144 is the urgency of the situation, its efficacy in the likelihood of being able to prevent some harmful occurrences. As it is possible to act absolutely and even ex parte it is obvious that the emergency must be sudden and the consequences sufficiently grave,” a Constitutional bench said.
As recently as last year, in a case involving the imposition of section 144 on agitations headed by Baba Ramdev at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan, a Supreme Court bench said: “It must be borne in mind that the provisions of section 144 CrPC are attracted only in emergent situations... in case of a mere apprehension, without any material facts to indicate that the apprehension is imminent and genuine, it may not be proper for the authorities to place such a restriction upon the rights of the citizen.”
What is the persisting emergent situation for the ADMK regime to prolong the prohibitory order under Sec 144 for several months now, for about one year in Dharmapuri and Villupuram districts? This is an inefficient regime, far removed from people, that it tries to thrive by suppressing dissent in any form anywhere in the State- right from the State Assembly to the roads.
Now the present ADMK regime promulgated and ordinance on September 14, to repeal the Act enacted during its own previous tenure from 2001-06.
The Bill to replace the ordinance was adopted in the Assembly on October 30, the last day of the session, as usual without any debate with DMK members suspended from the session.
The 2003 Act was found to be not workable due to a variety of reasons. Going by the reasons mentioned in the ordinance, the Act had not clearly defined terms such as marginal farmers and small farmers, due to which there would have been hardship to the agriculturists. Another reason adduced now is that the implementation of the provision in the original law, requiring persons having over one HP pump set to register with the proposed Groundwater Authority, would have led to “public outcry.”
Noting that the limits of municipal corporations such as Chennai, Coimbatore and Madurai have expanded in the last 10 years, the explanatory statement attached to the ordinance points to non-availability of adequate piped water supply in the extended areas. This necessitates tapping of groundwater. As the 2003 Act made it mandatory for obtaining permit for transporting of groundwater by lorry or trailer from notified areas, there might be difficulties in the supply of drinking water to the public.
The law had not addressed the issue regarding regulation of groundwater drawal for construction of multi-storeyed buildings and for commercial exploitation.
The officials say the use of groundwater for domestic consumption and agriculture has to be studied more closely, compelling the authorities to go in for the repeal of the 10-year-old Act. Till the fresh law is enacted, the stipulations mentioned in a government order issued by the Public Works Department in March 2012 on the status of groundwater extraction would apply. Besides, the department is to come out with regulations shortly.
As per the government order, no schemes should be formulated in 139 overexploited blocks and 33 critical blocks. In respect of 67 semi-critical and 136 safe blocks, proposals for the schemes have to be formulated through the State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre. Totally, there are 386 blocks in the State, of which 11 are saline/poor quality blocks. The categories of “over-exploited,” “critical,” “semi-critical,” and “safe” are determined on the basis of the rate of extraction in a given block.
S. Janakarajan, professor of the Madras Institute of Development Studies, who has carried out a number of studies on water for years, urges the government to come out with a fresh law at the earliest, as the absence of a legal framework is fraught with dangerous consequences. One has to keep in mind the level of transfer of water from agriculture to industry and the transportation of water from rural areas to urban areas. He refers to the mushrooming growth of packaged water firms in and around Chennai which, he says, can be controlled only if the new law is in force.
But the purpose of the new law enacted now by Jayalalitha regime is not to control growth of packaged water firms but to promote her own ‘pet’ scheme.
Recently, Jayalalitha launched ‘Amma’ kudi neer, drinking water filled in pet bottles with much fanfare on September 15.
Branded as ‘Amma’ drinking water after Chief Minister Jayalalitha, the product will be sold to passengers using State Express Transport Corporation buses, and also retailed at bus terminuses across the state. She also inaugurated the transport corporation’s packaging facility at Gummidipoondi in Tiruvallur district through video conferencing from the Secretariat. The plant has come up on a 2.47 acre facility. It can process three lakh litres of water every day. But where from do they draw water for the facility. Just like the mushrooming packaged water firms, this one will also draw out ground water with giant motor pump-sets depleting its level further. It is altogether different that government selling drinking water is an anti-people measure because it is the duty of it to supply protected drinking water to all citizens.
There had been concern about the depleting levels of ground water table and water turning brackish due to excessive drawing. First in 1987, an Act to regulate drawal of ground water without any limits in Chennai and integrated Chengulpet districts. According to it, permission had to be obtained from Revenue officers for drawing ground water in East Chengulpet district.
Though the reports of UN Development Programme committee is cited for Chennai Metro water Board to draw ground water for 20 km from South Chennai to Kovalam and supply drinking water to Chennai city, the history is the entire ground water in those areas in the last 20 years turning brackish.
