Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 436

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
In the Matter of: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
I.A. No. 61370 of 2021 [Report No. 06 of 2021] In Application No. 1440 of 2020 I.A. No. 107884 of 2021 and I.A. No. 30853 & 30858 of 2022 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995
Decided On : 09-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the parties :Harish N. Salve,[A.C.] A.D.N. Rao,[A.C.] Aparajita Singh,[A.C.] Siddhartha Chowdhury,[A.C.] G.S. Makker, Prashant Bhushan, Amrish Kumar Sharma, Balbir Singh, ASG D.L. Chidanand, Suhasini Sen, Archana Pathak Dave, Salvador Santosh Rebello, Shyam Gopal, Sughosh Subramanyam, G.S. Makker, Amrish Kumar, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, .. Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Shwetal Shepal, Mahfooz A. Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad Haneef, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, K.V. Giris Chowdary, Rajeswari Mukherjee, Ravindra Raizada, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Manoj K. Mishra, Ashiwan Mishra, Anurag Tiwari, Kamlendra Mishra, Advocates
For the IA 25909-25910/2022 :Gayatri Singh, Ronita Bhattacharya, Nupur Kumar, Sanjay Upadhyay, Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Eisha Krishn, Mansi B. Chirag M. Shroff, Amandeep Mehta, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, S.K.Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha, E.Vinay Kumar, Advocates
For the Rajasthan :Dr. Manish Singhvi, Arpit Parkash, Sandeep Kumar Jha, Mrs. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Advocates
For the M.P. :Siddharth Sangal, Vaidehi Kothari, Siddhesh Kotwal, Ana Upadhyay, Manya Hasija, Akash Singh, Preeti Singh, Nirnimesh Dube, Arachana Pathak Dave, Deepanwita Priyanka, Advocates
For the Goa :Harsh Pacheera, Ruchira Gupta, Nancy Shah, S. S. Rebello, Sughosh Subramanyam, Shyam Gopal, R.Lokhande, G.S. Makker, Advocates
For the State of M.P. :Ramesh Thakur, Sunny Choudhary, Advocates
For the Karnataka :V.N.Raghupathy, Advocate
For the State of Kerala :Nishe Rajen Shonker, Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Advocates
For the Arunachal Pradesh :Abhimanyu Tewari, Eliza Bar, Advocates
For the State of Jharkhand :Barun Kumar Singh,AAG Kumar Anurag Singh, Anando Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, Beeru Sharma, Advocates
For the State of Sikkim :Raghvendra Kumar, Anand Kumar Dubey, Narendra Kumar, Aravindh S., C.Rubavathi, Prashant Bhushan, Cheryl D’Souza, Advocates
For the State of West Bengal :Suhaan Mukerji, Nikhil Parikshith, Vishal Prasad, Abhishek Manchanda, Sayandeep Pahari, Tanmay Sinha, PLR Chambers And Co., Advocates
For the State of Meghalaya :Avijit Mani Tripathi,, Upendra Mishra, T.K. Nayak, P.S.Negi, Advocates
For the Meg St. Pollu control :K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Chubalemla Chang, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Advocates
For the Bihar :Saket Singh, Sangeeta Singh, Somyashree, Mrs.Niranjana Singh, Anil Kumar, Umang Tripathi, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Mahendra Kumar, Puja Shrivastava, Rajnish Kumar Jha, P.Venkat Reddy, Prashant Kr. Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy, James P. Thomas, Md. Apzal Ansari, Avijit Mani Tripathi, T.K. Nayak, Shovan Mishra, Bipasa Tripathy, Rajendra Sahu, Rishabh Sahu, Hema Sahu, C. L. Sahu, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Nupur Sharma, Shobhit Dwivedi, Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, By Courts Motion, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., Syed Mehdi Imam, T. Harish Kumar, M/S. Mitter & Mitter Co., M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Shovan Mishra, Bipasa Tripathy, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Nupur Sharma, Shobhit Dwivedi, Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Chirag M. Shroff, Amandeep Mehta, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Shri. Gaichangpou Gangmei, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Shuvodeep Roy, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Sujata Kurdukar, Shibashish Misra, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, Baby Krishnan, B V Deepak, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Irshad Ahmad, Rauf Rahim, Rajeev Singh, Ramesh Babu M. R., Shiva Pujan Singh, K. V. Vijayakumar, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Kuldip Singh, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Malini Poduval, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Rajesh, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Ashok Mathur, Gopal Prasad, S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Hemantika Wahi, P. V. Yogeswaran, A. Sumathi, Ajit Pudussery, M. C. Dhingra, Sumita Hazarika, Abhishek Chaudhary, T. Mahipal, M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, Raj Kumar Mehta, K. L. Janjani, Tarun Johri, Ram Swarup Sharma, A. Venayagam Balan, Krishnanand Pandeya, Asha Gopalan Nair, Rakesh K. Sharma, Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, E. C. Vidya Sagar, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, V. Balachandran, P. R. Ramasesh, Rajiv Mehta, Rathin Das, Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Pratibha Jain, Prashant Kumar, P. Parmeswaran, M/S. Parekh & Co., H. S. Parihar, Bina Madhavan, T. N. Singh, A. N. Arora, G. Prakash, Sharmila Upadhyay, Sudarsh Menon, Vikrant Singh Bais, Rajesh Singh, Umesh Bhagwat, E. C. Agrawala, Ranjan Mukherjee, Gopal Singh, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, C. K. Sucharita, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Ejaz Maqbool, M/S. Corporate Law Group, Himanshu Shekhar, P. N. Gupta, Jyoti Mendiratta, Madhu Moolchandani, Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Naresh K. Sharma, Jai Prakash Pandey, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Abha R. Sharma, S. R. Setia, Rajat Joseph, Mrs. Nandini Gore, M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, Divya Roy, Radha Shyam Jena, Charu Mathur, T. V. George, Neeraj Shekhar, E. M. S. Anam, S. Janani, Surya Kant, Amit Anand Tiwari, Mrs. Bina Gupta, M/S. K J John And Co, S. C. Birla, K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Punit Dutt Tyagi, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Binu Tamta, M. Yogesh Kanna, Shalini Kaul, Kamlendra Mishra, S. Gowthaman, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Shubhranshu Padhi, P. S. Sudheer, Sunil Kumar Sharma, Abhinav Mukerji, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Dr. Monika Gusain, Anando Mukherjee, Gopal Balwant Sathe, Naveen Kumar, Deepanwita Priyanka, M/S. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Kaushik Choudhury, B. K. Pal, Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Chirag M. Shroff, Abhishek Atrey, Sarvam Ritam Khare, Narendra Kumar, M/S. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Aravindh S., Somesh Chandra Jha, Adarsh Nain, Ruchira Goel, Mrinal Gopal Elker, Sunny Choudhary, Seita Vaidyalingam, Siddhartha Jha, V. N. Raghupathy, P. K. Manohar, Nishanth Patil, Vinod Sharma, Sandeep Kumar Jha, James P. Thomas, Vanshaja Shukla, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., M. R. Shamshad, Advocates

