Ministry of Environment Facilitates Dumping of Hazardous Wastes

Gopal Subramanium, Additional Solicitor General of India in the Supreme Court continued his arguments today in the matter of Hazardous wastes/ship-breaking/Blue Lady case. He argued on the general recommendations of Technical Experts Committee (TEC) on Management of Hazardous Wastes relating to Ship breaking. The bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice S H Kapadia heard the matter. Subramanium is representing of Ministry of Environment in the case.

Subramanium prayed that the recommendations of TEC may be accepted as a procedure henceforth applicable for ship-breaking. This committee came into being as result of an order of R K Vaish, Joint Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment and Forests issued an order dated 24^th March, 2006 for the "Constitution of a Committee of Technical Experts with respect to the directions of this Hon'ble Court dated 17.2.2006 in the matter of W.P. (C) No. 657 of 1995 on Management of Hazardous Wastes". Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment and Forests was made the Chairman of the Committee and the Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board, Union Ministry of Environment and Forests was made its Member Convenor.

Counsel for the petitioner, Sanjay Parikh, pointed out that the recommendations of the TEC are not in compliance with the essential conditions, which were part of Supreme Court order of 14^th October, 2003. The recommendations of the TEC does not mention anything about prior decontamination in the country of export, which were recommended by the High Power Committee (HPC) with Prof. MGK Menon as its Chairman. This Committee was constituted to examine all matters in depth relating to hazardous waste. by apex court's order dated13th October, 1997. This Committee had fourteen Terms of Reference (TOR) and the 14^th TOR was "Decontamination of ships before they are exported to India for breaking." Any ship that comes to India without prior decontamination is a clear case of dumping of hazardous wastes, which is impermissible under international law as well as the directions of the court. He stressed on the fact that India being a party to Basel Convention on transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and their disposal must be comply with its provisions.

The counsel also pointed out that Prior Informed Consent procedure is a part of global environmental jurisprudence where a developing country is entitled to know what material is being sent by the developed country and whether for environment and other concerns is ready to accept it. The ship should be decontaminated and the importing country should know the amount of hazardous wastes in advance before the ship is allowed to sail from the exporting country. A ship cannot enter the Indian territorial waters for dismantling till verification as per the records already done. If on verification of the documents, the country finds it that it is not a correct declaration and the amount of waste is much more than is declared it becomes a case of illegal traffic and the ship is liable to be go back to the exporting country.

The court has reserved its orders on the general recommendations of the ship breaking and the specific issue of Blue Lady will be heard again on 5 September, 2007. The hazardous wastes management matter is before the apex court since 1995.

Dr Vidyut Joshi, former Vice-Chancellor, Bhavnagar University who has co-authored "Industrial safety concerns in the ship breaking industry / Alang-India", a report for UNESCO says, "GMB manages ports of Gujarat, which is its primary task. Ship-breaking requires industrial management, which GMB does not have. Ship-breaking is not a port activity and Maritime Board officials are trained not meant for such industrial activity ship-breaking. If GMB should have a role it must be restructured for the same and there should be a separate Alang Authority."

It is becoming clearer that the Blue Lady can be sent back. In November, 2006 Priya Blue Industries Private Ltd based in Sosiya Ship-breaking yard, Bhavnagar, Gujarat filed an application in the court seeking permission for dismantling of vessel Blue Lady ship in the aftermath of the anchoring permission granted to Hariyana Ship Demolitions Pvt Ltd on humanitarian grounds. The ship in question needs to be decontaminated by its original owner, Star Cruise Ltd as per the Supreme Court orders and the international laws.

Asbestos hazards issue in Blue Lady case

Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium who was appointed Additional Solicitor General of India in the Supreme Court on 8th April, 2005 began his arguments today (on 30 August) in the matter of Hazardous wastes/ship-breaking/Blue Lady case. He dwelt on the use, reuse and safe use of asbestos, asbestos containing material and asbestos wastes. He was assisted by former Additional Solicitor-General Mukul Rohatgi who explained to the bench that there is difference between hazardous waste and hazardous material but forgot to tell what is the status of hazardous material meant for disposal. The arguments began at 2 PM and it was abruptly stopped at 2.30 PM. The arguments will continue tomorrow wherein the impermissibility, illegal traffic of Blue Lady and the recommendations of the Committee of Technical Experts on Hazardous wastes pertaining to ship-breaking will come up for discussion. It may be noted that the issue of asbestos is quite pertinent since this will set precedent of continued use of asbestos in India. Sanjay Parikh, a well known environmental lawyer who has been arguing the hazardous wastes case since 1995 will put his arguments after the submission of the Additional Solicitor General of India and the former Additional Solicitor-General.

Blue Lady violates Environmental Laws & National Policy on Hazardous Wastes

Toxic chemicals laden 10 Dollar ship poses threat to workers and villagers

Terror elements suspected in the hazardous waste trade

The Parliamentary Committee dealing with Blue Lady (SS Norway) has taken note of huge amounts of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCBs) besides all the Supreme Court Committees but so far no “Inventory of PCB-Containing Equipment” has been made available either to the court or to the Parliamentary panel. The 315-metre long and 46,000-tonne, 11-storey Blue Lady left the port of Malaysia for Dubai for 'repairs' in May 2006 and later sailed towards Alang and anchored off Alang on humanitarian grounds due to monsoons in June 2006.

PCB is one of the Persistent Organic Pollutant (POPs) that remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed geographically, accumulate in the fatty tissue of living organisms and are toxic to humans and wildlife. POPs circulates globally and can cause damage wherever they travel. The case of toxic chemicals laden Blue Lady was listed for hearing today in the Supreme Court. The Court directed that the issue with regard to ship breaking, Blue Lady and Waste Oil will be heard on 30 August. The Gujarat Pollution Control Board was supposed to file an affidavit in the court with regard to the illegal sale of PCB containing oil.

