Monday, April 07, 2025

 

Telangana: Mass Deforestation, Protests; SC Halts Reckless Tree Felling at Kancha Gachibowli


Sabrang India 


Public anger mounts as Telangana authorities bulldoze through Kancha Gachibowli’s tree cover, allegedly violating environmental norms and suppressing protests with detentions and police crackdowns; scrutiny by HC and SC to continue.

The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Kancha Gachibowli land dispute on April 3, 2025 has cast a harsh spotlight on the Telangana government’s aggressive push for urban development at the cost of environmental destruction. Taking suo-moto cognisance of the large-scale tree felling, the top court halted all activities in the 400-acre area and demanded answers from the state government. A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih found the extent of deforestation “alarming,” with images showing peacocks and deer fleeing as heavy machinery flattened the land. The court questioned the government’s urgency, lack of environmental clearances, and disregard for statutory forest land identification processes, warning that the state’s Chief Secretary would be held personally liable for non-compliance.

The Telangana government’s handling of the situation has been marked by opacity, brute force, and suppression of dissent. Despite the Hyderabad Central University’s historical claim over the land and the petitions pending to be heard by Constitutional Courts, the Congress-led administration bulldozed ahead with its plans, using police to clamp down on protests. Students and environmental activists were detained for attempting to join the agitation, while the government dismissed the outcry as “misinformation” and “political opportunism.” Meanwhile, the opposition BRS, led by K.T. Rama Rao, has accused Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s administration of hypocrisy, recalling Congress’s past stance on Aarey forest in Mumbai. Yet, even Congress’s student wing, NSUI, has taken a cautious approach, criticising the government’s failure to secure the land while stopping short of outright opposition.

The administration’s justifications—promises of Rs 50,000 crore in investments and five lakh jobs—fail to address the reckless environmental destruction underway. Officials insist that the land is not classified as forest, yet the Supreme Court’s observations suggest otherwise, raising concerns about procedural violations and potential contempt of court. The government’s relentless push for rapid development, without transparency or public consultation, has turned the issue into a flashpoint of governance failure. Now, with the highest court stepping in, the Telangana government finds itself cornered—forced to defend its actions in what has become a battle between unchecked urbanisation and judicial oversight.

Supreme Court proceedings on Kancha Gachibowli tree felling on April 3, 2025

Post-Lunch Developments: Expressing shock over the large-scale deforestation in the Kancha Gachibowli area of Hyderabad, the Supreme Court issued an immediate order halting all development activities in the region. The bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih, took suo-moto cognisance of the matter on the same day and directed that no activity, except measures to protect the remaining trees, should take place until further notice.

The court strongly emphasised compliance, warning that any violation of its directive would lead to the personal liability of the Chief Secretary of Telangana. To ensure transparency, the bench ordered the Chief Secretary to submit a detailed affidavit addressing the following concerns:

  1. What was the compelling urgency that necessitated the developmental activities, including large-scale tree removal, in the disputed area?
  2. Did the state government obtain the mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) certification before commencing the project?
  3. Were the requisite permissions from forest authorities or any other relevant local bodies obtained before felling the trees?
  4. What was the rationale behind including specific officers in the committee constituted by the Telangana government, particularly those who seemingly have no role in identifying forest areas?
  5. What is the state government’s plan for the felled trees?

Earlier in the day, the court had passed an interim order staying further tree felling and directed the Telangana High Court’s Registrar (Judicial) to conduct an on-site inspection and submit a report by 3:30 PM. When the case was resumed at 3:45 PM, the Supreme Court reviewed the report and found it to be deeply alarming. The inspection revealed that large-scale deforestation was underway, with heavy machinery such as JCBs being used to clear hundreds of acres. The court also noted images showing peacocks and deer fleeing from the destruction, suggesting that the area was an active habitat for wildlife.

Referring to its previous orders in the Ashok Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors case, the court emphasised on its March 4 directive that held state Chief Secretaries personally accountable for the failure to constitute statutory committees tasked with identifying forest lands. It also cited its February 3 order in the same case, which prohibited states from reducing forest cover without providing compensatory afforestation land. The court was particularly critical of the Telangana government’s actions, questioning why the deforestation was carried out with such urgency when the statutory process to determine forest land status had not even begun.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, representing the State of Telangana, argued before the Supreme Court that the disputed land did not fall under the category of forest. However, the bench remained unconvinced. Justice B.R. Gavai pointedly questioned whether the government had obtained the necessary permissions for tree felling, emphasising that the classification of the land was secondary to the legal requirements for environmental clearances.

Forest or not, did you secure the requisite approvals before cutting down the trees?” Justice Gavai asked, as per a report in LiveLaw, expressing dismay over the rapid deforestation. “Clearing 100 acres in just two to three days is alarming… We must remind you of a simple principle—no matter how powerful, no one is above the law.”

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing on behalf of certain intervenors, informed the bench that students protesting the destruction were being detained, highlighting the Telangana government’s heavy-handed approach in suppressing opposition to the project.

Morning proceedings and initial stay order: In the morning session, the Supreme Court had issued an interim order staying the tree-felling activities in Kancha Gachibowli, acting on an urgent oral mention by Senior Advocate K. Paremeshwar, the amicus curiae in the broader forest conservation case (TN Godavarman matter).

The bench took cognisance of media reports highlighting rapid deforestation over the extended weekend, suggesting that authorities had deliberately accelerated the process to avoid public scrutiny. The reports further indicated that the forest area housed at least eight species of scheduled wildlife. Concerned by these developments, the court ordered an immediate site inspection by the Telangana High Court’s Registrar (Judicial), directing that an interim report be submitted by 3:30 PM on the same day.

The directive was communicated to the Telangana High Court’s Registrar (Judicial) by the Supreme Court’s Registrar (Judicial) to ensure prompt compliance. Additionally, the court instructed the Chief Secretary of Telangana to prevent any further tree felling until further orders were issued.

