SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 130

Supreme Court of India
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
Versus
Union of India & Others
IA Nos. 2470-2471, 2472-2473, 2474-2475, 2476-2477, 2966-2967 in 1287 in WP(C) No. 202 of 1995
Decided on : 13-02-2012

Advocates appeared:
Mohan Jain, ASG, P.S. Narasimha, Rajiv Dutta, Amarender Sharan, Basava Prabhu Patil, Senior Advocates, Gurukrishna Kumar, AAG, M/s. D.K. Thakur, Prabhat Kumar, Karthik Ashok, Sheethal Menon, Namrata Bhatia, S.N. Terdal, Gaurav Agarwal, K. Parmeswar, Haris Beeran, P.K. Manohar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, M.P. Maharia, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, T.N. Rao, Balraj Dewan, M/s. Aruputham Aruna & Co., M/s. Parekh & Co., M.N. Krishma, N. Ganapathy, Ajay K. Dutta, S. Prasad, D. Bharathi Reddy, Ms. A. Subhashini, Tarjit Singh, Manjit Singh (For Kamal Mohan Gupta), Bishwajeet Dueby, Ms. Anushree Tripathi, M/s. Suresh A. Shroff & Co., A. Deb Kumar, Mudrika Bansal, Ms. Sukhbir Kaur Bajwa, Zafar Sadique, Anil Vyas, Balraj Dewan, Subramonium Prasad, Bipin Kalappa, Sumit Goel, Ms. Rukmini Bobde (for M/s. Parekh & Co.), K.R. Sasiprabhu, N.P. Maharia, G. Prakash, Sanjay R. Hegde, T.V. George, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Sandalwood needs to be protected.

Headnote:Administration of Justice – Judicial discipline – Settled law – Provisions of the Treaties/ conventions not contrary to Municipal laws – Deemed to have been incorporated in the domestic law. (Para 26)

       (1996) 5 SCC 647; (1997) 1 SCC 388; (1980) 2 SCC 360; (1984) 2 SCC 534 – Relied upon

       Constitution of India – Article 51A(g) – Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Schedule VI r/w section 61 – Sandalwood not included in CITES but in Red List of IUCN as "vulnerable" – Needs by Central Government – Directed to take a decision as to inclusion of the plant in Schedule VI – Union of India also directed to consider legislation like Endangered Species Act of USA. (Para 27, 29)

       Facts of the case:

       This case relates to declaration of sandalwood (Santalum album Linn) and Red Sanders (Pterocarpus santalinus) as a "specified plant" within the meaning of Section 2(27), and be included in the Schedule VI of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

       Finding of the Court:

       These species of sandalwood need to be protected.

       Result: Petitions disposed of.

Judgment :-

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

We are in this case concerned with the question whether sandalwood (Santalum album Linn) stated to be an endangered species, be declared as a "specified plant" within the meaning of Section 2(27), and be included in the Schedule VI of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short the Act). On going through the various international conventions, we thought it appropriate to examine the repeated requests made by the state of Andhra Pradesh to the Central Govt. to notify Red Sanders (Pterocarpus santalinus) as a 'specified plant' and be included in the Schedule VI of the Act.

2. A non-governmental organisation moved the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to initiate steps for closure of all unlicensed sandalwood oil industries, particularly in the State of Kerala. CEC after conducting a detailed enquiry and hearing the state officials, representatives of the sandalwood industries and various other interested persons, submitted its report dated 24th February 2005 before this Court praying that all unlicensed sandalwood oil industries be also brought within the purview of this Court's order dated 30.12.2002 by which this Court had ordered the closure of all unlicensed saw mills, veneer and plywood industries in the country. Various other directions were also sought for. Report of the CEC was listed along with IA 1287 of 1995 which came up for hearing on 1.4.2005 and this Court issued notices to the States of Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, which are the major sandalwood growing states of the country. This Court then passed an order on 10.2.2006 directing closure of all the unlicensed sandalwood oil extracting factories, operating in various parts of the country. Consequently, 24 unlicensed sandalwood oil factories functioning in the State of Kerala were closed down.

3. The State of Kerala and few other states submitted their reply to the reports submitted by the CEC and pointed out that no private sandalwood oil extracting units are now functioning in most of the sandalwood growing states but only the state owned public sector undertakings. The Karnataka Soaps and Detergent Ltd., a Karnataka State owned undertaking also submitted their views. MoEF also filed a detailed affidavit before this Court stating that they have no objection in the closure of all unlicensed sandalwood oil manufacturing factories in the country.

4. Indian Sandalwood Association got themselves impleaded and filed objections to the CEC Report. CEC lated submitted three other reports dated 8.1.2008, 2.9.2009, 15.11.2010. CEC in the reports took the stand that the sandalwood oil industries could be permitted to function outside the sandalwood growing states and that import of sandalwood as such should not be banned. The Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Karnataka also submitted before the CEC that there are no matured sandalwood trees available in the State of Karnataka and the State has not approved any felling of sandalwood trees due to non-availability. State of Tamil Nadu also stated before the CEC that no felling of sandalwood tree was officially undertaken due to want of matured trees. State of Mahrashtra and Andhra Pradesh have also filed affidavits stating that whatever little sandalwood growth was there in those states needs to be protected and that sandalwood species is under imminent threat. MoEF in its affidavit dated 24th October, 2010 has stated as follows:

"The Ministry supports the contention that all illegal sandalwood oil units should be closed down. As far as closing of sandalwood units in non-sandalwood growing states is concerned the Ministry has "No Objection" in allowing the legal private entrepreneur from setting up sandalwood oil units in non-sandalwood producing states provided that only legally sourced sandalwood for which Certificate of Origin has been obtained, is used and the regulatory enforcement mechanisms, set up by the state for detection, control and action a














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top