The entry of Blue Lady in Indian territorial waters and continued presence since June 2006 is in violation of Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade and Stockholm Convention on POPs. India is signatory to these international environmental laws wherein disposal and movement of PCBs have been dealt with.

Even as it is becoming clearer that the Blue Lady (SS Norway, SS France) can be sent back, the Ministry is worked hand in glove the ship-breakers to let the ship contaminate the Indian shores and destroy the livelihood of the villagers.

In November, 2006 Sanjay Mehta, Priya Blue Industries Private Ltd based in Sosiya Ship-breaking yard, Bhavnagar, Gujarat filed an application in the court seeking permission for dismantling of vessel Blue Lady ship in the aftermath of the anchoring permission granted to Rajeev Reniwal, Hariyana Ship Demolitions Pvt Ltd, Sosiya Ship-breaking yard, Bhavnagar, Gujarat on humanitarian grounds in June 2006. Hariyana Ship Demolitions Pvt Ltd had bought the ship Bridgend Shipping Ltd, Monorovia, Liberia. Bridgend Shipping Ltd had bought SS Norway from Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Star Cruise Lines Ltd in January 2006 at the price of 10 Dollars. It was at this stage that the ship was once again renamed SS Blue Lady.

The ship in question is in illegal traffic. There is documentary proof that such ships are required to clearance from the Ministry of Defence, which has not been done in the case besides certification for prior decontamination of the ship in the country of export. It is a case of collusion of government agencies and connivance of enforcement authorities.

Some 30, 000 villagers and 12 village councils (local governments called panchayats) of Bhavnagar district of Gujarat have filed the case through their heads of village councils (Sarpanch) in the Supreme Court. These villages are in the vicinity of Alang ship-breaking yard. They have sought directions asking the court to "direct that the ship named "Blue Lady" (SS Norway) be not allowed to be dismantled at the Alang Ship-breaking yard." The villagers have argued that "The dismantling of the ship would have hazardous effect on the residents of the villages near the Alang ship breaking yard as the ship contains large amount of asbestos which, when exposed is hazardous to the health of the residents living in the twelve villages."

They have submitted that Rule 12 (i) of the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 bans import of asbestos. As per Schedule 8 Serial No. 15 describes waste asbestos (dust and fibres) as hazardous wastes prohibited for import and export. Bhagvatsinh Haluba Gohil, head, village council (Sarpanch), Village Sosiya, Tehsil Talaja, and District Bhanvnagar whom we have met in the first week of April in his village opined that besides the danger of asbestos exposure the villagers face threat of loss of livelihood because of the contamination of the aquatic life in the sea.

Stockholm Convention, a global treaty to protect human health and the environment from POPs. In implementing the Convention, Governments are supposed to take measures to eliminate or reduce the release of POPs into the environment. The Convention in its Annex A and Article 6, requires Parties like India to identify, label and remove from use equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and to dispose of the waste PCB-containing materials in an environmentally sound manner. This inventory form assists in identification of owners and locations of potentially PCB-containing equipment and wastes; identification and quantification of potentially PCB-containing equipment such as transformers, capacitors, vacuum pumps, lamp ballast, and electrical cables; and Identification and quantification of waste PCBs or PCB-contaminated sites.

As per the UNEP guide to the management of PCB, “Transportation of PCBs is one of the highest risk areas for potential spills or leaks. Most problems occur during loading or unloading of the vehicle. Loading areas should have adequate spill response materials and spill prevention measures should be taken and spill control and clean-up materials should be available, should they be needed. Any subsequent movement of the contaminated wastes shall be made in strict accordance with the provisions of the Basel Convention on hazardous waste movements.”

“It should be remembered that all transportation of hazardous wastes containing PCBs are covered by the Basel Convention, to which reference should be made for further guidance on the shipping of such wastes.”

Hazardous Wastes pertaining to ship breaking is highly toxic in nature. The hazardous wastes are thus required to be dealt with only with adequate and proper control and handling and only traded in accordance with international law. In developing countries, these matters are of particular importance from an environmental and policy standpoint to avoid global dumping on developing countries to avoid the high costs of proper careful hazardous waste management in developed countries. These and other allied problems gave birth to Basel. Both the Basel Convention and the Basel Ban Amendment applies to End-of-Life ships that contain hazardous materials. As per consensus decisions passed by the Parties to the Convention, a ship can be a ship and a waste at the same time and it could be a hazardous waste.

The key objectives of the Basel Convention are: to minimize the generation of hazardous wastes in terms of quantity and hazardousness; to dispose of them in the country in which they were generated, and to reduce the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes. (Article 4, para 2) The key objective of the Basel Ban Amendment is to: Prohibit the export of hazardous waste from member countries of the European Union (EU), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and Liechtenstein to any other countries for any reason.

The Rotterdam Convention creates legally binding obligations for the implementation of the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure. It covers pesticides and industrial chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons by Parties and which have been notified by Parties for inclusion in the PIC procedure. There are 39 chemicals including PCBs listed in Annex III of the Convention and subject to the PIC procedure, including 24 pesticides, 4 severely hazardous pesticide formulations and 11 industrial chemicals. The import decisions are circulated and exporting country Parties are obligated under the Convention to take appropriate measure to ensure that exporters within its jurisdiction comply with the decisions.

