Ani
The court imposed a fine of ₹ 50,000 on the state government for harassing Awasse. It states that forest crimes have been mentioned in the order of the magistrate. It states that they cannot be the basis of deportation of Avase under Madhya Pradesh State Security Act, 1990. The court said that the law says that a convict may be deported. It states that there is no material on records to show that Awaase has been convicted for two other offenses registered against him in 2019 and 2022.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has asked the Chief Secretary of the state to direct the District Magistrates against passing the order under political pressure without appreciating the real intentions of the law while declaring the expulsion of a worker illegal. In the order of January 20, Justice Vivek Aggarwal cited discrepancies in the exterment order and said that no statement of witnesses was recorded and registration of cases could not be the basis for this. Activist of the awakened tribal Dalit organization, Anantram Awase, moved the court against the Burhanpur District Magistrate’s order of January 2024 to deport them for one year after protest against the harvesting of forests.
The court imposed a fine of ₹ 50,000 on the state government for harassing Awasse. It states that forest crimes have been mentioned in the order of the magistrate. It states that they cannot be the basis of deportation of Avase under Madhya Pradesh State Security Act, 1990. The court said that the law says that a convict may be deported. It states that there is no material on records to show that Awaase has been convicted for two other offenses registered against him in 2019 and 2022.
The court said that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Security Act could not be implemented against him without convicting the Avasse, and hence the exile order was illegal and dismissed. The court said that the magistrate tried to hide his failure in recording the statement. It said that the officer misled the court by saying that no witness came forward to record the statement. The court said that if this was true, the magistrate should have disclosed the names of such people but he did not do so.
Other news
