Summary
The Court upheld Tamil Nadu’s authority to notify the Sigur Plateau elephant corridor and accepted the expert identification and restrictions on commercial activity. It nevertheless appointed an inquiry committee to hear individual objections concerning alleged acreage discrepancies, sealing of resorts and removal of fencing. The judgment did not finally reject those factual grievances or automatically reopen the sealed establishments.
Issues
- Whether the State could notify an elephant corridor over the private forest lands.
- Whether the expert identification of the corridor warranted interference.
- How objections concerning acreage and the Collector’s implementation should be determined.
Held
- The State was empowered to protect forest and wildlife habitats, including by notifying the corridor over lands admittedly classified as private forest. The Court did not decide the separate allegation that construction necessarily violated the earlier tree-felling prohibition. (¶ 39)
- The precautionary principle requires anticipation and prevention of environmental degradation. The constitutional environmental mandate and the ecological role of elephant corridors justified limiting commercial activity in the notified area. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37, 40)
- There was no reason to disturb the High Court’s findings concerning elephant movement, habitat obstruction and the State’s adoption of its expert committee’s recommendations. Alleged absence of elephants could itself reflect fencing and construction restricting access. (¶¶ 38, 41)
- Specific allegations of variance in acreage, unjustified sealing and removal of fencing outside the permitted scope required inquiry rather than final rejection. A three-member committee chaired by former Justice K. Venkatraman was appointed to decide those grievances, including objections by similarly aggrieved persons. (¶¶ 42, 43)
- The State must provide logistical and secretarial support within four weeks, remuneration and cooperation. Objections with supporting documents may be filed within four months; the committee must afford reasonable hearing and pass appropriate orders. The four-week period concerns support for the inquiry, not its completion. (¶¶ 43, 44)
Result
Appeals disposed of with parties bearing their own costs. Corridor notification and its underlying justification sustained, subject to committee adjudication of specified factual grievances; pending applications disposed of.