National Policy on Hazardous Wastes admits, “Lack of laboratory facilities for analysis of trace organics such as PCBs could either result in holding up of supplies for long periods of time merely on grounds of suspicion or lead to illegal imports of waste oil under the garb of used oil.” Safe Ship-breaking activity is the responsibility of all the parties involved ranging from ship owner, ship exporter to ship importer and the concerned countries as per Basel Convention. Ship owners who own the ship for decades have benefited from the ship and they cannot and should not be allowed to escape from their responsibility of assuming decontamination cost. There are some efforts underway to eliminate the manifest responsibility of ship owners. This cannot be allowed without jeopardizing globally accepted principles of producer responsibility and the protection of environmental and occupational health workers and concerned communities. In the case of Blue Lady the exporting country has failed to comply with the Basel Convention but it has turned a blind to the act of illegal traffic committed by Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. It did not inform the Indian authorities that there is radioactive material on the ship.

Note: Basel Convention defines Waste as “….substances or objects which are disposed of or are intended to be disposed of or are required to be disposed* of by the provisions of national law.” Disposal is defined both as as “recycling” or “final disposal” destinations listed in Annex IV. The Convention defines hazardous waste as those, which are present in Annex I and exhibit a hazardous characteristic found in Annex III, or which are listed in Annex VIII. Some Basel Hazardous Wastes (Annex VIII) Found on Ships & type of Basel Waste and how they are found in Ships Waste mineral oils, Oil sludge, Hydraulic systems, heavy fuel oil, lube oil, Waste oils/water mixtures and emulsions Ballast water, Waste containing PCBs, PCTs, PCNs, PBBs, Light fitting capacitors, in paints, etc, Waste from production, formulation and use of inks, paints, lacquers, varnish etc, All over as coatings Wastes containing mercury or mercury compounds, Fluorescent light fittings, Lead Acid Batteries, Batteries, Waste Asbestos, Heat insulation, fire retardant in structural material

Environment Ministry misleads Parliamentary Committee

Information about radioactive material not divulged

New Delhi: Even as the Supreme Court is all set to hear the case of Blue Lady on 29 August, Parliamentary Petitions Committee’s Report on Blue Lady has been tabled in the Lok Sabha. What is noteworthy is the fact that Environment Ministry has neither informed the apex court nor the Parliamentary Committee that the ships have radioactive material, handling of the same is fraught with hazardous consequences. The officials of both at the Ministry and the Gujarat Maritime Board has been guilty of dereliction of duty of not letting the workers and the concerned authorities know of the radioactive materials of the ships which come for dismantling.

In its recommendations the Committee has noted “The very fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had to intervene in the matter, underlines the failure of the Government to formulate till now any policy to regulate environmentally safe ship breaking activity in the country.” The Committee are extremely concerned that the ship contain an estimated 1240 MT of Asbestos Containing Material and about 10 MT of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCBs) as in-built material and as part of structure. In case the asbestos fibres are inhaled or human being consumes the PCBs, the same may cause cancer unless the workers take proper precautions for safe handling of these materials.

“The Committee strongly deprecates the repeated stand taken by the Ministry that since no hazardous wastes has been allowed on board as cargo, there is no violation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court directions.” The Ministry has misled the Committee by not informing it about there being admittedly containers full of toxic incineration ash and non-examination of Ballast water, which are likely to have alien microorganisms.

Taking note of the fact that hazardous material meant for disposal even when it is part of structure must be deemed hazardous wastes, it said, “The Committee need not emphasize that the hazardous wastes whether as cargo or in-built material are equally detrimental to the environment and human health.” It further recommended, “a National Policy should be framed by the Government to regulate ship breaking activities and dumping all toxic waste in the country. The policy should also cover establishment of facilities of international level for managing and disposal of hazardous materials such as asbestos, PCBs and other residues…The Committee also desire the Ministry to strongly campaign to create awareness amongst the people about the ill effects of asbestos and possible carcinogenic affects…”

The Committee unambiguously recommended, “…in no case, the ship breaking activities should be permitted at the cost of environment or safe and healthy life of workers.” The Parliamentary Petitions Committee report came in response to the petition raised in Lok Sabha by Basudev Acharya, MP, CPI (M) in August 2006. The petition had argued that the sovereignty of the country is being infringed due to dumping of hazardous wastes from developed countries and sought examination of the role of the authorities in allowing entry to the ship Blue Lady in Indian territorial waters.

CRIMES OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

Q1. How many cases of allegations against judges were made in the
media about misuse of office , criminal acts by judges from munsiff
court to supreme court of India ? since 1947 till date ?

Q2. are the inquiry report findings, action taken reports of such
cases accessible to public ? if not why ?

Q3. what action has been taken against guilty judges ?

Q4. are the guilty judges legally prosecuted in all such cases ? or
has it just ended with their resignation from services or his superior
judge not allotting him any judicial work ?

Q5. why some high ranking judges are not legally prosecuted for their
wrong doings ?

Q6. are judges above law ? are not everybody equal before law ?

Q7. do the judiciary subject , all the cases handled by accused /
tainted , guilty judges to review , to undo past unjust judgments ?

Q8. how ? if not why ?

Q9. how do the judiciary monitor the net wealth growth of some
judges including the wealth in the name of judge's family members ?

Q10. do all the judges file their annual income , wealth statements on
sworn affidavits to the higher judiciary ? defaulters how many ?

Q11. how does the judiciary verifies those statements ?

Q12. is such statements made public , on web ?

Q13. when the judgment of a lower court is turned down by the higher
court , what action is initiated against lower court judge for making
unjust judgment & meting out injustice ?

Q14. when allegations of corruption , misuse of office , etc against
judges are made , why the accused - judges are not subjected to
tests like "poly graph , lie detector , brain mapping , etc" , in the
interest of justice & truth ?

Q15. judges are not employees of government , so they are ineligible
to be the members of "Karnataka state government judicial department
house building co-operative society". Then how come , many judges
including supreme court judges are admitted as members of this society
& allotted prime residential site worth crores of rupees for a few
thousands by the said society at said society's - judicial layout ,
yelahanka , Bangalore ? while the ordinary members like peons , clerks
in judicial department are waiting for a site since years , is not the
whole thing grossly illegal ?

