Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

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"]

Similar News