As per Live Law, the order was dictated as follows:

“News reports indicate extensive deforestation is taking place in the Kancha Gachibowli forest. A vast number of trees are reportedly being felled, and it appears that authorities have taken advantage of the long weekend to expedite the destruction. Reports also suggest that the area is home to multiple scheduled wildlife species. We direct the Registrar (Judicial) of the Telangana High Court to conduct an immediate site visit and submit an interim report by 3:30 PM today. The Registrar (Judicial) of this court is directed to communicate this order forthwith. Furthermore, the Chief Secretary of Telangana shall ensure that no further tree felling is permitted in Kancha Gachibowli until this court issues further directions.”

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Telangana government, informed the court that the Telangana High Court was also hearing a related matter. In response, the Supreme Court clarified that while it was taking suo-moto cognisance of the issue, it had not placed any restrictions on the proceedings before the High Court.

The Supreme Court’s strong intervention signals its deep concern over environmental degradation and the failure of state authorities to adhere to legal and procedural safeguards before undertaking large-scale deforestation. The matter is expected to be closely monitored in the coming days.

Telangana High Court proceedings on Kancha Gachibowli forest case

Hearing on April 3, 2025: On Thursday, the Telangana High Court extended its interim order directing a status quo concerning the large-scale felling of trees in the Kancha Gachibowli forest area, located near the Hyderabad Central University (HCU) campus. The bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, also granted the State government time until April 7, 2025 to submit its counter affidavit in the matter. The court’s intervention followed an earlier directive issued on April 2, wherein it had explicitly restrained the State from taking any coercive steps until further deliberations. During the said hearing, the court was informed that the Supreme Court had also taken cognisance of the matter earlier in the day and had required for a site inspection to take place.

Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Telangana government, argued that the Supreme Court’s directive requiring a site inspection should not be misinterpreted as a restriction on the High Court’s jurisdiction to proceed with the case. He contended that the land in question had been subject to litigation for decades, yet no claims or legal documents had ever categorised it as a forest. According to him, the absence of such claims over the last 30 years underscored that the area was never formally recognised as forest land. Singhvi further claimed that several institutions in the vicinity, including a botanical garden and a golf course, demonstrated the region’s long-standing allocation for non-forest purposes. He insisted that the land had been assigned to a private entity nearly 20 years ago, and the State’s actions were in line with established policies.

In response, Senior Advocate S. Niranjan Reddy, appearing for the Vata Foundation, strongly refuted the State’s assertions. He informed the court that despite the Supreme Court’s order staying tree felling, the destruction had continued until Thursday morning. Reddy submitted an interim application (IA) containing newspaper reports and timestamped photographic evidence substantiating his claim. Additionally, he alerted the court to alleged police repression, revealing that a student who had been documenting the tree felling through video recordings was detained at a local police station. Reddy emphasised that the petitioners were now shielded by the Supreme Court’s intervention but urged the High Court to scrutinise the State’s conduct in its upcoming hearing on April 7.

Another counsel representing a student union underscored the alarming pattern of police atrocities against students peacefully protesting the destruction. He further argued that the land in question belonged to the University of Hyderabad, strengthening the case against its allocation for commercial IT development. Acknowledging these submissions, the High Court directed the State’s legal representatives to formally respond to these serious allegations and scheduled the matter for further hearing on April 7.

The High Court’s order summarised the joint submission made by Senior Advocate Singhvi and the Advocate General, wherein they requested that the matter be heard on April 7 to allow the State sufficient time to file a counter affidavit. The court recorded that the petitioners had no objection to this timeline, provided that the interim relief against tree felling remained in place. Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy reiterated that since the Supreme Court had already imposed a stay, the High Court should simply proceed with the scheduled hearing on April 7. The court accepted these arguments and directed the State to file its response to all interim applications submitted by the petitioners.

Hearing on April 2, 2025: On Wednesday, the Telangana High Court had imposed a temporary stay on the felling of trees in the disputed Kancha Gachibowli land. The matter was heard following an urgent plea against the Telangana government’s issuance of a Government Order (GO) that sought to alienate 400 acres of green cover for the development of IT infrastructure.

The matter arose from a petition filed by the environmental non-profit Vata Foundation, which challenged a contentious government order facilitating the alienation of 400 acres of green land in the region for IT infrastructure development. The petitioners argued that the GO violated the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and demanded that all government actions undertaken pursuant to the order be annulled. They further urged the court to designate the land as a ‘National Park.’ Additionally, the court heard a similar Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by retired scientist Kalapala Babu Rao, who sought equivalent relief.

The Vata Foundation’s plea asserted that the land, which had remained untouched for centuries, was home to 237 bird species, spotted deer, wild boars, star tortoises, snakes, and ancient rock formations and lakes. The petitioners contended that the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC), which acquired the land in 2012, issued the GO in 2024 intending to divert the land for commercial purposes. The rapid deforestation prompted the petitioners to approach the High Court, highlighting that the area also encompassed land belonging to the University of Hyderabad, which needed urgent protection.

The court had originally scheduled the matter for April 7 but was forced to intervene earlier after the petitioners reported that 40 JCB machines had been deployed for large-scale tree felling. Following urgent lunch motion requests, the High Court took up the matter on April 2 and imposed a stay.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate L. Ravichander, appearing for the petitioner Kalapala Babu Rao, highlighted the blatant disregard for judicial precedents by the Telangana government. He pointed out that the government’s actions flouted two crucial Supreme Court judgments—T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Others—which mandated the identification and preservation of forests, including areas not officially designated as such but qualifying under the dictionary definition. He further argued that the region’s unique rock formations, estimated to be nearly 2 billion years old, harboured rare flora and exotic bird species that warranted urgent protection.

Conversely, the State’s Advocate General A. Sudharshan Reddy dismissed the petitioners’ case as being based solely on “Google images” rather than official records. He argued that the government held clear revenue records indicating that the land had always been designated for industrial use. Attempting to trivialise the issue, he remarked that if the presence of peacocks, mongooses, and snakes were to determine forest status, then large parts of Hyderabad, including the city’s golf course, should also be declared forests. The High Court, however, refused to accept this line of reasoning and reiterated the need for a thorough examination of the matter.