Q16. in more than 70% of cases before all courts in India , central
government or state government or government agency is one of the
parties. How many judges or their family members , have received out
of turn , favourable allotments of sites , gas agency , petrol pumps ,
etc by the government ? is not such allotments illegal ? what action ?

Q17. when a person under police custody or judicial custody suffer 3rd
degree torture by police , is not the judge of the respective court
which is handling that tortured person's case responsible for it ?

Q18. has the higher judiciary legally prosecuted respective judges &
the police officers for committing 3rd degree torture , on charges of
attempt to murder & murder ? if not why ?

Q19. registrar , Mysore district & sessions court , has called for the
candidatures to various vacancies in that court from the public vide
notification no : ADMN/A/10825/2003 dated 19/11/2003 & collected
application fees from the candidates. Till date , they have not even
conducted the interview ? is it not public cheating by judiciary ?
what action to undo the injustices to unemployed ?

Q20. registrar , Bangalore city civil court , has called for the
candidatures to various vacancies in that court from the public vide
notification no : ADM-I(A)422/03 dated 19/05/2003 & collected
application fees from the candidates. Till date , they have not even
conducted the interview ? is it not public cheating by the judiciary ?
what action to undo injustices to unemployed ?

Q21. when a person doesn't get adequate food , medical care while
under police custody or judicial custody , is not the respective judge
dealing that person's case responsible for it ? what action ?

Q22. how judiciary is monitoring food & medical care to prisoners ?

Q23. numerous accused persons are suffering in jail under judicial
custody , for periods far exceeding the legally stipulated sentence
periods. For example : a pick-pocketer is in jail for one year , the
judge finds him guilty of offense & gives him 3 months sentence. What
about the excess punishment of 9 months. Is not the judge responsible
for the illegal , excess punishment of the convict ? what action
against the judge in such cases ?

Q24. numerous innocents suffer in jail for years & finally the judge
finds them as innocents & acquits them of the charges. What about the
prison sentence , the innocent has already served ? is not the judge
responsible for this illegal , unjust punishment to an innocent ?
remedy ? what action against the judge ?

Q25. does the privileges of judges cover both their official actions &
the actions arising out of misuse of office ?

Q26. does the privileges of judges cover both their official actions
as judges & their personal actions as individuals ?

Q27. are the fundamental rights of citizens supreme or the privileges
of judges , constitutional functionaries supreme ?

Q28. what is the criteria adopted for promotion of judges ?

Q29. what is the criteria adopted for appointment of advocates from
bar , as the judges ?

Q30. what is the criteria adopted for appointment of retired judges ,
as governors of states , members or as chairman of commissions ,
etc ?

Q31. how many judges belonging to oppressed classes - scheduled
caste , scheduled tribe , other backward classes , minorities & women
are their in supreme court , state high courts & subordinate courts ?
kindly provide specific figures .

Q32. what are the legal measures enforced by judiciary , to enforce
the accountability of judges & to check corruption in judiciary ?

Q33. are not these measures a failure , looking at present state of
affairs of judiciary ?

Q34. does the judges arrange for distribution of alcoholic drinks at
the official meetings , parties , at the tax payer's expense ?

Q35. does any judges have included their consumption of alcoholic
drinks , in their hotel bill & claimed traveling allowance ?

Q36. what action has been taken against - selectors ie Karnataka high
court judges & newly selected women judges involved in roost resort
scandal in Mysore , Karnataka ?

Q37. when common people / tax payers & even government employees are
not getting proper health care from government at government
hospitals. Is it right & just to provide premium health care to
judges , constitutional functionaries at 5-star private hospitals in
India , abroad , all at tax payer's expense ?

Q38. are the judges subjected to periodical health check-ups to
ascertain their health , mental faculties & mental balance in the
midst of all work pressures , emotional tensions ?

Q39. what is the criteria adopted by judiciary for accepting
applications seeking public interest litigations ?

Q40. why numerous appeals for PIL by me , were not considered ?

Q41. what is the criteria adopted by judiciary , for appointing
"amicus curie" in a case ?

Q42. why my appeal to honourable supreme court , to make me as an
"amicus curie" in late P.M Rajiv Gandhi's assassination case , was not
considered by the court ?

Q43. what is the criteria adopted by judiciary , for initiating suo-
motto action ?

Q44. numerous cases of injustices are reported in the media daily ,
with supporting evidences . why not the judiciary take suo-motto
action in all such cases ?

Q45. legal aid boards pre-judge the cases in the name of taking legal
opinion , before providing legal aid to the needy ? is it not needy
person's rights violation ?

Q46. is not the safety of witnesses , parties in cases responsibility
of the court , both during hearing of the case & afterwards ?

Q47. is the use of 3rd degree torture by police on prisoners , during
the police custody / judicial custody / prison sentence right ? what
action ?

Q48. when the corrupt police officer & government prosecution advocate
together cover-up evidences , conducts improper investigation
intentionally to fail the case - to cover-up rich crooks , high &
mighty people , what action judge takes in such cases ?

Q49. how does the judiciary monitor the wealth growth of police ,
government advocates , tax officials , officials of licensing
authorities , to ensure proper & fair prosecution of cases against
rich & mighty ?

Q50. what are the status of appeals made by human rights activist
NAGARAJ.M.R. to the honourable supreme court of India ?

Q51. corruption is rampant for selection of officers to quasi-judicial
positions like district / taluk magistrates , tax officers , revenue
officers , land acquisition officers , etc. how the judiciary monitors
over their quasi-judicial actions ?