Besides the Metro Board drawing ground water through giant bore-wells, individual land owners also started drawing ground water from their lands and supplied through lorries to star hotels and flats. In spite of opposition by people of villages and farmers, sale of water picked up very fast. As the Revenue officials pacified agitating village people of Vengaivasal village, who were protesting against village ponds drying, by telling them that this law could not be implemented and the government has decided to somehow provide drinking water to Chennai residents, the legislation was only on papers.
The 2003 Act was enacted only to pacify the anger of people all over Tamil Nadu against looting of ground water. It was first promulgated as ordinance and then passed in the Assembly thus commercial harvesting of ground water was prevented. A petition filed by one Ramamirtham challenging this Act was dismissed by the Madras High Court in 2005. It was held that the legislation was done based on the report of experts group and the court could not interfere in the policy decision of the government.
Whenever private individuals moved the court against this Act and sought the right to draw ground water during the last 10 years, the court refused to intervene in public interest. It is altogether different as to how effectively this Act was implemented so far. There was no demand for any amendment to this Act in the last 10 years.
But suddenly on September 14, 2013, a day prior to the launch of ‘Amma’ drinking water pet bottles, the Jayalalitha Cabinet recommended the Governor to issue an ordinance to repeal the law, enacted by them in their previous regime. Why should a law that was in force for 10 years repealed through ordinance to avoid debate in the Assembly?
The reason was simple. There was no other reason than ‘Amma’ drinking water could not be launched for commercial sale on Sep 15, and a packaging unit to draw 3 lakh litres a day at Gummidipoondi and a second unit there itself could not be started. Jayalalitha makes and breaks law for her own agenda, but the ‘all-knowing’ media in Tamil Nadu will close its eyes to the acts of this anarchist regime!
v v v
‘Prohibitory’ regime in TN!
A committed democrat he is, DMK President Kalaignar has said that generally prolonging prohibitory orders under Sec. 144 is not in keeping with healthy democracy. He was referring to the ADMK regime keeping the entire Dharmapuri district under this prohibitory order for more than two months now, which only showed the inability of this regime and its attempt to curb freedom of speech. With the concerned person committing suicide now, the problem was over. But the 144 order has not been revoked. The PMK has filed a petition in the High Court and the Judge has sought clarification from the State government.
Section 144, or the “prohibitory order” as it’s otherwise called, has an old and notorious history. Introduced into Indian law through the first ever Cr PC in 1861, it was used frequently during the British Raj to clamp down on nationalist protests. But it survived independence and found its way, little changed in basics, into today’s criminal code. It not only survived, it thrived.
Much of the debate around section 144 revolves around the idea of “unlawful assembly” - put simply, the banning of any kind of protests whatsoever in areas where section 144 comes into play. But the ambit of section 144 is actually much wider - indeed the letter of the law doesn’t even talk about protests or demonstrations (though it does mention “riot”).
The law, in fact, kicks in when a local magistrate foresees any danger to life, or a “disturbance of the public tranquillity, or a riot”, or even wants to prevent any “obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed”. In such cases, he or she can ask anyone to abstain from a certain act, or indeed, to take an action that can ward off that danger. Such orders can be directed to a specific person or even to the public at large.
The general nature of section 144 and the wide powers it gives a local magistrate, have made it a target of sharp criticism for well over a century. It was used to clamp down on pretty much every nationalist agitation, including some of the most famous ones, such as that against the salt tax, and issued against Jawarharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi and Madan Mohan Malaviya, to name just a few.
Post-independence-era governments adapted it smoothly to their needs — it was served on everyone from Ram Manohar Lohia to VP Singh to Baba Ramdev and justified by all governments, from Congress to communist, often comprised of the very same politicians who were targeted by such orders during the colonial era.
Given the wide use of section 144, it is little surprise that the Supreme Court has been often asked to rule it unconstitutional - the court instead upheld it in 1970, but laid down standards for its use. “The gist of action under section 144 is the urgency of the situation, its efficacy in the likelihood of being able to prevent some harmful occurrences. As it is possible to act absolutely and even ex parte it is obvious that the emergency must be sudden and the consequences sufficiently grave,” a Constitutional bench said.
As recently as last year, in a case involving the imposition of section 144 on agitations headed by Baba Ramdev at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan, a Supreme Court bench said: “It must be borne in mind that the provisions of section 144 CrPC are attracted only in emergent situations... in case of a mere apprehension, without any material facts to indicate that the apprehension is imminent and genuine, it may not be proper for the authorities to place such a restriction upon the rights of the citizen.”
What is the persisting emergent situation for the ADMK regime to prolong the prohibitory order under Sec 144 for several months now, for about one year in Dharmapuri and Villupuram districts? This is an inefficient regime, far removed from people, that it tries to thrive by suppressing dissent in any form anywhere in the State- right from the State Assembly to the roads.
No comments:
Post a Comment