Union government’s intervention

The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change officially intervened in the contentious clearing of 400 acres of forest land in Kancha Gachibowli, Hyderabad, which has been earmarked for auction by the Telangana government. Expressing serious concern over the alleged large-scale deforestation and environmental damage, the ministry has demanded an immediate factual report from the State government regarding the ongoing developments on April 2, 2025.

In a formal communication addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary (Forests) of Telangana on Wednesday, Assistant Inspector General of Forests S. Sundar stated that the ministry had been alerted to reports of “illegal felling and removal of vegetation” in the Kancha Gachibowli area. The Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (TGIIC), the entity responsible for the land’s auction, was identified as carrying out these activities. The letter noted that widespread news coverage in both print and digital media had highlighted concerns over ecological destruction, particularly regarding harm to the region’s wildlife, water bodies, and distinctive rock formations.

Further amplifying the gravity of the situation, the letter revealed that the Union Minister for Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Bhupender Yadav, had received multiple representations from Members of Parliament and various public representatives, urging immediate action to prevent irreversible environmental damage.

In light of these alarming concerns, the ministry directed the Telangana government to submit a detailed factual report on the matter without delay. Additionally, the State was instructed to initiate legal proceedings as per the relevant statutes, including the Indian Forest Act, the Wildlife Protection Act, and the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, among other applicable laws. The letter also stressed the necessity of ensuring strict adherence to judicial directives issued by courts and tribunals concerning forest conservation and land protection.

Reacting to the Union’s intervention, Union Minister for Coal and Mines G. Kishan Reddy publicly expressed his gratitude to Bhupender Yadav for taking decisive action in the matter. Reddy emphasised that the Union’s response was a crucial step towards ensuring governmental accountability, preventing further environmental degradation, and safeguarding the region’s green cover. He further remarked that the intervention would help ensure that all actions related to the disputed land remain within legal boundaries and undergo the necessary scrutiny through proper consultation processes.

Environmental devastation and rising concerns

Student groups and environmental activists have warned that the destruction of the Kancha Gachibowli Forest will have dire ecological consequences. Researcher Arun Vasireddy, in a report on the area’s environmental significance, highlighted that deforestation in Kancha Gachibowli Forest could lead to a rise in local temperatures by 1 to 4 degrees Celsius, worsening heat conditions in the Gachibowli region. As Hyderabad’s IT corridor continues to expand, activists argue that the loss of such a crucial green space will further degrade air quality, threaten biodiversity, and contribute to climate instability.

Despite mounting protests, the state government has shown little willingness to engage with environmental concerns, opting instead for heavy-handed police action against students and journalists alike.

Congress government’s crackdown on student protest at University of Hyderabad

The University of Hyderabad (UoH) has erupted in protest as students launched an indefinite boycott of classes, condemning the Telangana government’s decision to auction 400 acres of Kancha Gachibowli through the TGIIC for the development of an IT park. The protests gained momentum amid allegations of state overreach, police repression, and environmental destruction.

According to Akash Kumar, vice president of the UoH Students’ Union, students are being forcibly restricted within the campus premises by the police, preventing them from taking their protest to the streets. “The ongoing deforestation by TGIIC is leading to irreversible ecological damage. Kancha Gachibowli is home to diverse flora and fauna, and we demand an immediate halt to these reckless land-clearing activities. We have launched an indefinite strike today and will continue until the deforestation stops,” Kumar stated while conversing with reporters of The Hindustan Times. He further demanded the removal of the heavy police presence and the more than 50 earthmoving machines that have been systematically razing down the land.

Protesting students emphasised that Kancha Gachibowli is not merely an empty piece of land but an ecological hotspot that harbours over 734 plant species, 220 bird species, and vulnerable wildlife, including the Indian Star Tortoise. The land’s unique rock formations and lakes contribute to the biodiversity of the region, and its destruction for an IT park is seen as an act of environmental vandalism.

Despite widespread public outrage, TGIIC has persisted with the clearing activities since Sunday. The Telangana police, on the other hand, attempted to whitewash their role by releasing a statement on Monday denying the use of force. According to their version, students were not subjected to lathi charges but had instead “attacked officials and workers with sticks and stones.” On Monday and Tuesday, the state police detained 55 students in what has been described as a preventive measure, later releasing 53 of them. However, as per Telangana Today, two students—B. Rohit Kumar and Erram Naveen Kumar—were arrested and remanded to judicial custody, having been booked under multiple sections related to criminal trespassing and rioting.

Escalation of State Repression: Police brutality and arbitrary detentions

As protests entered their fourth consecutive day on April 2, 2025, the situation on campus turned increasingly tense. Students and faculty members, led by the University of Hyderabad Teachers’ Association and the Joint Action Committee, intensified their agitation, rallying inside the campus and condemning both the government’s actions and the university administration’s inaction. However, in a move reminiscent of authoritarian crackdowns on student movements, the state responded with force.

On Tuesday, police had resorted to lathi charges as demonstrators attempted to march towards the main gate. Several students sustained injuries as scuffles broke out at the East Campus, further fuelling resentment against the state’s heavy-handed tactics. Videos circulating on social media show police officers beating students and forcibly dragging them away, despite peaceful protest being a fundamental democratic right.

NSUI-HCU General Secretary Prabhakar Singh spoke to the media and lambasted the university administration for what he called “facilitating” police brutality. “The administration has completely failed us. They enabled the police to enter the campus and allowed JCB machines to continue their destruction. They have not even disclosed the details of the executive council meeting held on March 20, which would have clarified their stance on the land issue,” he said.

The demonstrations have united an unusual mix of political and student groups. Left-wing and Dalit-Bahujan student organisations, along with the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the BJP’s student wing, are all opposing the auction. Student unions from institutions such as Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and Osmania University have also extended their support. Meanwhile, the Congress’s student wing, the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), has taken a more neutral stance, criticising the university’s failure to protect the land while advocating for discussions on securing its ownership.

A Legacy of Encroachments: The larger struggle for campus land

For many within the university community, this battle is not just about the 400 acres at Kancha Gachibowli but about a continued history of state encroachments on university land. Over the years, multiple projects have chipped away at the university’s territory, including the establishment of the IIIT campus, Gachibowli Stadium, a bus depot, a power station, a school, and even a shooting range. “The state has systematically grabbed land from the university for years. Now, this last remaining stretch, which we consider part of our campus, is also being taken away,” said a protesting student, as per the Hindustan Times.

