If you’re preparing for CLAT, Current Affairs play a significant role in securing a good score. So, you need to be updated with the daily current affairs and current happenings across the globe. Here is a list of some legal current affairs that took place this week.
Changes proposed in Forest Conservation Act
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has proposed an amendment to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, in a bid to liberalise the forest laws.
Status of the amendments
The Ministry has sent the proposed amendments to all the state governments, asking for their objections and suggestions within 15 days. The draft proposal will be drawn and placed before Parliament after taking suggestions from states into consideration.
- The amendment puts forward stringent norms for the conservation of forest by hiking the penal provisions for offenses.
- Amendment also provides for maintaining “pristine forests”. Non-forestry activity will not be allowed within the pristine forests under any circumstances.
- Under the amendment, deemed forests that have been listed by state governments up to 1996 will continue to be considered as forest land.
- Land acquired by the Railways and the road ministries before 1980, on which forests came up, will not be considered as forests.
- The amendment would also reduce the flow from foreign exchange for importing wood & wood derivatives of approximately Rs 45,000 crore by means of encouraging plantations and afforestation.
Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA)
FCA was promulgated in the year 1980. Before a “1996 Supreme Court judgment” in TN Godavarman Thirumulpad versus Union of India & Others case, forest land was defined by the “1927 Forest Act”. But in the 1996 case, the Supreme court included all areas under the definition of forest that are recorded as ‘forest’ under any government record.
Why was this amendment put forward?
The definition of forest under the forest act was problematic in the case of railways and roads. There is land that both the ministries own, but they cannot use it without getting permission from the MoEFCC. These permissions are granted in about 2-4 years, causing delays in several projects.
Madras HC quashed notification of fixing 120 km/hour as speed limit
The Madras High Court (HC) has set aside the 2018 notification of the Central government that had fixed a speed of 120 km/hour as the limit on highways and expressways.
- The order of HC was given on an appeal arising under the Motor Vehicles Act. Appeal was seeking the enhancement of compensation awarded to an appellant K Shyla.
- In the central government’s notification, the speed limit was fixed at 120 km/hr on expressways, 100 km/hr on national highways, while for the M1 category of vehicles, it was fixed at 60 km/hr.
Why was the central government’s notification quashed?
Justices N Kirubakaran (since retired) and TV Tamilselvi noted that overspeeding is the main killer and responsible for most of the accidents. Despite knowing this fact, the government has increased the limit for various reasons, including commercial reasons. It is resulting in more deaths. Due to this, the notification was quashed.
Road Accidents in India
According to a report of 2020 by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, six two-wheeler riders die every hour in India. Most of the two-wheeler riders are inviting accidents by overspeeding.
How can deaths be prevented?
HC noted that it is the bounden duty of the concerned Government to direct manufacturers of two-wheelers to install speed governors in all the two-wheelers at the manufacturing stage itself. This will help in controlling the speed of the vehicle; as a result, deaths will be prevented, and accidents will be averted.
Why are accidents increasing?
Another factor for the increase in accidents is ‘over speeding is by imported vehicles that are not designed or manufactured for Indian conditions. Imported vehicles come with high-speed engines. Thus, they should be calibrated in a manner that vehicles would not pick up speed beyond the limit permitted in India.
Supreme Court: Employee can’t insist on transfer to a particular place
The Supreme Court has recently ruled that an employee cannot insist on transfer to a particular place, and only the employer can shift the staff after considering the requirement.
- The Supreme court observed this while dismissing a petition by a lecturer who challenged the October 2017 order of the Allahabad High Court.
- Allahabad high court had dismissed her plea, which she had filed against rejection of her representation by the authority concerned for her transfer from Amroha to Gautam Buddha Nagar.
- Women were posted as a lecturer in Amroha district. She made a representation for her transfer to a college at Gautam Buddha Nagar. But it was rejected by the authority in September 2017.
- Her counsel argued in 2017 before the high court that she was working at Amroha for the last four years as well as the government policy.
Allahabad court verdict
- The high court noted that the order passed by the authority concerned showed that the women had remained posted at a college in Gautam Buddha Nagar for 13 years from the date of initial appointment in December 2000 to August 2013.
- Thus, women’s request for posting her again at the same institution was not justified.
- Court further noted that the petitioner was not entitled to be posted at a place where she had already worked for about 13 years.
- According to the court, if a woman has completed the requisite number of years at the place of her present posting, she can request her transfer to another place.
Stay tuned for more updates on CLAT Current Affairs and updates on CLAT preparation online.