Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Saturday, May 18, 2024

Van Gujjars Forced To Survive In Conditions Below Animal Existence: Uttarakhand HC Directs Govt To Provide Them Food, House, Medicines Etc

Posted in: Constitutional Law
Thu, May 27, 21, 21:15, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 5157
Think Act Rise Foundation Through Arjun Kasana vs Uttarakhand has prima facie ruled that the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of Van Gujjars families was being violated by the respondents.

While making a strong observation that Van Gujjars families are forced to live in open tents, in an open field, under the open sky, the Uttarakhand High Court just recently on May 25, 2021 in a brief, balanced, brilliant and bold judgment titled Think Act Rise Foundation Through Arjun Kasana vs State of Uttarakhand and others in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 140 of 2019 with WPPIL No. 6 of 2012, WPMS No. 2603 of 2019, WPPIL No. 79 of 2020 and WPPIL No. 203 of 2020 has prima facie ruled that the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of Van Gujjars families was being violated by the respondents. It would be pertinent to mention here that Van Gujjars are the largest forest-dwelling community in Uttarakhand. It must also be borne in mind that Van Gujjars have been residing in the forest areas for last more than hundred years.

While rightly, remarkably and rationally noting their lamentable condition, the Bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma had very aptly remarked that:
It is, indeed, trite to state that Article 21 of the Constitution of India forbids the State from reducing the lives of its people below the animal existence. Every citizen not only has a right to live, but also has a right to live with dignity.

To start with, this latest, learned, laudable and landmark judgement authored by Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan for himself and Justice Alok Kumar Verma sets the ball rolling by first and foremost observing in the opening para 1 that:
A supplementary affidavit has been filed by Mr. Arjun Kasana, the petitioner, party-in-person. According to Mr. Kasana, Van Gujjars are the largest forest dwelling community in Uttarakhand. Van Gujjars have been residing in the forest areas for last more than hundred years. During this part of the year, they come down to the lower areas. of the State. A few of the families of the Van Gujjars have migrated to Govind Pashu Vihar National Park, Uttarkashi. Since these families are valid permit holders of the Park, they should be permitted to enter the park to eke out their living in the forest itself. However. ever since they have reached the Park, they are not being permitted to enter the Park by the Deputy Director of the Park, Mr. Komal Singh.

Therefore, these families are forced to live in open tents under the sky. Moreover, due to the Covid-19 pandemic and due to the lock-down, these families cannot sell their milk to the neighbouring villages. Thus, these families are reduced to hand to mouth existence. In fact, their lives have been reduced to below animal existence. For, they have neither any shelter to live in, nor any economic means to survive. Hence, the petitioner, party-in-person, prays that immediate arrangements should be made for these families by the District Magistrate, and by the Deputy Director of the Park.

To say the least, the Bench then stipulates in para 2 that:
On the other hand, Mr. S.N. Babulkar, the learned Advocate General, informs this Court that migration of these persons may endanger the wildlife within the Park. For, Corona Virus may spread from human beings to animals. Hence, until and unless the families are declared to be negative in Corona Virus test, they cannot be permitted to enter the Park.

Furthermore, the Bench then specifies in para 3 that:
In rejoinder, Mr. Kasana submits that it is the duty of the Government to test these persons, and if they are found to be negative, then they should be permitted to enter the Park. Till they are tested, a reasonable arrangement should be made to save their lives. According to Mr. Kasana, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India these persons have as much right to live as any other citizen. In order to buttress his plead, Mr. Kasana has submitted certain photographs along with the Supplementary Affidavit.

More revealingly, the Bench then puts forth in para 5 after hearing both the sides that:
A bare perusal of the photographs submitted with the Supplementary Affidavit clearly reveal that families are forced to live in open tents, in open field, under the open sky. The photographs also show small children, and new born babies, being wrapped in blankets, and sleeping on the ground. The photographs also reveal that some cattle are tied next to the tent, and some cattle have died.

Most remarkably, the Bench then minces no words to hold in para 6 that:
It is, indeed, trite to state that Article 21 of the Constitution of India forbids the State from reducing the lives of its people below the animal existence. Every citizen not only has a right to live, but also has a right to live with dignity. However, it seems that the callous attitude of the Deputy Director of the Park, and of the Civil Administration has forced these families to survive in conditions, which are below the animal existence.