The faculty and students fear that if this land is lost, the university’s expansion will be severely hampered, undermining its status as an Institution of Eminence. More importantly, they stress that the encroachment of green spaces in favour of commercial ventures sets a dangerous precedent, where corporate interests are prioritised over public welfare and environmental sustainability.

While the Telangana government continues to claim sole ownership of the 400-acre land, its narrative has been met with stiff resistance. The state maintains that a survey conducted on July 19, 2024, in the presence of university officials, confirmed that the University of Hyderabad holds no legal claim to the land. However, the university administration has refuted these claims, stating that no such survey ever took place. The institution insists that it has been repeatedly requesting the state for proper demarcation, only to be ignored.

Regardless of the state’s legal claims, protesting students claim that the issue at hand is not mere ownership but environmental conservation and academic autonomy. The land is an irreplaceable green lung for Hyderabad’s IT corridor and must be preserved rather than handed over to corporate interests.

As the protests persist, students remain resolute in their demands: immediate withdrawal of police forces and bulldozers from the campus vicinity, a written assurance from the university administration that it will fight for the land’s legal registration under its name, and transparency in land-related documents and executive decisions.

Journalist detained amid crackdown on protest coverage

Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) working president K.T. Rama Rao has strongly criticised the Congress-led Telangana government for allegedly detaining a journalist covering the ongoing student protests at the University of Hyderabad. KTR condemned the police action, describing it as an excessive use of state power to silence dissent. He accused the government of suppressing press freedom and stifling critical voices. “The draconian police overreach in Telangana is alarming! Journalists are being detained & dissenting voices arrested. This blatant suppression of free speech & expression is unacceptable. And Rahul Gandhi goes to town preaching about democracy and free speech The double standards is beyond sickening.,” he stated in a post on X (formerly Twitter).

The detained journalist, identified as Sumit, was documenting the arrests of students protesting the destruction of greenery on the university campus. He later posted a video on social media showing his detention by the police, sparking outrage among press freedom advocates. BRS spokesperson Krishank also slammed the Congress government, arguing that arresting a journalist for doing their job was an attack on the fundamental role of the media in a democracy.

Political opposition intensifies

Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) working president and former Telangana minister K.T. Rama Rao has called on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to intervene in the ongoing land dispute at the University of Hyderabad. Citing Gandhi’s past opposition to the destruction of Mumbai’s Aarey forest, KTR questioned the Congress’s silence on deforestation in Telangana.

Amidst growing tensions, Telangana police on April 1 had detained several BJP leaders, including MLAs Payal Shankar and Dhanpal Suryanarayana Gupta, as they attempted to join student protests at the university. The BJP has escalated the matter at the national level, with Telangana BJP president G. Kishan Reddy, Union Minister Bandi Sanjay, and BJP MPs meeting Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan in Delhi to seek his intervention.

KTR, in a series of posts on X, accused the Congress-led state government of suppressing student voices, harming the environment, and even displacing wildlife. He alleged that police were preventing BRS leaders, including himself, from visiting the protest site. Drawing a comparison, he recalled how Rahul Gandhi was given full security and access when he visited Hyderabad Central University twice during K. Chandrashekar Rao’s tenure to support justice for Rohith Vemula. “Why this hypocrisy, Rahul Ji? What is your government trying to hide from the world?” KTR asked.

There have been no social media posts from senior Congress leaders regarding the issue. Leaders such as Rahul Gandhi, Jairam Ramesh, and Priyanka Gandhi have not made any public statements about the protests, arrests, detentions, or the deforestation.

Telangana government defends land auction and development plans

Despite the mounting opposition, the Telangana government is pushing ahead with its plans. Heavy machinery has been deployed to level the land, removing trees and shrubbery over the past few days. Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy has defended the project, arguing that developing the 400-acre site will spur economic growth, attract investments worth ₹50,000 crore, and generate five lakh jobs. He dismissed opposition leaders as “cunning foxes” attempting to obstruct progress.

On March 31, Telangana’s Revenue Minister Ponguleti Srinivas Reddy had asserted that the state holds full legal ownership of the land. “We took possession of this land after winning legal battles in both the high court and the Supreme Court. Not a single inch belongs to Hyderabad Central University. Any attempt to dispute this is contempt of court,” he declared.

Deputy Chief Minister Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka, an alumnus of the university, clarified that HCU had long assumed the land was under its jurisdiction. He explained that when the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) government allocated 400 acres to a private firm in the past, an alternative 397-acre plot in Gopanpally was provided to the university in exchange.

Accompanied by fellow HCU alumnus and IT Minister Sridhar Babu, Bhatti presented evidence of agreements signed between the university’s former registrar and state revenue officials. Sridhar Babu assured that the auction and development would not harm the ecosystem, including landmarks like Peacock Lake and Mushroom Rock, and that students would continue to have access to these sites.

The ministers also accused opposition parties, particularly the BRS, of spreading misinformation by using old images—such as pictures of a dead deer—to mislead students. TGIIC and Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) officials stated that revenue records confirm the 400-acre plot is not classified as forest land, countering BJP claims that it falls under a protected zone. Officials further revealed that a survey was conducted in July 2024 with the consent of the university registrar, and boundary demarcations were finalised in the presence of university and government officials.

Background: The 400-acre land dispute at Hyderabad University

The 400-acre land parcel at the centre of the controversy is part of the approximately 2,500 acres originally allocated to the University of Hyderabad (Hyderabad Central University) when it was established through an Act of Parliament in 1974. The undivided Andhra Pradesh government had granted this land, which was then a remote area about 20 km from Hyderabad’s city centre. Over the years, with the expansion of Hyderabad’s financial district, the land has become highly valuable, particularly due to the growth of the IT sector and corporate developments.

Located in survey number 25 of Kanche Gachibowli village, Serilingampally mandal, Ranga Reddy district, the land is now surrounded by key institutions, including the university, the International Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), the Indian School of Business (ISB), and major technology campuses such as Microsoft.

