Summary
In the long-running T.N. Godavarman forest litigation, the Court disposed of I.A. No. 1000 of 2003, which arose from the Central Empowered Committee's 2003 report on the ravaging of the Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary near Jaipur by miners operating on temporary working permits, and dealt with the wider question of eco-sensitive zones (ESZ) around national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, on which the CEC's 2012 report, the MoEF's Guidelines of 09.02.2011 and the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife had expressed views. Applying the public trust doctrine, the precautionary principle and sustainable development, the Court rejected the miners' pleas to resume mining in or near the sanctuary and the State of Rajasthan's economic justification.
Issues
- Whether mining lease holders who worked inside or at the edge of the Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary on temporary working permits may resume mining, and whether the sanctuary was validly declared under Section 18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 without a Section 26A notification.
- What minimum eco-sensitive zone must be maintained around national parks and wildlife sanctuaries across the country, whether it should be uniform or site-specific, and what activities may continue within it.
- Whether affected persons may be impleaded in a public interest litigation of in rem character, and how the Court should treat a State's plea to open protected areas and buffer zones for commercial exploitation.
Provisions considered
- Sections 18, 26A and 35, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972The 1982 declaration of Jamua Ramgarh as a sanctuary under the unamended Section 18 was valid; Section 26A, inserted in 1991, did not apply retrospectively, so the plea that no sanctuary existed for want of a Section 26A declaration was baseless. Mining within national parks and sanctuaries declared under these provisions is not permitted. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39, 44(d))
- Sections 3(3) and 3(v), Rule 5 of the 1986 Rules; MoEF&CC ESZ Guidelines dated 09.02.2011, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986The CEC was constituted under Section 3(3); ESZs are notified under the Act. The 2011 Guidelines, prescribing a site-specific process and classifying activities as prohibited, regulated and permissible, were accepted as reasonable and made binding within every ESZ. (¶¶ 1, 6, 7, 8, 32, 42, 44(a))
- Section 2, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980Every mining lease in Jamua Ramgarh after 25.10.1980 had been sanctioned in violation of the Act and the Wild Life Act; 'forest' bears its dictionary meaning and includes any area recorded as forest irrespective of ownership (order of 12.12.1996). (¶¶ 20, 21, 40)
- Order I Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908A public interest litigation assumes an in rem character; ideally public notice should issue as under Order I Rule 8, and where it has not, persons affected or likely to be affected by orders are entitled to join, so the impleadment prayers of the mining firms were allowed. (¶ 34)
Held
- The State is not merely a facilitator of economic activity but a trustee of natural resources for the general public under the public trust doctrine (M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath), a role more relevant than ever in the face of climate catastrophe; Rajasthan's justification of mining in and around Jamua Ramgarh rested on immediate economic gain and overlooked that role. Sustainable development and the precautionary principle, as restated by this Bench on 09.05.2022, govern complaints of environmental degradation. (¶¶ 28, 29, 35)
- Uniform ESZ norms are not possible for every sanctuary or national park, and the 2011 Guidelines are reasonable; nevertheless a minimum ESZ of one kilometre, the CEC's recommendation for Category B protected forests, is the standard, subject to special cases such as Sanjay Gandhi and Guindy National Parks with urban activity in close proximity. (¶¶ 41, 42)
- For Jamua Ramgarh, the 25-metre buffer under Rajasthan's 1994 Mineral Policy was grossly inadequate; as a special case, subsisting activities not on the prohibited list may continue within a 500-metre ESZ, but any new activity must respect the one-kilometre norm. The miners' prayers to resume mining in the sanctuary or within the buffer were rejected. (¶¶ 36, 43, 44(a), 44(n))
- Where an ESZ wider than one kilometre is already prescribed or proposed under a statutory instrument, the wider margin prevails; where a State has sent no proposal, the ten-kilometre buffer indicated in Goa Foundation (04.12.2006) and the 2011 Guidelines applies until a final decision. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the Home Secretary of each State and Union Territory are responsible for compliance and must list subsisting structures within ESZs, using satellite imaging or drones, and report within three months. (¶¶ 44(b), 44(c), 44(h))
- Non-prohibited activities already under way within an ESZ may continue only with the permission of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, to be obtained within six months; no new permanent structure shall be permitted within an ESZ for any purpose; the minimum width may be diluted in overwhelming public interest only through the CEC and MoEF&CC placing their recommendations before this Court, and wider zones may likewise be sought through the CEC. (¶¶ 44(e), 44(f), 44(g))
- The CEC shall, within four months and after hearing the mine operators, the State and MoEF&CC, quantify compensation recoverable from each miner who mined within Jamua Ramgarh in violation of law or the Court's orders, with recommendations on compensatory afforestation, reclamation, clearing of overburden and confiscation of machinery; this order prevails over any contrary order of a High Court or subordinate court. (¶¶ 44(o), 44(p))
Result
I.A. No. 1000 of 2003 disposed of with directions: a minimum one-kilometre eco-sensitive zone around every national park and wildlife sanctuary (500 metres for subsisting activities at Jamua Ramgarh), mining within protected areas prohibited, no new permanent structures within ESZs, State compliance reports within three months, and the CEC to quantify compensation from Jamua Ramgarh miners within four months; mining firms impleaded but their prayers to resume mining rejected; unrelated applications to be listed separately; Goa Foundation petitions to be heard with this petition.