Back
1996(4) Supreme 270
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., B.L. Hansaria and S.C. Sen, JJ.
Pradeep Krishen -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 262 of 1995
Decided on 10-5-1996
Held : The Act came to be enacted to provide for the protection of wild animals and birds and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. Even Articles 48A and 51A(g) inserted in the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment oblige the State and the citizen, respectively, to protect and improve the natural environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. The statutory as well as the constitutional message is therefore loud and clear and it is this message which we must constantly keep in focus while dealing with issues and matters concerning the environment and the forest area as well as wildlife within those forests. This objective must guide us in interpreting the laws dealing with these matters and our interpretation must, unless the expression or the context conveys otherwise, subserve and advance the aforementioned constitutional objectives. (Para 15)
Further held, that the procedure in regard to acquisition of rights in and over the land to be included in a Sanctuary or National Park has to be followed before a final notification under Section 26A or Section 35(1) is issued by the State Government. In the instant case, it is not the contention of the petitioner that the procedure for the acquisition of rights in or over the land of those living in the vicinity of the areas proposed to be declared as Sanctuaries and National Parks under Section 26A and 35 of the Act has been undertaken. It was for this reason that the order of 28.3.1995 in terms stated that since no final notification was issued under the said provisions, the State Government was not in a position to bar the entry of villagers living in and around the Sanctuaries and the National Parks so long as their rights were not acquired and final notifications under the aforesaid provisions were issued. It is, therefore, not possible to conclude that the State Government had violated any provision of law in issuing the notification dated 28.3.1995 in question. (Para 17)
Consequently held, there is a shrinkage to the extent of 145 sq. kms. between 1991 and 1993. In our country, the total forest cover is far less than the ideal minimum of one-third of the total land. We cannot, therefore, afford any further shrinkage in the forest cover in our country. If one of the reasons for this shrinkage is the entry of villagers and tribals living in and around the Sanctuaries and the National Parks, there can be no doubt that urgent steps must be taken to prevent any destruction or damage to the environment, the flora and fauna and wildlife in those areas. If the only reason which compels the State Government to permit entry and collection of tendu leaves is it not having acquired the rights of villagers/tribals and having failed to locate any area for their rehabilitation, we think that inertia in this behalf cannot be tolerated. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while we do not quash the order of 28.3.1995, we think that the State Government must be directed to decide on the question of completing the process for issuing final notifications and then take urgent steps to complete the procedure for declaring/notifying the areas as Sanctuaries and National Parks under Sections 26A and 35 of the Act. We, therefore, direct that the State Government shall take immediate action under Chapter IV of the Act and institute an inquiry, acquire the rights of those who claim any right in or over any land proposed to be included in the Sanctuary/National Park and thereafter proceed to issue a final notification under Section 26A and 35 of the Act declaring such areas as Sanctuaries/National Parks. We direct the State Government to initiate action in this behalf within a period of 6 months from today and expeditiously conclude the same showing that sense of urgency as is expected of a State Government in such matters as enjoined by Article 48A of the Constitution and at the same time keeping in view the duty enshrined in Article 51A(g) of the Constitution. (Para 18)
JUDGMENT
A.M. Ahmadi, CJI - The petitioner, an environmentalist actuated by public interest, has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and constitutional validity of an order issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Forest, No.F.14/154/91/10/2 dated March 28, 1995, permitting collection of tendu leaves from Sanctuaries and National Parks by villagers living around the boundaries thereof with the avowed object of maintenance of their traditional rights. The petitioner contends that this act of the State Government is ultra-vires the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as well as the petitioner s fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and is even otherwise inconsistent with the Directive Principle contained in Article 48A and the Fundamental Duty cast on every citizen under clause (g) of Article 51A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further contends that the said order is mala fide and against public interest. The order complained of reads as under:
"Government of Madhya Pradesh Department of Forest Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal
Immediate
S.No.F-14/154/91/10/2 Bhopal, Dated 28th March, 1995
To
The Chief Conservator of Forests (W.L.), Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.
Sub:- Extraction of Forest produce from National Parks and sanctuaries consequent to the amendment of the Wild-Life (Protection) Act.
Ref:- This departments notification of even No. dated 13th Dec. 1994
The following order is being circulated by the State Government partly modifying its earlier order on the above subject:-
1. Keeping in view the traditional rights of the villagers living around the boundaries of those National Parks and sanctuaries in respect of which the final notification under Section 26-A and 35 have not been issued, the blocks/areas earmarked for collection of tendu leaves would be reopened as done in the past.
2. In order to provide sufficient wages to the villagers living in these areas, labour intensive works should be provided to them to the maximum extent possible.
In the name of the Governor and in accordance with the order
Sd/-
(S.K. Panwar)
Deputy Secretary,
Forest Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh"
2. According to the petitioner, in the State of Madhya Pradesh, 11 areas have been declared as National Parks and 33 areas as Sanctuaries covering a total area of nearly 16,790 sq. Kms. i.e. 12.4 of the total forest area of the State admeasuring 1,35,396 sq. Kms. He refers to a news item published in The Sunday Times dated April 16, 1995, headlined "Forest cover shrinking in MP" and further refers to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India stating that excessive grazing, reckless felling of trees and forest fires are responsible for the depletion of the forest area by 145 sq. Kms. between 1991 and 1993. He further contends that indiscriminate felling of trees has resulted in a depletion of the forest area in the entire country including Madhya Pradesh, causing concern to not only environmentalists, but also to every right thinking citizen. He has also referred to the criticism appearing in the media in regard to the issuance of the order dated March 28, 1995. He says that in the year 1982, the State Government had taken a decision to ban commercial exploitation of minor forest produce from the National Parks and Sanctuaries, but the said ban was lifted by the Department in 1992 when it allowed commercial exploitation of minor forest produce, in particular, tendu leaves from National Parks and sanctuaries. A copy of the order lifting the ban dated April 16, 1992, has been produced on record. He further points out that thereafter, at a meeting held on August 18, 1994 by the State Wild Life Advisory Board, a unanimous decision was taken whereby the State Government was
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