In January 2004, following the successful hosting of the 2003 Afro-Asian Games at the nearby Gachibowli sports complex, the then Chandrababu Naidu-led government allotted these 400 acres to IMG Academies Bharat Private Limited for the development of sports facilities. However, the project never took off, leading to the cancellation of the allotment in November 2006 by Naidu’s successor, Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy. The land was subsequently transferred to the state’s youth advancement, tourism, and culture department.

IMG challenged the cancellation in court, resulting in a prolonged legal battle that lasted nearly two decades. When the Revanth Reddy-led government came to power in December 2023, it pursued the case aggressively. In March 2024, the Telangana High Court ruled in favour of the state government. IMG then appealed to the Supreme Court, but the petition was dismissed in May 2024. Following the court’s decision, the Telangana government formally took possession of the land.

In June 2024, the TGIIC submitted a proposal to utilise the 400-acre plot for IT and commercial projects. Subsequently, on July 1, 2024, the revenue department officially transferred the land to TGIIC, paving the way for its auction and development.

Courtesy: Sabrang India

 

Infosys’s Termination of 600 Professionals Betrays Promise of NATS, NAPS


Rohit Mani Tiwari 



The Karnataka Labour Department’s February 2025 inquiry report concluding that Infosys acted within the Apprenticeship Act and National Apprenticeship training scheme is flawed.

It giant infosys has terminated around 600 young professionals (‘YPs’) in the last few months after they failed to succeed thrice in its ‘internal assessment’. These YPs have cried foul regarding what they call “unjust terminations” and have approached the Central Ministry of Labour to intervene to reinstate their jobs and restore labour justice. 

As IT Industry constitutes a State subject under Schedule VII of the Constitution, the Labour Department of Karnataka was directed to investigate the matter and come up with a detailed report. In its recent report, published in February 2025, it found that “Infosys did not violate any employment laws and acted within Apprenticeship Act and National Apprenticeship Training Scheme (‘NATS’).” The Labour Department also found merit in the argument by Infosys that ‘these professionals were merely ‘apprentices’ and not ‘employee’ hired under the relevant scheme. It noted that to hire them on ‘stipend’ and fire them by ‘test’ was completely legal and they had no right to continue with the employment.

While this argument may seem clinical, delving into this exposes very grave and disconcerting questions surrounding youth employability, our education system and human development of demographic dividend. 

The Labour Department also found merit in the argument by Infosys that ‘these professionals were merely ‘apprentices’ and not ‘employee’ hired under the relevant scheme.

In 2016, PM Kaushal Vikas Yojana (‘PMKVY’) was launched to complement and strengthen the somnolent Apprenticeship Act, 1961. It was conceptualised to attain firstly, the goal of providing accelerations to employment of ‘apprentices’ in industries and secondly, to share the burden with the industries for this national skill building mission. 

The importance of ‘on-job training’ and ‘real life organizational experience’ were focussed upon for the first time under the National Apprenticeship Promotion Scheme and NATS. NATS was to operate within the legal framework of the Apprentice Act. For example, the Apprentice Act provides that “graduate or technician apprentice" means an apprentice who holds, or is undergoing training in order that he may hold a degree or diploma in engineering or non-engineering.” 

This provision pre-supposes that “only those students” are to be considered for any apprenticeship contract who do not have ‘practical experience’ of classroom learning. Though the Act does not explicitly exclude B-Tech and MBA graduates from its domain, their inclusion shall raise many more substantial questions that I would discuss later. 

Questions can also be raised regarding whether  Infosys systematically and mischievously devised an ‘ad-hoc’ employment arrangement to get its ‘work done and project completed’ with the aid of government schemes, all without incurring any responsibility to be considerate about the aspirations and morale of these young professionals. 

In Infosys’s case, these ‘apprentices’ had already completed their professional course and undergone the ‘internship program’ with the same IT companies during which time these IT Companies had ample opportunity to teach them valuable skills and experience of organisational life. The re-hiring of B.Tech graduates from different channels by the same IT Companies is quite questionable. 

Another crucial aspect that was highlighted during the Karnataka Labour Department’s inquiry is that “there was no employer-employee relationship”. This finding is also under the cloud as the Apprentice Act uses two crucial words: ‘person’ to refer to ‘apprentice’ and ‘employer’ to refer to ‘any person who employs one or more other persons to do any work in an establishment for remuneration’. The Act does not define ‘remuneration’ although ‘stipends’ is also specie of remuneration. So strictly speaking, there is an employer and employee relationship between Infosys and these ‘engineering graduates’.

Finally, we must consider the ‘system of evaluation’ that Infosys deployed to weed out ‘non-performers’ and future of such weeded out ‘youths’. One must ask how  the Indian education system, particularly the All India Council for Technical Education that supervises the quality and status of technical education such as the B.Tech degree, where a youth spends almost half a decade in learning and skilling and then undergo months of ‘apprenticeship program’ under Infosys, could not produce ‘talents’ capable of passing the ‘internal assessment’. 

Questions can also be raised regarding whether  Infosys systematically and mischievously devised an ‘ad-hoc’ employment arrangement to get its ‘work done and project completed’ with the aid of government schemes, all without incurring any responsibility to be considerate about the aspirations and morale of these young professionals. 

Are repetitive tests spaced out in such short durations a viable mechanism before dismissing candidates as ‘unworthy’? Theories of learning emphasise that it requires a reasonable interval of time to absorb new information and put them to application.  

What shall become of the the self and emotional health of these young professionals who have been branded so brazenly as ‘flunked’ and showed the door out? What about their future employment where their past credentials would be checked by the human resources departments of their prospective employees and how would would they cope with branding of this stigma of being 

Such predatory practices contradict the intent and skill development framework that was aspired for when the NAPS and NATS were conceived.

Dr. Rohit Mani Tiwari is currently employed as Regional Labour Commissioner, Trivandrum.

Courtesy: Leaflet


Why is South Sudan on Brink of Civil War Again?