Q52. subject to conditions , I , NAGARAJ.M.R. , editor , e-voice of
human rights watch , do offer my free services to honourable supreme
court of India , to apprehend corrupt judges , are you - the
honourable court ready to utilize it ?

Q53. what are the status of my appeals , sent to the honourable
supreme court of India , through government of india's on-line
grievance system ( DPG & DARPG ) :

DPG/M/2006/80008 , DARPG/E/2006/00057, DARPG/E/2006/00225 , DPG/M/
2006/80021 , DARPG/E/2006/00253 , DPG/M/2006/80032 , DARPG/E/
2006/01149 , DPG/M/2006/80047 , DARPG/E/2006/01164 , DPG/M/
2006/80043 , DPG/M/2006/80085 , DARPG/E/2006/06704 , DARPG/E/
2006/07017 , DARPG/E/2006/07018 , DPG/M/2006/80159 , DPG/M/
2006/80162 , DARPG/E/2006/07864 , DPG/M/2006/80165 , DARPG/E/
2006/07877 , DPG/M/2006/80167 , DARPG/E/2006/08028 , DARPG/E/
2006/08029 , DARPG/E/2006/08032 , DARPG/E/2006/08043 , DARPG/E/
2006/08044 , DPG/M/2006/80174 , DPG/M/2006/80193 , DARPG/E/
2007/00044 , DPG/M/2007/80003 , DPG/M/2007/80010 , DARPG/E/
2007/00164 , DARPG/E/2007/00165 , DPG/M/2007/80014 , DPG/M/
2007/80025 , DPG/M/2007/80049 , DPG/M/2007/80055 , DPG/M/2007/80056 ,
DPG/M/2007/80078 , DPG/M/2007/80082 , DARPG/E/2007/02618

Q54. the appeals made to the honourable supreme court of India ,
copies of which are available at following web pages :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naghrw/message/182 ,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naghrw/message/206 ,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naghrw/message/208 ,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naghrw/message/212 ,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naghrw/message/209 ,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naghrw

what are the status of those appeals ?

Q55. in the media , we have seen reports about judges committing
crimes - rape , attempt to murder , swindling government money ,
untouchability practice , the disrespect to national flag , sale of
judicial orders , bail , etc. by this way , judges themselves are
making contempt of court , constitution of India & citizens of India.
How you are protecting the honour of the judiciary , constitution of
India & citizens of India ? please answer.

Source: http://groups.google.com/group/BloggersCollective/browse_thread/thread/c2cf256337fcd5b0/3f14779e7ac819fd?hl=en#3f14779e7ac819fd

Global Warming and Hydro-electric Projects

The misleading Press Release of the Ministry of Water Resources, Govt of India, on August 21 and diverse responses to it must be responded to set the issue in proper context. Jai Prakash Narayan Yadav, Minister of State in the Ministry of Water Resources belongs to Rashtriya Janata Dal of Laloo Prasad Yadav. One can be almost confident that none of the political parties including Rashtriya Janata Dal have any position on climate change. Therefore, there is no point in singling him out.

Yadav is simply quoting what Geological Survey of India (GSI) position is with regard to climate change and not articulating the position of Ministry of Water Resources but by doing so it has cleverly indulged in selective reporting of facts to suit its ongoing and proposed hydro-electric projects. There is hardly any credible scientist who has not underlined that global warming is no more a debatable issue, it is a reality staring mankind in the face.

India is a signatory to Kyoto Protocol. Will Gauri Chatterjee, Secretary, Water Resources, Government of India explain as to whether India ratified the Protocol even as it continued to believe that global warming is "debatable"?. Did she brief Yadav properly about climate change? It is her responsibility to brief the Minister about global warming and how land use changes such as through hydro-electric projects contributes to climate change?

At a recent Panel Discussion on Lok Sabha TV, when the Rayapati Sambasiva Rao, chairman, parliamentary standing committee on water resources was asked as to how can Water Resources Ministry and the committee feign ignorance about government's own wisdom about climate change. He responded by saying that u intend to terrify me by citing global warming.Yadav is not alone in committing mistakes.

Did the Water Resources Ministry forgot that there is Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change which is coordinating National action plans for assessment, adaptation and mitigation of climate and facilitate inter-ministerial coordination and guide policy in relevant areas?. This mistake seems to have emerged also from the failure of the Council to do its job properly.

According to Namo Narayana Meena, Minister of State in the Ministry of Environment and Forests, "The Government has set up the “Expert Committee on Impacts of Climate Change” on 7th May 2007 under the chairmanship of Dr. R. Chidambaram, Principal Scientific Advisor to the Government of India".

Here is what the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh himself said in a written reply on 22 August, 2007 in the parliament:

A coordination committee chaired by Prime Minister called Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change has been recently constituted to coordinate national action for assessment, adaptation and mitigation of climate change. The focus of the Committee is to:

i. Evolve a coordinated response to issues relating to climate change at the national level;

ii. Provide oversight for formulation of action plans in the area of assessment, adaptation and mitigation of climate change;

iii. Periodically monitor key policy decisions.

The Government has also set up an “Expert Committee on Impacts of Climate Change”. The Terms of Reference of the Committee are as under:

i. To study the impacts of anthropogenic climate change on India.

ii. To identify the measures that we may have to take in the future in relation to addressing vulnerability to anthropogenic climate change impacts.

iii. Any other matter relevant to (i) and (ii) above.

This information was given by the Prime Minister in a written reply to question by J.M.Aaron Rashid and Dr. Arun Kumar Sarma in the Lok Sabha.

Does the Water Resources Ministry still feel that climate change is "debatable"?

