Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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