Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

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