Pavan Kulkarni 




The world’s youngest republic, and one of its poorest, is on the brink of returning to a civil war as its unelected state leaders prepare for another armed showdown.

With 57% of the population facing acute food insecurity, 2.1 million children at the risk of malnutrition, and 63,000 people on the brink of famine, “South Sudan cannot afford another war,” the UN World Food Program (WFP) warned on Monday, March 31.

Among the world’s poorest nations, the oil-rich East African country is the youngest republic, established in 2011 with the backing of the US and its allies, seceding from Sudan after one of the longest civil wars in modern history.

Barely three years later, the infant republic was hurled into a civil war in late 2013 as the internal power struggle between its President Salva Kiir and Vice-President Riek Machar escalated into violence, killing hundreds of thousands and displacing over a third of the population.

The peace agreement the two unelected leaders had reached in 2018 to share power collapsed last month.

Fighting began in mid-February in the northeastern border state of Upper Nile between the national army, known as the South Sudan People’s Defense Forces (SSPDF), and the Nuer White Army. It is a militia allied with Machar’s Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO).

By late March, clashes were also reported just outside the country’s capital Juba, between the SSPDF and the opposition’s official armed wing, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army-in-opposition (SPLA-IO). Amid this escalation, the military intelligence and the presidential guard placed its leader Machar under house arrest last week.

Hoping to pull South Sudan back from the brink of another civil war, the African Union (AU) Commission’s “Panel of the Wise” – composed of former regional state leaders and jurists – is in the country from April 2 to 6 to meet Kiir and Machar.

Following a meeting with Kiir on April 2, Head of the Panel, Domitien Ndayizeye, former president of Burundi, said that the government “assured us of their willingness to implement” the 2018 agreement.

It remains to be seen whether the panel will also be able to meet Machar. An earlier delegation of the East African eight member-states bloc, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), led by Kenya’s former PM Raila Odinga, was denied access to meet Machar.

Kiir’s government maintains that Machar is under investigation for allegedly ordering the armed groups allied with him to attack the national army, known as the South Sudan People’s Defense Forces (SSPDF).

Citing “arrests and detention” of several leaders of the Machar-led SPLM-IO, leaders of this armed opposition did not meet the Panel. Calling for the release of Machar, the opposition demanded that the Panel meet him directly and hold negotiations in a neutral territory.

Split in the secessionist movement

Both Kiir and Machar were senior commanders in the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), the armed wing of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), which had fought the war to secede from Sudan under its founder, John Garang.

Fought between the largely Muslim, Arabic-speaking north and the majority Christian south, speaking African languages, the war claimed two million lives, mainly in the south, due to violence, famine, and disease outbreaks.

While Garang sought autonomy, both Kiir and Machar differed with him, demanding independence instead. However, this common difference with Garang did not unify them. Even as both were fighting the government of the then undivided Sudan, Machar received its support to break away from Garang’s SPLM in 1991 to form an opposition SPLM-Nasir faction.

The Nuer White Army, a militia affiliated with it, committed a massacre in the city of Bor that year, targeting the Dinka ethnic group from which both Garang and Kiir hailed. Retaliatory attacks followed on Machar’s Nuer ethnic community, setting the stage for the ethnic strife that continues to date.

Putting a halt to this infighting as the war with the Sudanese government escalated, Machar rejoined Garang’s SPLM in 2002, ahead of the peace deal in 2005, stopping the guns after 22 years. Garang died soon after, leaving Kiir and Machar as its top leaders.

They respectively went on to become the president and vice president of South Sudan after it was established as an independent republic in 2011 following a referendum. However, independence did not bring peace. As tension continued to simmer between its top two leaders, Kiir sacked his cabinet, including Machar, in mid-2013.

And so, later that year, the recently-formed republic was hurled into a civil war less than three years after its founding. Following clashes in Juba in December 2013 when the military headquarters was attacked, Kiir accused Machar of plotting a coup. The armed forces loyal to Kiir killed hundreds of ethnic Nuer men in Juba for their perceived loyalty to Machar.

Denying that he plotted a coup, Machar once again split from the SPLM, forming the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO).

A modern ethnic conflict

Its affiliate, the Nuer White Army, committed mass killings and acts of rape against the Dinka ethnic community in the cities of Bor, Malakal, and Bentiu.

Dinka is the largest ethnic group in South Sudan, and Nuer is the second largest. These ethnic identities were traditionally fluid, with widespread intermarriage and cross-migration into each other’s communities.

Rigidified by the colonial administration, as in the case of many other parts of Africa, these identities were weaponized subsequently for the internal power struggles in the postcolonial state, pitting the two communities against each other. The civil war claimed about 400,000 lives and displaced 4 million, over a third of the country’s population.

This fighting lasted for almost five years, with only brief interruptions by multiple ceasefires that failed to hold, until a power-sharing agreement was finally reached between Kiir and Machar in 2018 – known officially as the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS).

They formed a “unity government” in February 2020, in which Kiir retained the presidency. Machar was appointed the first vice-president, along with four other vice presidents from different rebel groups the SPLM had splintered into.

No election in sight

The R-ARCSS had provided a 36-month transitional period for this government to integrate the armed opposition into a unified national army and hold elections by December 2022. However, that August, the signatories postponed the election to December 2024, and again to December 2026.

Now, on the brink of another civil war, uncertainty looms over the new election date. Little progress has been made toward integrating the armed opposition into a unified national army.

Tensions escalated with the redeployment of the SSPDF to the military barracks in the city Nasir in the Upper Nile, a stronghold of Machar where he had set up a parallel government by the time of the peace agreement in 2018.

The White army attacked the SSPDF troops, resulting in clashes killing several on February 14 and 15, including the soldiers and civilians. Fighting escalated later that month.

On Machar’s request, Kiir convened a meeting to de-escalate the hostilities on March 3. “The meeting was cordial…and fruitful. It came out with resolutions, inter alia, that the White Army should withdraw to their villages and allow the SSPDF in the boats to proceed to Nasir as planned,” according to Information Minister and government spokesperson, Michael Makuei.