--
Gopal Krishna


---------------------Original Message---------------------------------------------

From: Himanshu Thakkar <ht.sandrp@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 22, 2007 11:38 AM
Subject: Ministry of Water Resources misleading everyone on global warming?
To: waterwatch@yahoogroups.com

Dear All,

The following Press Release from the Press Information Bureau, on behalf of the Ministry of Water Resources, Govt of India, on Aug 21, 2007 raises many questions.

1. It says at the end of first para, "it may also be due to global warming a topic which is still debatable." Does this mean the Ministry of Water Resources and hence govt of India still considers global warming is a debatable topic? This is very shocking, when there is so much scientific evidence from all over the world about the impact of global warming on climate and contribution of human activities there of. [If the MWR claims that it is quoting GSI opinion, even then the ministry's stand is questionable as to why did it found fit to quote an unscientific assertion?]

2. The first para says, "the recession of glaciers of the glaciers may result due to subnormal snowfall...", this means that the agencies concerned, including MWR has no idea if there has been reduction in snowfall or not and if there is, how much of that may impact recession of glaciers. Moreover, in the next para the PR says, "...snow fall and precipitation which is likely to go up with global warming..." Now if the global warming will lead to increase in snowfall, than where is the question of the subnormal snowfall leading to recession of glaciers? Theoratically, it can be said that the statement is correct, but practically, there are obvious contradictions.

3. The next statement is, "More melting of glaciers will generate more water initially. Hence there is no likelihood of northern rivers drying up in the near future." Does the ministry have the data to substantiate if the rivers have more water in summer (when glaciers melt)? What does "new future" mean? What will happen after that?

There are some people from the water resources establishement on this forum and I would like them to clarify these issues and get further information from the ministry.

Himanshu

--------------------------------

PIB 210807

Ministry of Water Resources

GLOBAL WARMING AND HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECTS

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=30212

RAJYA SABHA

Various reports indicate that the average temperature values of the earth has in last decade shown increasing trend. As reported by Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the seasonal snow cover has been melting in the last few years, the same way it was in the past and it seems that effect is more pronounced on Glaciers. Geological Survey of India (GSI) have reported that most of the glaciers of Himalayas as well as in the other parts of the world are receding and the recession of the glaciers may result due to subnormal snowfall, higher temperature during summer, less severe winter or a combination of all of them. The GSI has further reported that it may also be due to global warming a topic which is still debatable.

As per GSI, if the present scenario of receding glaciers is accelerated, there may be some reduction in the river discharge. However, it may be noted that the major part of the river discharge is contributed by snow fall and precipitation which is likely to go up with global warming. More melting of glaciers will generate more water initially. Hence there is no likelihood of northern rivers drying up in the near future.

This information was given by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Water Resources Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Yadav in a written reply to question by Smt. Maya Singh :in the Rajya Sabha today.

SKS:PM

--
Himanshu Thakkar

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People
Delhi, India

himanshuthakkar@iitbombay.org
ht.sandrp@gmail.com

www.sandrp.in

Blue Lady Report in Parliament

Amid massive uproar due to Indo-US nuclear deal, the Parliamentary Petitions Committee headed by Prabhunath Singh has tabled a report in the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) on 22 August that has gone into details regarding ship-breaking activities and dumping of toxic waste in the sea in general and the Blue Lady ship in particular.

The Parliamentary Petitions Committee has admonished the Ministry of Environment and Forests for "failing to address" the issue of dumping of toxic waste and ship-breaking activities in the country and asked it to frame a national policy in the matter at the earliest.

The committee has looked into the petition from the Platform with regard to government’s permission for dismantling of Blue Lady ship carrying hazardous waste in violation of a Supreme Court order.

It has taken a position that even the hazardous material, which is inbuilt in the ship, is hazardous waste and sought a national policy that can regulate all such activities including dumping of waste and establish world-class facilities for management and disposal of hazardous material such as asbestos and PCBs.

The matter is likely to be raised again in the parliament with specific reference to radioactive material on the ship at 5500 places that has not been disclosed by the Technical Committee of the Supreme Court.

Ronen Sen's interview

Ambassador Sen: 'We will have zero credibility'

Aziz Haniffa in Washington, DC

August 20, 2007 12:07 IST

last Updated: August 20, 2007 16:03 IST
India's Ambassador to the United States, Ronen Sen -- a key protagonist of the US-India civilian nuclear agreement, and the architect behind scripting the resurrection of the 123 Agreement as it lay virtually dormant for several months -- is quite aghast at the opposition to the deal from the Left parties, not to mention the Bharatiya Janata Party's attempts to torpedo it.

Warning that if the deal begins to unravel because of this opposition it would impact heavily on India's credibility and have grave implications for US-India relations in the future, Sen told Rediff India Abroad that the Hyde Amendment -- which has already been signed into law -- cannot be renegotiated. He declared that it would be a pity if the agreement is not operationalised before the end of the Bush Administration's tenure, because as in the prime minister's words there has not been, and unlikely to be in the near future, a President as friendly and supportive of India as President George W Bush [Images].

Sen said, "If you really look at it (the 123 Agreement), every single (concern) has been met," particularly with regard to reprocessing and assurances of fuel supplies to India's reactors even in the hypothetical case of India conducting a nuclear test, even though there has been no mention of 'testing' in the text।

"What is in the agreement which they are not satisfied with?" he asked। "Not one," and noted that such an agreement was unprecedented in the annals of India's history since its independence 60 years ago.

"All that is in the agreement," he said, "There is no precedence in the United States" either where such an agreement has been so transparent. "Even before it is signed, we made it public -- and that is the most authoritative."

"It has been approved here (in Washington, DC) by the President, and there (in New Delhi) it's been approved by the Indian cabinet. So why do you have all this running around like headless chicken, looking for a comment here or comment there, and these little storms in a tea-cup?"

