Thursday, November 19, 2009

Indian government revises air quality norms

When Indian governments do not want to act, they make an act !!!
Anyway, so much, so good ! Here is the good news:

In a major move to check air pollution, the government on Wednesday revised its norms, putting in place uniform standards for residential and industrial areas. The new guidelines, which came after a gap of 15 years, have been prepared after considering those of the European Union. The norms of World Health Organisation has been considered.

The revised guidelines have added five more hazardous chemicals in the list of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for monitoring.

They are Ozone, Arsenic, Nickel, Benzene and Benzo(a)Pyrene (BaP).

The government had notified the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in 1994 under the Air Act.

The review of the NAAQS and inclusion of new parameters was carried out by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in collaboration with IIT-Kanpur, Ramesh said.

The revised standards will be applicable uniformly with the exception of stringent standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulphur Dioxide in the ecologically sensitive areas.

The previous standards for residential areas have been uniformly applied for fine particulate matter, carbon monoxide and ammonia.

More stringent limits for Lead, Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulphur Dioxide have been prescribed even for residential areas.

The CPCB will create a roadmap for the generation and maintenance of a database and monitoring of required infrastructure.

The government will also develop additional support system of enforcement such as National Environment Protection Authority and the National Green Tribunal to ensure effective enforcement of standards

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Constitution bench to decide if courts can frame laws: Supreme Court of India

Amidst wide spread corruption in polity, beurocracy and overall society, the judiciary is left as the last resort of the hapless law abiding citizens. Though not completely beyond doubts, it still carry substantial faith in the minds of people. This has put tremendous pressure on judiciary to to expand its gambit. Its been called to offer verdict on issues which have no reason to be brought inside courtrooms. Some of the judicial decisions in such context drew criticism and gave rise to the term 'judicial activism'.
This is an interesting on this issue. Apex court in its earlier decision had framed guidelines for election of students' unions in colleges and universities. This decision was being reviwed by a 2-judge bench. This bench rejected the argument of Solicitor General, who is amicus cureau in the matter, that such directions could be passed to meet pressing social needs. The bench referred the amtter to a five-judge Constitution bench on the crucial question as to whether courts can frame and implement laws which are under the exclusive domain of the legislature and the executive.

The bench said the issue needs to be examined by a Constitution bench as it involved "questions of grave Constitutional importance."

The issues to be examined by the Constitution Bench are--Whether the interim order of the apex court on 22nd September directing implementation of the Lyngdoh Committee report was valid,

Second, whether it amounted to judicial legislation.

Third, whether judiciary can legislate and, if so, what is the permissible limit.

And fourth, whether judiciary can cite pressing social problems to pass such judicial directions

- taken from www.ddinews.gov.in