In the meeting, the leadership of the SPLM/A-IO “distanced itself from the White Army but nevertheless promised to talk to the White Army, which they did, but instead gave them the green light to proceed and attack the garrison.” On March 4, the garrison was overrun. Soldiers who had escaped from the garrison had taken refuge in different villages.

UN helicopter attacked

The UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) was assured a safe passage to extract the soldiers from the region to de-escalate the fighting. However, on March 7, the White Army attacked the UN helicopter, killing one of its crew members and the 28 SSPDF troops it had flown to evacuate, including Major General Majur Dak.

“The attack on UNMISS personnel is utterly abhorrent and may constitute a war crime under international law,” said the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of UNMISS, Nicholas Haysom, protesting the violation of the safe passage it had been assured.

After attacks on soldiers spread to several other towns and cities in Upper Nile, Kiir’s government sought help from the Ugandan army, with whose assistance the SSPDF carried out airstrikes from March 15 to 17, allegedly killing 21 civilians, including a woman and a child.

Civilians on target

“Any civilian who is in the military zone and refusing to leave… will be treated accordingly,” the Minister of Information and the government spokesperson, Michael Makuei, said in a press conference on March 17. “We don’t want later people to come and say the government is killing the civilians; meanwhile, the civilians have killed the army.”

That day, the SPLM/A-IO announced its withdrawal from the political and security mechanisms envisaged in the 2018 peace agreement, protesting the government’s detention of over two dozen of its leaders, including MPs, military officers, and ministers.

Clashes hitherto limited to the border states of Upper Nile on the northeastern border and Western Equatoria in the southwest were expanding into southern Central Equatoria state, reaching the outskirts of the capital Juba.

On the morning of March 24, the SSPDF said that its troops who had set out on a recce from the military base in Nyamuni had to retreat to avoid confrontation with another recce by the SPLA-IO forces from the nearby Wunliet cantonment site in a combat-ready formation.

Accusing them of coming too close to the base and making hostile maneuvers over the last four days, the SSPDF shelled the cantonment in Wunliet, less than 30 km west of Juba. To its south, the SPLA-IO’s training center in Rajab was also attacked two days later, on March 26. Security personnel detained Machar that day, placing him under house arrest on the accusation of ordering attacks on the SSPDF.

“We call on President Kiir to reverse this action and to prevent further escalation. We note that First Vice President Machar’s position in the government is established under… the 2018 Peace Agreement,” read a joint statement issued from Juba on March 27 by the diplomats from the US, Britain, Netherlands, Norway, France, Germany, and the European Union.

His arrest “brings the [peace] Agreement to a collapse; thus, the prospect for Peace and Stability in South Sudan has now been put into serious jeopardy,” said Oyet Perieno, the deputy chairman of the SPLM-IO and the first deputy speaker of the national parliament. “Consequently, we would like to declare that…the R-ARCSS 2018 has been abrogated.”

A bulk of the SPLA-IO combatants have moved out of their training centers where they had been awaiting integration into the army. Reassuring them that their integration into the army as promised in the 2018 agreement will be implemented, Information Minister Makuei urged, during a press conference on March 28, “Please come back to the cantonment site… We will not question you.”

Nevertheless, mistrust remains high on both sides. “All the dark clouds of a perfect storm have descended upon the people of the world’s newest country – and one of the poorest,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned on March 28. “What we are seeing is darkly reminiscent” of the civil war between 2013 and 2018, “which killed 400,000 people.”

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch

Verified no more

Published April 5, 2025
DAWN



The writer is the founder of Media Matters for Democracy.



THE air in the room was thick. Zelensky and Trump sat side by side, their discomfort barely hidden. It was their first meeting since Trump’s return, with Ukraine still deep in war.

“Why don’t you wear a suit?” a reporter asked. “A lot of Americans have a problem with you disrespecting the dignity of this office.” The question wasn’t just absurd, it seemed to be a dog-whistle dressed as decorum. Seconds later, as if the cue had been given, Vice President J.D. Vance launched into a tirade about arrogance and ingratitude.

But more striking than the question was the man who asked it: Brian Glenn, a conservative media figure and chief White House correspondent for Real America’s Voice, a platform that thrives on conspiracy theories, partisan spin, and uncritical loyalty to Donald Trump. Glenn is also the partner of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia who is known for promoting a wide range of conspiracy theories, from QAnon to Pizzagate, the latter a dangerous lie that led to a public shooting.

So the real question is not about Zelensky’s attire. It is about how a fringe media figure like Brian Glenn found himself in the Oval Office during one of the most critical press briefings in recent memory.


The answer stretches back to Trump’s first term, when his then adviser Kellyanne Conway defended a series of falsehoods from the White House podium by calling them “alternative facts”, hinting at laying the foundation of a media landscape where loyalty matters more than accuracy.

It also explains why the Associated Press, one of the world’s most respected news agencies, was kept out of this rather critical presser, reportedly as punishment for refusing to adopt the administration’s preferred terminology for the Gulf of Mexico.

Across governments and tech platforms, we are witnessing a reordering of who gets to define truth.

The sidelining of the Associated Press isn’t just an editorial choice, it seems to be part of a deeper, more deliberate shift. Across both governments and tech platforms, we are witnessing a steady reordering of who gets to define truth. Traditional journalism is being pushed out of the room, and in its place, a new ecosystem is being built, one that is far more comfortable with partisan spin, ideological loyalty, and outright misinformation.

‘Big Tech’ seems to be at the centre of this transformation. Just days before the Zelensky-Trump presser, Meta announced it was ending key parts of its third-party fact-checking programme and rolling out community moderation tools that mimic the model introduced by X. Branded as ‘Community Notes’, the strategy seemingly hand over the task of verifying information to platform users, allowing them to annotate or challenge posts based on majority consensus.

But consensus is not the same as truth. In politically polarised environments, these systems are easily manipulated by coordinated campaigns, allowing disinformation to be reframed as opinion, and opinion to be passed off as fact. These systems claim to democratise information, but in practice they do the opposite. They strip away the professional guardrails and hand control to crowds that are often unaccountable and easy to manipulate.

