Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Supreme Court Modifies Directions on Eco-Sensitive Zones to Strike a Balance Between Conservation and Development

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 26 April 2023, In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has modified its directions on eco-sensitive zones (ESZs) to ensure a harmonious coexistence of conservation efforts and the day-to-day activities of citizens residing in these zones. The apex court's judgment aims to strike a balance between protecting wildlife habitats and promoting sustainable development.

The court's decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol, comes as a response to a plea seeking modifications to the existing guidelines governing ESZs. The guidelines, which were issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) in 2011, define ESZs as buffer zones around protected areas such as national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.

The court recognized the need to protect the precious forests and wildlife within the ESZs while acknowledging the rights of the villagers residing in these areas. It emphasized that the purpose of declaring ESZs is not to impede the daily activities of citizens but to safeguard the environment surrounding the protected areas.

One of the key modifications made by the court is that the minimum width of ESZs should be specific to each protected area, rather than a uniform one-kilometer width as previously directed. The court emphasized the need for a site-specific approach that takes into consideration various factors, including inter-state boundaries and geographical features.

The judgment also highlighted the importance of following the prescribed procedure under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, and the existing guidelines issued by the MoEF & CC. It emphasized the need for wide publicity of draft notifications, allowing interested parties to raise objections within a stipulated period.

Regarding mining activities, the court reiterated its earlier stance that mining within one kilometer from the boundary of protected areas is hazardous to wildlife. It expanded this prohibition to apply nationwide, emphasizing the need to protect the ecosystems surrounding national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.

The court also directed strict compliance with the provisions of the MoEF & CC's Office Memorandum dated May 17, 2022. This includes adhering to the Guidelines for ESZs and ensuring compliance while granting Environmental and Forest Clearances for project activities within ESZs and other areas outside protected areas.

The judgment recognized the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats, which includes assistance for eco-development activities aimed at providing benefits to local communities while safeguarding wildlife and forests. The court emphasized the importance of allowing these activities to continue, including the construction of essential structures like community halls, bridges, and educational facilities.

The court's decision brings clarity and flexibility to the process of delineating ESZs and ensures a more pragmatic approach that balances conservation goals with the developmental needs of local communities. It also provides an avenue for aggrieved persons to approach the court directly if they are adversely affected by ESZ notifications.

The ruling has far-reaching implications for environmental governance and sustainable development in the country. By modifying the existing directions, the Supreme Court has demonstrated its commitment to striking a harmonious balance between wildlife conservation and the welfare of citizens residing in and around protected areas.

GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS      

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/26-Apr-2023-GODAVARMAN-THIRUMULPAD-VS-UOI.pdf"]

Latest Legal News