Be it noted, the Bench then minces no words to hold in para 7 that:
Therefore, prima facie, the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated by the respondents. Therefore, this Court directs the Collector, District-Uttarkashi and the Deputy Director of the Park to ensure that these families are comfortably accommodated in Pacca houses. They shall be provided with food, water, and medicines. They shall also be provided with fodder for their cattle. It is further directed that all the families shall be tested for Covid-19. In case, they are found to be negative, and if they are valid permit holders, arrangements shall be made to permit them to enter the Park for the duration allowed by law.

As it turned out, the Bench then directs in para 8 that:
The District Magistrate, District-Uttarkashi, and the Deputy Director of the Park are directed to submit their reports with regard to the substantial steps taken by them to implement the directions issued by this Court. The said reports shall be submitted on or before 15th June, 2021.

As we see, the Bench then directs in para 9 that:
Let a certified copy of this order be furnished to the parties, on payment of the prescribed charges, today itself. Finally. It is then held in the last para 10 that:
List this case on 16.06.2021.

Of course, we have to keep our fingers crossed till the case reaches its logical conclusion and is finally decided. But one thing is for sure : The Division Bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma of Uttarakhand High Court have thus laid bare as to how the Van Gujjar families are compelled to survive in conditions below animal existence. It is a no- brainer that the Uttarakhand High Court has very rightly directed the government to provide them food, houses, medicines etc. It has also very rightly espoused that the lives of the people cannot be reduced below the animal existence and ever citizen not only has a right to live, but also has a right to live with dignity. Very rightly so!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
This article critically analyses the concept of Parliamentary privileges enshrined under Article 105 of the Constitution of India along with various judicial pronouncement.
Here we have two legal systems, one tracing its roots to Roman law and another originating in England or we can say one codified and the other not codified or one following adversarial type of system other inquisitorial or one is continental whereas the other one Anglo-American
The principle of gender equality is enshrined in the Indian Constitution in its Preamble, Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles.
The constitutional interpretations metamorphose a non-federal constitution into a federal one which results into a shift from reality to a myth
What justice is? and why one wants access to it? are important question which need to be addressed in introductory part of the literature. Justice is a concept of rightness, fairness based on ethics, moral, religion and rationality.
It is not the whole Act which would be held invalid by being inconsistent with Part III of the Constitution but only such provisions of it which are violative of the fundamental rights
Thomas Mann had in 1924 said; a man’s dying is more the survivor’s affair than his own’. Today his words are considered to be true as there is a wide range of debate on legalizing euthanasia.
India became one of 135 countries to make education a fundamental right of every child, when the Parliament passed the 86th Constitutional amendment in 2002.
Following are the salient features of the amended Lokpal bill passed by Parliament:
Good governance is associated with efficient and effective administration in a democratic framework. It is considered as citizen-friendly, citizen caring and responsive administration. Good governance emerged as a powerful idea when multilateral and bilateral agencies like the World Bank, UNDP, OECD, ADB, etc.
A democratic society survives by accepting new ideas, experimenting with them, and rejecting them if found unimportant. Therefore it is necessary that whatever ideas the government or its other members hold must be freely put before the public.
This article describes relationship between Indian Legislative provisions and freedom of press.
This article gives an overview of the Definition of State as per Article 12 Of the Constitution of India with emphasis on Relevant case law
Coming straight to the nub of the matter, The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Bir Singh v Delhi Jal Board held that Pan India Reservation Rule in force in National Capital Territory of Delhi is in accord with the constitutional scheme relating to services under the Union and the States/Union Territories
Jasvinder Singh Chauhan case that denial of passport or its non-renewal without assigning reasons as listed under the Passports Act, 1967 infringes the fundamental rights. who was praying for the renewal of his passport and issuance of a fresh passport to him.
In Indian Young Lawyers Association v/s Kerala has very laudably permitted entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala temple, holding that 'devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination'. It is one of the most progressive and path breaking judgment that we have witnessed in last many decades just like in the Shayara Bano case
Sadhna Chaudhary v U.P. has upheld the dismissal of a judicial officer on grounds of misconduct, on the basis of two orders passed by her in land acquisition cases. This has certainly sent shockwaves across Uttar Pradesh especially in judicial circles.
The term judiciary refers to the higher officials of the government i.e Judges of all the hierarchy of the courts. The constitution of India gives greater importance to the independence of the Indian judiciary. Every democratic country set up it’s own independent judiciary for the welfare of it’s citizens.
various allowances, perquisites, salaries granted to mp and mla