Interestingly, Meta justifies the termination of fact-checking by saying it doesn’t want to be the arbiter of truth. But it’s not neutrality, it’s abandonment. For years, Meta partnered with professional fact-checkers, acknowledged its role in slowing the spread of falsehoods, and presented itself as a responsible actor in the fight against disinformation. To now claim it has no business determining what’s true is not a change in principle, it’s a convenient retreat from responsibility.

The truth is, Meta has always been an arbiter of information. Its algorithms decide what billions of people see, share, and believe. Replacing trained fact-checkers with vague community moderation tools does not remove the power to shape truth; it simply hands it to the loudest, most organised, and most resource-packed voices. In doing so, Meta avoids liability, escapes political scrutiny, and continues to profit from a system where misinformation travels faster and earns more. The move, thus, feels less like a refusal to pick sides, and more like a business model dressed up as moral distance.

This shift is not occurring in isolation, it’s being orchestrated from the highest levels of power. For instance, in the US, President Donald Trump has spent years attempting to dismantle the credibility of mainstream journalism, frequently labelling outlets like CNN and MSNBC as “fake news” and “the enemy of the people”. In a recent address at the Department of Justice, he escalated these attacks, accusing major news organisations of engaging in “illegal” activities.

This relentless vilification serves a clear purpose: to erode public trust in traditional media and promote alternative sources that are more sympathetic to his narrative. The result is a dangerous convergence where political figures gain unchecked control over information, alternative media outlets receive undue legitimacy, and technology platforms profit as sensational falsehoods outperform verified facts in reach, speed, and emotional impact.

None of this is random. The exclusion of legacy media from seats of power, the rise of partisan content factories in their place, and the dismantling of fact-checking infrastructure across digital platforms are deeply connected. They signal a calculated retreat from truth as a civic value. That retreat is even starker when seen alongside US government cuts to thousands of global initiatives once built to support journalism, fact-checking, and local resilience against disinformation. Just as falsehood becomes more organised and aggressive, the systems built to resist it are being quietly dismantled.

This collapse is convenient for everyone involved. For political demagogues across the globe, it removes the friction of scrutiny. For alt-media, it creates space to masquerade partisanship as news. And for Big Tech, it is simply good business. Professional fact-checking is being replaced by community moderation tools that are opaque, vulnerable to manipulation, and impossible to hold accountable. Platforms like Meta and X can now claim neutrality while profiting from content designed to provoke and polarise.

What we are witnessing is not a breakdown of the system. It is a strategic redesign, one where journalism is not only undermined, but intentionally made irrelevant.

Published in Dawn, April 5th, 2025
UK finds Russian nuke sensors around the country



AFP & Agencies Published April 7, 2025

Firefighters extinguishing a fire in a residential building following an air strike in the Ukrainian city of Kupiansk, on Sunday.—AFP

LONDON: The UK military has found Russian sensors in seas around the country that it believes were attempting to spy on its nuclear submarines, the Sunday Times reported.

The Royal Navy found some devices planted on the sea bed while several washed ashore, the newspaper reported. Military and intelligence chiefs believe they were planted to gather intelligence on the UK’s four submarines that carry nuclear missiles.

“There should be no doubt, there is a war raging in the Atlantic. This is a game of cat and mouse that has continued since the ending of the Cold War, and is now heating up again,” a senior UK miliary figure told the paper.

The newspaper’s three-month investigation said it had discovered unmanned Russian vehicles “lurking next to deep-sea communications cables”.

Macron calls for ‘strong action’ if Moscow continues to ‘refuse peace’

The government also had “credible intelligence” that Russian oligarch-owned superyachts may have been used to conduct underwater reconnaissance, said the report.

France warning


On this day of national mourning in Ukraine, my thoughts are with the children and all civilian victims of the deadly strikes carried out by Russia, such as in Kryvyi Rih on April 4. Again last night, numerous Russian strikes targeted residential areas in Kyiv and several other Ukrainian cities. While Ukraine accepted President Trump’s proposal for a full and unconditional 30-day ceasefire nearly a month ago, and as we work with all our partners to secure peace, Russia continues its war with renewed intensity, showing no regard for civilians. These Russian strikes must stop. A ceasefire must be reached as soon as possible. And strong action must follow if Russia continues to stall and reject peace. How much longer will Russia toy with peace offers from the United States and Ukraine, while continuing to kill children and civilians?

French President Emmanuel Macron on Sunday called for “strong action” if Russia continued “to refuse peace”, days after a Russian ballistic missile killed nine children in Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky’s hometown. Despite US and European efforts to secure peace in Ukraine, Russia continued “to murder children and civilians”, Macron said.

“My thoughts are with the children and all civilian victims of the bloody attacks carried out by Russia, including on April 4 in Kryvyi Rig,” Macron said on X in French and Ukrainian.

“A ceasefire is needed as soon as possible. And strong action if Russia continues to try to buy time and refuse peace.” On Friday, a missile attack on the central Ukrainian city of Kryvyi Rig killed 20 people, including nine children.

The youngest victim was a three-year-old boy.

Macron said that even though Ukraine accepted US President Donald Trump’s proposal for a complete ceasefire and European countries were also working to secure peace, “Russia is continuing the war with renewed intensity, with no regard for civilians.”

Zelensky said on Sunday that Moscow was increasing its aerial bombardment after Russia mounted a “massive” missile and drone attack on Ukraine overnight, killing two people. “The pressure on Russia is still insufficient,” he added.

Kyiv strikes

A Russian missile attack on Kyiv killed one man and injured three other people overnight, causing damage and fires in several districts in the biggest such attack on Ukraine for weeks, Ukrainian officials said on Sunday.

The strike was the first large-scale attack using missiles and drones since the US said late last month it had negotiated two ceasefire accords with Russia and Ukraine, including one that would halt strikes on each other’s energy infrastructure.

Poland on high alert

Warnings from the air force of an attack, including regions bordering Poland, forced the neighbouring Nato-member country to scramble aircraft to ensure air safety.

Poland has been on high alert for objects entering its airspace since a stray Ukrainian missile struck the southern Polish village of Przewodow in 2022, killing two people.

Published in Dawn, April 7th, 2025