Sen said he couldn't understand "why we don't have a little bit of confidence," and said he was "really amazed" over the current drama and debate being played out in New Delhi.

"I can understand (such a debate) immediately after independence," he said. "But 60 years after independence! I am really bothered that 60 years after independence, they are so insecure -- that we have not grown up, this lack of confidence and lack of self-respect."

Sen continued to reiterate that this was not a secret document but "a public document," and the fact that it was made available in the public domain "is unprecedented."

He argued that there seems "to be this gap between perception and reality," and said what the critics of the deal don't apparently comprehend is "the enormity of this change. That a country (the United States), which had taken the lead in setting up a regime (the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) where India was targeted, is taking the lead again to exempt India.'

"There has been no parallel of a single country exemption to any of the international regimes," he recalled, "not in the 21st century, the 20th, 19th, 18th, 17th, 16th, in any century. All what we are doing is absolutely unprecedented."

Sen said he simply couldn't understand the argument that India was "getting too close" to the United States, and said, "We are talking of the leading technological country in the world" which everybody else seems to have cottoned on to, "but our people have not or maybe they don't want to believe it."

He asserted that there can be no talk at all vis-�-vis the re-negotiation of the Hyde Amendment. "That's an issue that cannot even be considered."

Sen pointed out that "it is the law of the land," since President Bush has already signed it. "The law is very, very clear. It's on the books."

He said if India tries to re-negotiate this legislation, it would "have zero credibility."

"Can you imagine anybody telling us that this act of your Parliament has not been accepted by the United States and so you have to introduce new legislation and tell your Parliament that the legislation that has been adopted is not acceptable? You won't have any credibility."

According to the envoy, if this deal is not operationalised because the clock runs out in the wake of all the opposition in India and calls for special committees to review it and everything else, even after it has been made public and endorsed by both the US president and the Indian cabinet, "it would be a pity because what the prime minister said is very true -- that we will not, and there has not been and I don't think in the near future we will see such a friend and supporter as this President. Absolutely. There is none."

Sen said if the deal falls through, the implications would indeed be grave for US-India relations, and the entire broad-based agenda envisaged between both countries would be adversely impacted.

He argued that it was because of the excitement over this deal and what it could envisage for the strategic partnership between the US and India that had resulted in the proliferation of visits to India by leading CEOs of American companies. In the past few years, he pointed out, "There has been a quadrupling of visits to India by Senators and Congressmen, there has been a quadrupling of visits by presidents of universities, chancellors leading teams to India. Airlines like Delta, Continental deciding to have direct flights to India."

"So nothing happens by accident. It's not just symbolic. It's much, much more. But will we be able to get benefits out of all that, without this (nuclear agreement)?"

Sen asserted that "all of this is inter-linked. We cannot insulate this. People don't seem to realise that."

Meanwhile, senior diplomatic observers in Washington, DC, slammed the critics of the deal, particularly the BJP, saying that they obviously had made up their minds to oppose the agreement even before they saw the veritable iron-clad 123 Agreement, which was very much in favour of India in terms of addressing all of its concerns with regard to issues like reprocessing and assurances of continued fuel supplies to its civilian nuclear reactors.

"If you remember, people like (former minister) Yashwant Sinha reacted even before they saw the text. So obviously, they had made up their minds in advance, irrespective of even what we got."

The observers said, "The cat was out of the bag because they made their opposition clear even without seeing the text, even though they knew it's going to be made public and were informed of it."

One diplomatic observer, pointing to the BJP's assertions that it would abrogate the agreement if it came into power, recalled that none of the BJP's initiatives and reforms while in government could have been implemented "without Congress's support. They never would have been able to get it through."

Thus, according to this observer, it was beyond his comprehension that the BJP could be "so irresponsible," with statements such as abrogating the agreement if it assumed the reins of power.

"The opposition is supposed to be responsible, and here they are talking of, 'If we come to power, we'll abrogate the agreement'!"

The observer asked, "Has that ever been done? If you look at India in its 60 years, one thing that distinguishes India from any other country in any continent, is that we have always honoured our commitments."

"We have faced every challenge conceivable -- assassinations of political leaders, starting with Mahatma Gandhi [Images], border conflicts, natural disasters of unprecedented magnitude, oil shocks, economic crises, and we've had revolving door governments -- Chandra Shekhar, H D Deve Gowda, Inder Kumar Gujral -- but no government, no successor government, had changed (any agreement). We have always honoured our commitment. This is what distinguishes India -- not just that it is a democracy."

The observer argued that statements such as those warning of the abrogation of agreements "is absolutely going against -- flying against -- your own national interest and the way you are perceived."

"There was only one instance, when after an election a state government changed one contract, and that is Enron. (But) That was a state government. At the central level, none, not one, and that is the one thing that distinguishes us."

Thus, he argued that such statements, "are haphazard, like a childish tantrum saying, we are going to abrogate it, they don't even seem to be aware of what they are saying, the import of what they are saying।".

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/20inter.htm

Indian Activists' Rising Clout

Indian Activists' Rising Clout

Vedanta case mirrors the challenges investors face

Activists allege the firm did not disclose that it had to clear forest area for the project, which is against Indian law

Jackie Range

The Supreme Court is poised to decide whether a British company has the right to mine in a sacred tribal forest, a case that underlines the complexity of undertaking large-scale industrial projects here.

The case’s hearing by the court reflects the growing clout of activist groups and the bigger role the judiciary is taking in enforcing the country’s environmental rules. Experts say legal challenges could become a greater hurdle for foreign and local investors as India’s environmental lobbyists work together and gather influence.

Vedanta Alumina Ltd, majority-owned by London-listed metals-and-mining company Vedanta Resources Plc., wants the right to mine bauxite in the Niyamgiri hills, in the mineral-rich state of Orissa. Bauxite is refined to produce alumina, which is then smelted to produce aluminium.

