Supreme Court Takes Firm Stance on Environmental Lapses: Summons Top Officials, Orders ESZ Notification, Probes Sanctuary De-notification

New Delhi: In a series of significant directives issued on April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, hearing multiple applications within the long-standing T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Ors. environmental case, has underscored its commitment to enforcing environmental laws. The bench, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih , summoned top officials from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and the Jharkhand government for perceived delays and non-compliance. The Court also initiated a prima facie contempt inquiry against the State of Rajasthan for de-notifying a wildlife sanctuary and mandated a timeline for the final notification of an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ).

The proceedings on this day involved a multitude of Interlocutory Applications (I.A.s) touching upon issues of forest conservation, wildlife protection, ESZ management, illegal mining, and alleged contempt of previous court orders. The Amicus Curiae, including Mr. K. Parameshwar , Sr. Adv., assisted the Court.

Key Directives and Observations

The Court issued several critical orders, signaling a zero-tolerance approach towards laxity in environmental governance:

MoEF&CC Secretary Summoned Over Rajasthan Orans Committee Delay (I.A. NO. 41723 OF 2022)

Expressing strong displeasure over the MoEF&CC's handling of the constitution of an Expert Committee for Orans in Rajasthan, the Court noted that its specific direction dated January 16, 2025, to take a decision prior to March 19, 2025, had not been complied with. The Court observed, "From the perusal of the record, it appears that the MoEF&CC is taking the matter in a casual manner." Consequently, the Court issued a notice to the Secretary, MoEF&CC , directing him to remain personally present on April 29, 2025, to show cause why contempt action should not be initiated.

Rajasthan & MoEF&CC Face Contempt Notice for Badh Baraitha Wildlife Sanctuary De-notification (Issue Regarding Order Dated 18.03.2025 in W.P.(C)NO. 13381 OF 1984)

The Court took serious note of a Rajasthan government notification dated March 23, 2021, which de-notified 27.855 square kilometers of the Badh Baraitha Wildlife Sanctuary. This action was deemed to be in potential violation of the Supreme Court's explicit order dated November 13, 2000, which prohibited any de-reservation of forests, sanctuaries, or national parks pending further orders. The Court stated, "Prima facie, the notification dated 23.03.2021 appears to be in contempt of order passed by this Court dated 13.11.2000." Notices were issued to the State of Rajasthan and MoEF&CC to explain the situation, with the matter listed for the last week of May 2025.

Jharkhand Forest Secretary Summoned for Saranda Sanctuary Declaration Delay (I.A. NOS. 153500 & 153501 OF 2024)

Regarding the Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary, recognized for its pristine Sal forests, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the Jharkhand government's slow progress. Despite previous assurances and a proposal moved in November 2024, the State had sent the proposal back for further examination after nearly four months. "We do not understand the propriety of keeping the matters pending almost for four months, particularly when an impression was given to this Court...that the matter is being processed expeditiously," the Court remarked. The Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand , was directed to be personally present on April 29, 2025, to explain the delay.

MoEF&CC Mandated to Notify Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary ESZ (SLP(C) No. 26642 of 2024 & I.A. Nos. 89083 and 89084 of 2025)

Addressing concerns related to construction near the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary in Punjab, the Court directed the MoEF&CC to issue a final notification for the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) for the sanctuary within three months, after complying with all statutory requirements. The Court had earlier, in I.A. Nos. 89083 and 89084 of 2025, rejected a plea to restrain the State of Punjab from discharging its statutory function of proposing an ESZ, affirming that the notification process, including public hearing, must proceed. Once the ESZ is notified, planning authorities are to decide construction applications in accordance with the notification.

Actions on Illegal Mining and Other Environmental Concerns

The Court also addressed several other pressing environmental issues:

Halt on Haryana Road Construction (Nooh) (I.A. NOS. 269550, 269552 AND 269553 OF 2024): The Court ordered an immediate stop to the construction of a new road allegedly connecting Village Basai in Nooh, Haryana, to Rajasthan, which applicants contended was to facilitate illegal mining. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) report supported this claim. The Collector and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nooh, were directed to ensure no further work.

No Ad-Interim Mining in Rajasthan Without SC Nod (IA Nos. 82247, 82248 of 2025 and IA Nos. 82524 & 82525 of 2025): The Court rejected applications seeking ad-interim permission to carry out mining operations in Rajasthan pending extension of leases, reiterating that mining cannot proceed without the Court's express permission if required by previous orders.

CEC to Inspect Kolleru Wildlife Sanctuary (Contempt Petition(C) Diary No. 39857 of 2024): On the suggestion of the Amicus Curiae, the CEC was tasked with inspecting the Kolleru Wildlife Sanctuary in Andhra Pradesh and submitting a report on compliance with past judgments, boundary status, and settlement of private rights.

CEC Examination for Tamil Nadu Project (I.A. NO.280902 OF 2024): The CEC was granted four weeks to examine an issue related to a Tamil Nadu Water Supply Drainage Board project and submit its report.

Legal Principles and Implications

These orders highlight the Supreme Court's continued robust oversight in the T.N. Godavarman case, which has been instrumental in shaping environmental jurisprudence in India. The Court invoked its powers of contempt and reiterated the binding nature of its previous orders, particularly concerning the de-reservation of protected areas and the statutory obligations of governments in notifying ESZs.

The day's proceedings send a clear message about the judiciary's commitment to holding government authorities accountable for environmental protection and the diligent implementation of its directives. The personal summons to high-ranking officials underscores the seriousness with which the Court views delays and potential non-compliance in matters crucial to ecological balance.

Several other applications were either disposed of with liberty to approach appropriate authorities, withdrawn, or adjourned for future hearings, reflecting the wide array of environmental concerns being monitored by the Apex Court under this landmark case.