Naxalism a result of an oversight of statutes, says SC
- Supreme Court to hear plea today for relook at verdict on gay sex
- J&K Governor calls for talks today, PDP signals phone call from Delhi may bring back BJP alliance
- RBI keeps repo rate unchanged at 6.7%; CRR at 4%
- Raigad: 13 Pune college students drown during picnic at Murud beach
- Zika virus outbreak: WHO declares global emergency
Emphasising on validation of rights of tribals and forest-dwellers over the forest lands, the Supreme Court has said that Naxalism was a result of an oversight of constitutional provisions relating to administration of schedule areas and tribes of the country.
"Nobody looks at Schedules V and VI of the Constitution and the result is Naxalism. Urbanites are ruling the nation. Even several union of India counsel are oblivious of these provisions under the Constitution," said a Bench led by Justice A K Patnaik.
The Bench made a reference to Schedules V and VI as they contain various provisions relating to administration and control of scheduled areas and scheduled tribes in several parts of the country. These provisions apply to states like Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Rajasthan and Northeastern states such as Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. Essentially these Constitutional provisions, with the help of plethora of judgments by the apex court, act as a guarantee to indigenous people on the right over the land they live in and its produce.
During a recent hearing on fresh guidelines over tiger reserves, the Bench made certain queries from Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising over the Centre's proposal to relocate indigenous people who were still living in the core areas of tiger reserves.
The ASG had informed the Bench there were around 43,000 families still residing in core areas of tiger reserves and that the plan was to gradually move them out after proper consultation with Gram Sabhas. On being asked about the legal provisions to support the argument, she also read out from the 2006 Forest Rights Act and the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act.
Asserting that all stakeholders should first ensure the legal rights of the tribals are not violated, Justice Patnaik said their rights must be settled in accordance with the provisions of the law.
- Ten years on, MGNREGA requires constant review. And consistency in political support
- The global economy is in trouble but India is attracting positive comment
- India’s expanding stakes in US demand a more strategic view of their changing politics
- Supreme Court has an opportunity to rectify its ruling on Section 377
- And everyone loves censorship — or so it seemed, at a session at the Jaipur Lit Fest
- The problem in Arunachal is as much about politics as about institutional norms