This article presents a glimpse of human life through the constitutional approach.
Er. K. Arumugam v. V. Balakrishnan In the contempt jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed
As Parliamentarians, we remain the guardians and protectors of fundamental rights, and always need to ensure we are fulfilling our many responsibilities, as legislators, representatives and role models. to uphold the rights set out in the Declaration, particularly as regards safeguarding political and civil society space.
Kashmiri Sikh Community and others v. J&K has very rightly upheld PM's Employment Package 2009 for Kashmiri Pandits living in the Valley.
The Supreme Court on 12th September stuck down the penal provision of adultery enshrined under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code.
President A. Akeem Raja case it has been made amply clear that, Freedom of religion can't trump demands of public order. Public order has to be maintained at all cost. There can be no compromise on it.
Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghosh who is a former Supreme Court Judge and former Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court who retired in May 2017 and a current member of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was appointed as India's first Lokpal
colonial era Official Secrets Act (OSA) as many feel that it has far outlived its utility. Before drawing any definite conclusion on such an important issue, we need to certainly analyse this issue dispassionately from a close angle.
Sri Aniruddha Das Vs The State Of Assam held that bandhs / road/rail blockades are illegal and unconstitutional and organizers must be prosecuted.
ABout changes in Changes in Constitutional (Forty-Second) Amendment Act
Definition of State as per Article 12 f the Constitution of India with emphasis on Relevant case law
Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and Anr vs UOI held that right to privacy is a fundamental right.
You want India to defend Kashmir, feed its people, give Kashmiris equal rights all over India. But you want to deny India and Indians all rights in Kashmir. I am a Law Minister of India, I cannot be a party to such a betrayal of national interests.
Faheema Shirin RK Vs State of Kerala and others that right to access internet is a fundamental right forming part of right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
the Supreme Court of UK has gone all guns blazing by categorically and courageously pronouncing in Gilham v Ministry of Justice the whistle-blowing protection envisaged under Employment
The Constitution directs the government that High Court shall have power, throughout in relation to it jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose also.
What is child labour ? Why bonded in india?
Shiv Sena And Ors. Vs UOI whether the newly sworn in Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis enjoys majority in the State Assembly or not! This latest order was necessitated after Shiv Sena knocked the doors of the Apex Court along with Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Congress.
Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), saying they are two different things. We all saw in different news channels that many people who were protesting did not had even the elementary knowledge of CAA but were protesting vehemently just on the provocation of leaders from different political parties
Sanmay Banerjee v/s. West Bengal in exercise of Constitutional writ jurisdiction on the appellate side has that people have every right to criticize dispensation running the country, being legislature, executive or judiciary
On May 16, 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan arbitrarily announced to group British Indian states in A, B & C categories. Assam was kept in Group C with Bengal, creating a predominantly Muslim zone in Eastern India like the one proposed to be setup in western India.
Top political leaders and Members of Parliament from Left Parties have very often raised the questions of atrocities and accommodation of these minorities even in the Parliament. Unfortunately when this dream of opening the doors of India for her cultural children was about to be realized
Why is it that even after more than 81 days the blocking of road at Shaheen Bagh in Delhi is continuing uninterrupted since 15 December 2019? Why is it that Centre allowed this to happen? Why were they not promptly evicted?
The Basic Structure Of Indian Constitution Or Doctrine Applies During The Time Of Amendments In Constitution Of India. These Basic Structure State That The Government Of India Cann’t Touch Or Destroy
Arjun Aggarwal Vs Union Of India And Anr (stay) dismissed a PIL filed by a petitioner who is a law student. The PIL had challenged the June 30 order of the Ministry of Home Affairs wherein considerable relaxations from lockdown were operationalised under Unlock 1.0
This blog deals explains the Right to Access Internet as a Fundamental Right under Constitution of India and the reasonable restrcitions which it is subject to and whether it can be considered to be a fundamental right or not.
This article talks about what exactly is meant by the doctrine of colourable legislation, how various case laws have come up time and again to reiterate its meaning and how the supreme court views this doctrine. To address legislative transparency for some improvements in the legislative system, colorable legislation is necessary to be studied
Shri Naini Gopal Vs The Union of India and Ors. in Case No. – LD-VC-CW-665 of 2020 has minced no words to hold that: We need to remind the Bank that the pension payable to the employees upon superannuation is a property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India
Article 25 of the Constitution of India, thus ruled that the immediate family members of Covid-19 victims be permitted to perform the funeral rites of the deceased subject to them following certain precautionary guidelines
Top