The court emphasized the principle of sustainable development and the precautionary principle, stating that development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology and that environmental measures must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation.

Headnote:
NBWL - Wildlife Clearance for Doubling of Railway Line - Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 - Summary: The court discussed the importance of the Western Ghats ecosystem, the impact of the railway project on wildlife habitat and biodiversity, and the failure to obtain specific recommendations on mitigation measures from the Wildlife Institute of India. The court upheld the revocation of the permission granted by the NBWL for doubling the railway line due to lack of positive impact on gradient and curvature, failure to obtain NTCA advice, and underestimation of forest land requirement.
Fact of the Case:

The Standing Committee of NBWL recommended wildlife clearance for doubling of a railway line passing through the Western Ghats. The CEC recommended revocation of the permission, citing violation of guidelines and lack of positive impact on the railway line.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the doubling of the railway line would not have a positive impact on gradient and curvature, and the approval by NBWL was granted without obtaining specific recommendations on mitigation measures from the Wildlife Institute of India. The court upheld the revocation of the permission granted by the NBWL for doubling the railway line.
Issues: The issues included the impact of the railway project on wildlife habitat and biodiversity, the failure to obtain specific recommendations on mitigation measures, and the lack of positive impact on the railway line.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of positive impact on the railway line, failure to obtain NTCA advice, and underestimation of forest land requirement for the project implementation.
Final Decision: The court upheld the revocation of the permission granted by the NBWL for doubling the railway line and allowed RVNL to carry out a detailed analysis on the impact of the proposed project on the biodiversity and ecology of the protected areas under the wildlife sanctuary and then submit a fresh proposal to the Standing Committee of NBWL.

ORDER :

1. In Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No. 1308 of 2015 and other connected I.A.s in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995, this Court on 05.10.2015 directed the National Board for Wildlife ('NBWL') to furnish a copy of the orders passed by it relating to matters of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. The Central Empowered Committee ('CEC') was given liberty to approach this Court by filling an appropriate application, if they were not satisfied with the decision of the Standing Committee of NBWL while other aggrieved parties were given the liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

2. In its 56th meeting held on 17.12.2019, the Standing Committee of NBWL recommended the proposal for wildlife clearance for doubling of existing railway line from Castlerock (Karnataka) to Kulem (Goa) involving 120.875 hectares of land within protected area and 113.857 hectares of land in non-protected area reserved forest 7.018 hectares, passing through Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary, subject to fulfilling certain conditions.

3. The Goa Foundation filed an application before the CEC on 26.06.2020 stating that the Standing Committee of NBWL had recommended granting wildlife clearances for doubling of 26 km stretch of the railway line in Western Ghats from Castlerock in Karnataka to Kulem in Goa in violation of the order passed by this Court on 05.10.2015. Apart from the objection to the project by Goa Foundation, a large number of appeals/representations were received by the CEC from scientists, researchers, ecologists, environmentalists, lawyers, veterinarians, artists, painters, illustrators, filmmakers, musicians, sculptures, students, villagers, tourism and travel trade. After examining the matter in detail, the CEC submitted Report No. 6 of 2021 on 23.04.2021 in the application filed by Goa Foundation. In this report, the CEC recommended revocation of the permission granted by the Standing Committee for NBWL for doubling of the railway line passing through the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats from Tinaighat-Castlerock in Karnataka to Kulem in Goa involving 120.875 hectares of land as such permission was in violation of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEF&CC) under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the order dated 05.10.2015.

4. In the said report dated 23.04.2021, the importance of western ghats eco-system which is one of world's eight hotspots was highlighted. It was mentioned in the said report that the Western Ghats spread across 9 National Tiger Reserves, 20 National Parks and about 68 Wildlife Sanctuaries and the landscape forms one of the largest and most contiguous Protected Area networks in the country.

5. In so far as the doubling of the railway line from Castlerock to Kulem is concerned, the CEC examined the details of the project. According to Rail Vikas Nigam Limited ('RVNL') doubling of existing 342 km line from Hospet to Murmagao port was sanctioned by the Ministry of Railways at the cost of Rs. 2127 Crores for enhancing section capacity of existing single line track. The only railway line between Hospet and Vasco Port passing through forest land where there is no alternative as the alignment invariably has to pass through the forest. The proposed railway doubling line is parallel to the existing railway line which passes through same forest along the same corridor. The estimated cost for the project from Castlerock to Kulem is Rs. 90 crores and the capacity utilization of the existing line track has increased to 120%.

6. The Standing Committee of NBWL recommended the proposal made by RVNL for doubling the existing railway line from Castlerock to Kulem, subject to the condition that the project proponent will comply with all the conditions imposed by the Chief Wildlife Warden and will implement the approved animal passage plan. Further, the annual compliance certificate of the stipulated conditions has to be submitted by the State Chief Wildlife Warden to the Gov