SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad - Petitioner
VERSUS
Union of India And Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995, I.A. NOS. 131377, 147102, 195467, 195468, 205092 OF 2022, I.A. NOS. 162283 AND 162284 OF 2022 IN I.A. D. NO. 125746 OF 2022 WITH I.A. NOS. 118604, 118606, 119400, 119401, 119404, 137132, 137138, 137140 AND 137143 OF 2022, I.A. NOS. 5764, 6804 AND 10911 OF 2023
Decided On : 26-04-2023
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Sections 18 to 25A – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Sections 3(v) – Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – Rule 5 – Protection of Ecology – One of factors that has to be taken into consideration for declaring Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) is proximity to a sanctuary, National Park, game reserve or closed area notified, as such under 1972 Act – Requirement of declaring ESZs is not to hamper day to day activities of citizens but is meant to protect precious forests/Protected Areas from any negative impact, and to refine environment around Protected Areas – Necessity to have ESZs is to provide a buffer zone around Protected Areas – Rights of villagers residing in Protected Areas are required to be settled in accordance with provisions contained in 1972 Act and such villagers are rehabilitated outside Protected Areas – However, no such settlement of rights is available to villagers residing in ESZs areas – MoEF & CC and all State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow provisions in Guidelines dated 9th February 2011 and so also provisions contained in ESZs notifications pertaining to respective Protected Areas with regard to prohibited activities, regulated activities and permissible activities – While granting Environmental and Forest Clearances for project activities in ESZ and other areas outside Protected Areas, Union of India as well as various State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow provisions contained in Office Memorandum dated 17th May 2022 issued by MoEF & CC. (Paras 31, 51, 52 and 66)
Result : I.As, disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
I.A. NO. 131377 OF 2022:
1. The present I.A. is filed by the Union of India praying for modification/clarification of the order passed by this Court dated 3rd June 2022 1 [(2022) 10 SCC 544]in I.A. No. 1000 of 2003 in WP(C) No. 202 of 1995.
2. The applicant specifically seeks modification of the directions contained in paragraphs 56.1 and 56.5 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra). The said paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow:
“56.1. Each protected forest, that is, national park or wildlife sanctuary must have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundary of such protected forest in which the activities proscribed and prescribed in the Guidelines of 9-2-2011 shall be strictly adhered to. For Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, it shall be 500 m so far as subsisting activities are concerned.
……….
56.5. In the event any activity is already being undertaken within the one kilometre or extended buffer zone (ESZ), as the case may be, of any wildlife sanctuary or national park which does not come within the ambit of prohibited activities as per the 9-2-2011 Guidelines, such activities may continue with permission of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of each State or Union Territory and the person responsible for such activities in such a situation shall obtain necessary permission within a period of six months. Such permission shall be given once the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is satisfied that the activities concerned do not come within the prohibited list and were continuing prior to passing of this order in a legitimate manner. No new permanent structure shall be permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose within the ESZ.”
3. The clarification/modification of paragraph 56.1 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) is sought to the extent that the Eco-Sensitive Zones (for short, “ESZs”) which have already been notified (final and draft) by the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change (for short, “MoEF & CC”) or the proposals for which have been received in the Ministry be exempted from the directions therein. The applicant also sought modification to the extent that paragraph 56.1 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) may not be made applicable where National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries are located along inter-State boundaries and/or common boundaries. Modification/clarification of the directions in paragraph 56.5 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) in its entirety is additionally sought.
4. We have heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General (for short, “ASG”) appearing on behalf of the applicant, Shri K. Parameshwar, learned amicus curiae as well as Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of various State Governments.
5. It is submitted that the Government of India has already issued Guidelines on 9th February 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Guidelines”) for declaration of ESZs around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. The said Guidelines were framed after consulting the National Board for Wildlife (hereinafter referred to as “NBWL”), and all the State and Union Territory Governments. The said Guidelines provide a detailed procedure for submitting a proposal for declaration of the areas around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries as ESZs. It is further submitted that the said Guidelines itself contain various activities which have been categorized as prohibited, regulated and permitted.
6. It is further submitted that the direction as contained in paragraph 56.5 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) is likely to cause great hardship to the citizens residing in the ESZs. It is further submitted that the said directions provide that if any activity is already being undertaken within one kilometre or extended buffer zone (ESZ), and which does not come within the ambit of prohibited activities as per the
In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad VS Union of India
Protection of Ecology – Necessity to have ESZs is to provide a buffer zone around Protected Areas – Rights of villagers residing in Protected Areas are required to be settled in accordance with provi....
Protection of forest land – Mining within national parks and wildlife sanctuaries shall not be permitted – No new permanent structure shall be permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose within ESZ.
''Zero Meter'' Eco-sensitive Zone- Law does not require a procedure akin to one, which is being followed at the time of making an environment impact assessment before giving clearance.
The insistence in Ext.P8 office memorandum for prior clearance from the Standing Committee for projects within 10 kilometres from National Parks was unsustainable in law as it did not follow the proc....
The Supreme Court ruling allows quarry operations near a wildlife sanctuary, invalidating SEIAA's requirement for wildlife clearance based on its prior orders, asserting precedence over regulatory co....
Conditions for environmental clearance can't impose undue requirements if project distance meets statutory guidelines, as determined by recent Supreme Court rulings.
Hon’ble Apex Court made it clear that no direction either interim or final was given by it prohibiting even mining activities within 10 kms. of the boundaries of National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuarie....
Environmental Clearance upheld for sand mining outside notified ESZ (2 km) and 1.8 km from wildlife sanctuary boundary; corrected typographical errors in forest certificates do not invalidate process....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to afford an opportunity of hearing and to record reasons in support of orders to ensure fairness and compliance with the principle....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.