09-01-2008, 02:38 PM
SOB Noorani's views
http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showheadlines....news=value0news
Jammu Agreement worse than May cabinet order: Noorani
Srinagar, September 1: Legal luminary A. G. Noorani's opinion about the agreement reached between Jammu and Kashmir Government and Amarnath Sangarsh Samiti of Jammu in response to a query.
1. The order is worst than the Cabinet order issued in May. That order was issued by a Cabinet, which at least had a representative character with members both from Kashmir as well as Jammu.
2. The latest order was made by the Governor who is a civil servant. He has only interacted with Jammu parties although the land is in Kashmir and affects people there.
3. There is no reference to Kashmir in this agreement.
4. Moreover, the Cabinet order of May was explicit on return of land after the yatra period. There is no mention of return of land in this agreement.
5. The Cabinet order also didn't give any exclusive rights. Even during the period of yatra one was allowed to trespass or go through the land and use for grazing or other purposes without affecting the pilgrimage.
6. Now the land will be shut for anybody for the period of yatra. It violates Article 19 (d) of Indian Constitution which gives right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
7. 'The phrase used in the Section C of the Agreement that aforesaid land shall be used according to the Board's requirements, from time to time, is most confusing.
8. While not mentioning the period of yatra, the phrase "time to time" makes one believe the land can be used anytime. This only vindicates former chief executive of the Board Arun Kumar, asserting that land will not be returned.
9. The agreement further talks about compensation to agitators in Jammu. Here also it has overlooked Kashmir. It seems they are being rewarded for agitation. No mention of any punishment for those who engaged in blockades.
10. Also in the first Cabinet order ecological concerns had been taken care off and there was an amount of punishment also mentioned in case of tampering with the ecology and environment. It has been deleted all the way. Section C clause (IX) of the agreement asks the Board to undertake "measures relating to soil conservation, land protection and preservation of ecology." But, does not specify the punishment or penalty in case of violation.
11. Section 2 of Jammu and Kashmir Forest Conservation Act 1997 clearly stipulates that for any diversion of forest land a resolution has to be adopted at the council of ministers after recommendation from forest advisory committee. Though powers of the state are vested with Governor in Jammu and Kashmir, but the Act is so clear about the power of Council of Minister in this case that it is necessary to follow the process. National Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 also calls for advice from a committee to grant an approval under Section 2. It also stipulates punishment for those violating Section 2 of the Act.
12. Council of Ministers also cannot divert the forest land arbitrarily. They have to refer to Supreme Court judgements.
[Rising Kashmir]
http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showheadlines....news=value0news
Jammu Agreement worse than May cabinet order: Noorani
Srinagar, September 1: Legal luminary A. G. Noorani's opinion about the agreement reached between Jammu and Kashmir Government and Amarnath Sangarsh Samiti of Jammu in response to a query.
1. The order is worst than the Cabinet order issued in May. That order was issued by a Cabinet, which at least had a representative character with members both from Kashmir as well as Jammu.
2. The latest order was made by the Governor who is a civil servant. He has only interacted with Jammu parties although the land is in Kashmir and affects people there.
3. There is no reference to Kashmir in this agreement.
4. Moreover, the Cabinet order of May was explicit on return of land after the yatra period. There is no mention of return of land in this agreement.
5. The Cabinet order also didn't give any exclusive rights. Even during the period of yatra one was allowed to trespass or go through the land and use for grazing or other purposes without affecting the pilgrimage.
6. Now the land will be shut for anybody for the period of yatra. It violates Article 19 (d) of Indian Constitution which gives right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
7. 'The phrase used in the Section C of the Agreement that aforesaid land shall be used according to the Board's requirements, from time to time, is most confusing.
8. While not mentioning the period of yatra, the phrase "time to time" makes one believe the land can be used anytime. This only vindicates former chief executive of the Board Arun Kumar, asserting that land will not be returned.
9. The agreement further talks about compensation to agitators in Jammu. Here also it has overlooked Kashmir. It seems they are being rewarded for agitation. No mention of any punishment for those who engaged in blockades.
10. Also in the first Cabinet order ecological concerns had been taken care off and there was an amount of punishment also mentioned in case of tampering with the ecology and environment. It has been deleted all the way. Section C clause (IX) of the agreement asks the Board to undertake "measures relating to soil conservation, land protection and preservation of ecology." But, does not specify the punishment or penalty in case of violation.
11. Section 2 of Jammu and Kashmir Forest Conservation Act 1997 clearly stipulates that for any diversion of forest land a resolution has to be adopted at the council of ministers after recommendation from forest advisory committee. Though powers of the state are vested with Governor in Jammu and Kashmir, but the Act is so clear about the power of Council of Minister in this case that it is necessary to follow the process. National Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 also calls for advice from a committee to grant an approval under Section 2. It also stipulates punishment for those violating Section 2 of the Act.
12. Council of Ministers also cannot divert the forest land arbitrarily. They have to refer to Supreme Court judgements.
[Rising Kashmir]