Lawfully yours: By Retired Justice K Chandru | Pallikaranai marsh case: HC stay in force; NGT unlikely to admit a parallel petition

There are reports that the Tamil Nadu government has allegedly approved a private building project within the Pallikaranai marshland, a notified Ramsar site and ecologically protected wetland under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. If such an approval has indeed been issued, what legal remedies are available to concerned citizens or environmental groups to contest it? Would this constitute a violation of central environmental statutes or the constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment? What powers does the National Green Tribunal have to intervene or halt such projects pending inquiry?

-- S Venkat, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu

The Madras High Court is currently seized of the matter and has ordered a stay on any further developments at the site. The State Government’s position appears to be that the boundaries of the Ramsar site have not yet been formally demarcated, and that the proposed construction lies outside its limits. However, the High Court is likely to examine this defence closely before arriving at a decision.

While the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has jurisdiction over environmental issues of this nature and could, in principle, entertain a petition, it generally refrains from intervening when the same issue is already under active consideration by a constitutional court. Therefore, since the High Court is presently hearing this case, the NGT may not admit a parallel petition on identical grounds.

SC may spell out safeguards for lawyers’

confidentiality under new criminal laws

The recent instance of Gujarat police summoning an advocate to disclose details of his client’s alleged money-lending activities, citing provisions of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), has raised concerns. Although the Supreme Court stayed the summons, the Gujarat High Court’s approval of the process has sparked debate. Under the new criminal law regime, can advocates be compelled to reveal confidential client information in cases involving suspected fraud or criminal acts? To what extent do the BNSS or related statutes safeguard advocates’ professional privilege and duties of confidentiality?

— N Manoharan, Pallikaranai, Chennai

The Supreme Court has now taken suo motu cognisance of the issue arising from the Enforcement Directorate’s notice to senior advocate Arvind Datar. It has stayed the notice, which was based on Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam, 2023. The court has also directed that any arrest of a lawyer under these provisions must receive prior approval from the Superintendent of Police. Further, the Supreme Court has indicated that comprehensive guidelines will soon be issued to safeguard the professional independence and confidentiality obligations of advocates.

With these developments, the immediate risk of lawyers being compelled to disclose privileged client information or facing coercive action under the new criminal law framework appears significantly reduced.