Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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"]

Latest Legal News