Environmental Protection vs. Economic Growth: Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision on Eco-Sensitive Zones
The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. has reaffirmed its commitment to environmental conservation while balancing economic interests. The case originally began as a public interest litigation for the protection of forest lands in the Nilgiris district of Tamil Nadu but later expanded to include the preservation of natural resources across India. The judgment extensively discusses the mining activities in the Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary in Rajasthan and the broader issue of eco-sensitive zones (ESZ) surrounding wildlife sanctuaries and national parks.
The Supreme Court recognized the rampant degradation of forests due to unauthorized mining activities and emphasized the significance of ESZs in maintaining ecological balance. The court firmly held that all protected forests, including national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, must have an ESZ of at least one kilometer from their demarcated boundary, except in special cases where state governments may propose a different boundary based on local ecological conditions.
Background of the Case
The original writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by environmental activist T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, seeking the preservation of forests across India. The case evolved into a broader mandate covering illegal encroachments, mining activities, and deforestation. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was constituted by the Supreme Court in 2002 to monitor compliance with its orders and oversee forest conservation measures.
The specific issue before the court in this judgment involved:
- The rampant mining in and around Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary.
- The establishment and implementation of ESZs across the country.
- The need for stricter enforcement of environmental protection laws.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that unregulated mining activities were causing irreparable damage to the environment. The CEC’s report submitted on 20th November 2003 presented a “horrific picture of ravaging of a protected forest mainly by private miners mostly with temporary working permits obtained from government agencies.” The CEC’s key recommendations included:
- Immediate cancellation of mining leases within the sanctuary and safety zone.
- Fixing a 500-meter minimum safety zone around national parks and sanctuaries.
- Reclamation and rehabilitation of mined areas at the cost of the miners.
- Strict regulatory measures to prevent further degradation of wildlife habitats.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents, primarily comprising mining companies and the State of Rajasthan, argued that:
- The ESZ should be restricted to 25 meters as per the 1994 Mineral Policy.
- Mining was an essential economic activity that contributed significantly to state revenue and employment.
- Several mining leases were granted before the enactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and should therefore be allowed to continue.
- Demarcation of sanctuary boundaries was unclear, leading to disputes over whether mining activities were within protected zones.
Key Observations of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, while analyzing the issue, made several crucial observations:
“Adherence to the principle of sustainable development is a constitutional requirement. Development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs must be prioritized.”
The court emphasized the Precautionary Principle and the Public Trust Doctrine, reaffirming that the state has a duty to protect natural resources for the benefit of the general public. It held that economic interests should not take precedence over environmental concerns.
Final Judgment and Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following key directives:
- Every protected forest (national park or wildlife sanctuary) must have an ESZ of at least one kilometer, except in special cases.
- For Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, a buffer zone of 500 meters shall be maintained for existing activities, while new activities will require a one-kilometer buffer.
- All mining activities within national parks and sanctuaries are strictly prohibited.
- States must submit reports on existing structures and activities within ESZs within three months.
- In cases where states have failed to notify ESZs, the default buffer zone will be 10 kilometers until further action is taken.
The court further directed the CEC to quantify compensation from miners who conducted activities in violation of environmental laws and ordered confiscation of illegal mining equipment.
Conclusion
This judgment reaffirms India’s commitment to environmental conservation while allowing room for sustainable economic development. By ensuring the mandatory implementation of ESZs, the Supreme Court has taken a strong stance against uncontrolled exploitation of natural resources. This verdict sets a precedent for future environmental cases, reinforcing the principle that economic gains cannot come at the cost of ecological destruction.
Petitioner Name: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad.Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aniruddha Bose.Place Of Incident: Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan.Judgment Date: 03-06-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: t.n.-godavarman-thir-vs-union-of-india-&-ors-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-03-06-2022.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Environmental Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments June 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments
See all posts in Environmental Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
