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

2023 Supreme(SC) 1861

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Ors. & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 202 of 1995
Decided On : 18-08-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. [A.C.] (Not Present), Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Advocate [A.C.] (Not Present), Ms. Aparajita Singh, Sr. Advocate [A.C.] (Not Present), Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, Advocate [A.C.], Mr. K. Parameshwar, Advocate [A.C.] Mr. M.V. Mukund, Adv., Ms. Arti Gupta, Adv., Ms. Kanti, Adv. , Mr. Tushar Mehta,Solicitor General of India, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. Mukesh K. Verma, Adv., Mr. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Adv., Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv., Mr. Harsh Pandey, Adv., Ms. Priyanka Sharma, Adv., Mr. Prahil Sharma, Adv., Mr. Harender Singh, Adv., Mr. Ambuj Saraswat, Adv., Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv., Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv., Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR, Ms. Shubamgi Agarwal, Adv., Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Apurv S., Adv., Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR, Mr. Rao Ranjit, Adv., Mr. Nishanth Patil, AAG, Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Adv., Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv., Mr. Ayush P. Shah, Adv., Mr. Vignesh Adithiya, Adv., Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv., Mr. Ramesh Allanki, Adv., Mr. Syed Ahmed Nazvi, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Adv., Mr. E.R. Kumar, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Thakral, Adv., For M/s. Parekh & Co., Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR, Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Adv., Mr. Akshay Kumar, Adv.

The Supreme Court mandated the establishment of the Central Empowered Committee as a permanent statutory body under the Environment (Protection) Act, enhancing regulatory governance.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Section 3 - Central Empowered Committee (CEC) - Supreme Court suggested and the Solicitor General agreed to constitute CEC as a permanent statutory body rather than an ad-hoc entity - Amendments to notification proposed by MoEFCC for CEC's constitution, including qualifications and audits. (Paras 2, 3, 5, 6, 7)

(B) Compliance - State of Karnataka submitted the constitution of an Expert Committee and identified 3,30,186.93 hectares as deemed forest, approved by the Government. (Paras 1, 2, 3)

Facts of the case:
The issues at hand involve the establishment of a permanent Central Empowered Committee as part of the environmental regulatory framework and the compliance report submitted by the State regarding forest area identification.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the Union of India to proceed with the notification issuing for the CEC's constitution, affirming the institutional permanence as beneficial for stakeholders.

Issues: The key concerns were the temporary nature of the CEC and the need for permanent regulation under the Environmental Protection framework.

Ratio Decidendi: The court opined that a permanent CEC would serve better governance and efficiency over an ad-hoc setup, hence approving the proposal for its establishment.

Result: Notification for permanent CEC constitution permitted.

Table of Content
1. applications for interventions and replies scheduled. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. state compliance regarding forest identification. (Para 3)

ORDER :

[1] I. A. NOS. 37666, 37670 AND 37679/2020

1. Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks.

2. List these applications after four weeks.

[2] I. A. NOS. 196062 AND 174896/2019

1. On 18.05.2023, this Court passed the following order:-

    “On the last date when the matter was heard, a suggestion was made by the Bench that instead of the CEC (Central Empowered Committee) being an ad-hoc body, it would be in the larger interest that the CEC as an institution should be a permanent statutory body.

    Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, has accepted the said suggestion. He states that the Union of India would publish a draft notification under the provisions of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 providing for the constitution of the CEC.

    He submitted that the draft notification would contain 8 provisions related to the qualification of the Members to be appointed, their tenure, their powers and responsibilities etc. Learned Solicitor General submits that the draft notification will be published within a period of 15 days from today and that the same shall be placed before the Court on the next date.”

2. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, has handed over a draft notification to be issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) regarding constitution of Central Empowered Committee (CEC). The said draft has already been shared with Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae.

3. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that he has only one suggestion to the draft notification i.e. there should be a provision for periodical audit of the functioning of the CEC by the MoEFCC.

4. Learned Solicitor General does not have any objection to the said suggestion. He states that the suggestion given by the learned Amicus Curiae would be incorporated in the final notification that would be issued by the MoEFCC.

5. We, therefore, permit the Union of India to proceed further with the issuance of notification for constitution of the CEC as a permanent body.

6. We find that rather than CEC functioning as an ad hoc body, it functioning as a permanent body would be in the interest of all the stake holders.

7. We also permit the MoEFCC to proceed further with the constitution of the CEC in accordance with the notification that will be issued by the MoEFCC.

[3] INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 44942/2019

1. In pursuance to the judgment passed by this Court on 12.12.1996 [ T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267], the State of Karnataka has submitted that it has constituted an Expert Committee.

2. In the affidavit, it is further stated that as per the report of the Committee an area ad measuring 3,30,186.93 hectares has been identified as deemed forest and the same has also been approved by the State Government.

3. The said compliance is taken on record.

4. The application stands disposed of.

[4] I. A. NOS. 87544, 87550 AND 91723 OF 2023

[5] I. A. NOS. 107906 AND 107909/2023

[6] I. A. NOS. 115479, 115480 AND 115482/2023

1. As prayed, four weeks’ time is granted for filing reply affidavit.

2. List after four weeks.

I.A. NO.1412/2005 AND I.A. No.117831/2019

These applications were mentioned before the Court.

List these applications on 13.09.2023.

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