Vedanta already operates an alumina refinery it built adjacent to the area it wants to mine, part of an $800 million (Rs3,288 crore) project that also includes a power plant. The company opened the refinery in March, using bauxite from elsewhere.

The environmental and social activists who brought the dispute to the court allege Vedanta didn’t disclose that forest land was needed for the project and, therefore, didn’t get prior clearance from the ministry of environment and forests—a violation of the law.

A spokesman for Vedanta Resources denies this but declined to comment further on the case because it is before the court.

The activists also argue that the project will do serious harm to the flora and fauna of the area, which include rare orchids, elephants, barking deer and sloth bears. Vedanta declined to comment.

At a hearing in May, Vedanta argued that bringing mining to the area would create jobs, said a person who attended the hearing. The company also promised to forest other areas in compensation for the trees lost. The court is scheduled to hear the Vedanta case on Friday. Its ruling could stop the mine project, require Vedanta to find another area to mine or allow the project to proceed, legal observers say.

The legal battle comes against a backdrop of growing social discontent as India’s economic growth of more than 9% leaves many behind.

“India’s much-feted economic miracle is not only bypassing many of the most vulnerable communities suchas Dalits, urban poor and indigenous groups, but is pushing them off their land, out of their homes and destroying their livelihoods,” says Bratindi Jena of the international non-governmental organization ActionAid, which opposes the mine.

As a result, foreign companies flocking here to tap into the booming economy, as well as India’s own fast-growing corporate giants, face increasing grass-roots resistance: Across the country, conflicts have erupted over projects ranging from mines to supermarkets.
In May, villagers opposed to South Korean company Posco’s construction of a huge steel complex in Orissa seized three employees, assaulted two and held them briefly. Canada’s Alcan Inc. had said in April that it would withdraw from a mining-and-refinery venture that had faced years of protests, though a spokeswoman denies that is the reason it pulled out.

Reliance Retail Ltd, a subsidiary of India’s biggest company, Reliance Industries Ltd., which is investing more than $5 billion in a national supermarket chain, has had stores attacked as small traders fear for their livelihoods in the face of major retail competition.
Amid such opposition, “investors need to be aware of the potential for litigators to file public interest litigation in the courts,” says Seema Desai, a London-based India analyst with Eurasia Group, a consultancy firm.

Projects have seen opposition from a range of sources, from farmers to social activists to larger non-governmental organizations. Desai predicts that “over time, some of the protesters or litigators will join hands in more organized ways, in which case it could become a big hurdle for investors.”

Public interest litigation, similar to class-action lawsuits in the US, is filed directly in the Supreme Court because it is considered to be in the general public interest.
In court, environmentalists are already getting a sympathetic ear, says Gurdip Singh, a professor specializing in international and environmental law at the Delhi University. Judicial activism has led to India adopting stringent environmental regulations, he says.

The judiciary tends to see the environment as the property of future generations to be protected, and it treats the right to a healthy environment as a fundamental human right, Singh says.

The Supreme Court is “taking a big interest in things like urban planning, land issues, environmental issues,” says Desai. In taking on such cases, the Supreme Court is filling a gap left by the Union government, which has been reluctant to strictly enforce environmental laws, says Anand Prasad, a New Delhi-based partner with Indian law firm Trilegal.

The Vedanta case centres on a report produced by an expert panel assembled by the ministry of environment and forests on the direction of the apex court.

The report said use of forest land in an ecologically sensitive area like the Niyamgiri hills shouldn’t be permitted. It suggested environmental clearance for the refinery should be revoked until an alternative mine site has been identified, and said that if the plans had been properly reviewed at the outset, the project would have likely been abandoned.

The refinery was completed and began operating after the report was issued. Vedanta Resources declined to comment on the report.

Aug 17 2007

The Wall Street Journal

Mint

Russia vs U.S. – The Cold War Returns

August 19th, 2007

by Paul Burns

Who says Stalin’s doctrines are dead or that Lenin’s teachings are forgotten in Russia? This land of many intrigues and desolate landscapes and beautiful city centers is always a potential world power. The far reaches of the old USSR are now separate and distinct, but the mother country still has the natural resources to compete in the modern world. Now that the upheaval of the instigation of democracy has run its early course, the country is tuning to a more conservative, socialistic bent that resembles the old order. If you don’t believe it, take a look at three separate occurrences of the last six months which verify the trend.

Vladimir Putin is deifying himself in the grade schools. Putin is a Stalin-like personality who no doubt wishes to continue as President For Life. Right or wrong, he thinks propaganda for the young will bring a loyal, subservient populace under his control. Think back to almost every move of Joe Stalin in this matter for a historical pespective.

Russia has begun a new round of long distance bomber over-flights in the Pacific and Atlantic to rattle the saber once again. The equipment used, the cold war long range bomber, is of B-52 vintage and easily intercepted. The real purpose here cannot be strategic any longer but just a reminder that Russia is in the contender mix and not to be ignored. No doubt the aggressive attitude once again signals the old combative attitude. And if there are bomber over flights, the Russians have probably warmed up the remains of the submarine fleet too.

The press is full of the travails of Russian expat multi-billionaires and ex KGB operatives who are meeting with unexplained and catastrophic illnesses and sometimes death. This parallels the aggressive actions of the government in essentially voiding the contracts entered into regarding oil and other minerals and the old factory/hard assets of the USSR. The illustration here is of KGB-like actions on a covert basis which indicates a cross me at your peril program ala Leon Trotsky.

All of this reflects the background of Vladimir Putin। The tactics are Stalinesque and KGB’ish and lawyer like. The odds are high that the coming months will see announcements of more of the same from this Russian administration.

Source: http://www.bloggernews.net/