1

JUDICIAL INTERVENTION AND FOREST CONSERVATION

Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy
Mid Career Training Phase III
Course-4
30/07/2014












Submitted by:
Takhat Singh Ranawat, IFS-2007,
Director EDCS, DPAR (e-Governance)
Govt of Karnataka.



2

JUDICIAL INTERVENTION AND FOREST CONSERVATION
(Takhat Singh Ranawat, IFS-2007, Karnataka Cadre)

I. INTRODUCTION
The constitution of India envisages three independent organs - legislature, judiciary
and executive. The present case discusses the role played by judiciary vis a vis executive and
legislature. The Judicial intervention is in form of direction issued to executives and framing
of rules/guidelines which legislature has either failed to do or is yet to do.
In democracy, the popular sentiments often guide the policies and sometimes the long
term goals are not in immediate priority. The ban on green felling to save catchments,
restriction on activities in wildlife habitats to provide an inviolate space to wild animals, ban
on unregulated mining and devastation of landscapes etc are the long term goals. And all
theses fundamentals have also been promulgated in form of laws but there has been
reluctance on part of executive to strictly implement due to popular sentiments. Under such
circumstances, there have been several occasions in which the judiciary stepped in cutting
pathway for conservation of forests and related natural resources.
The Honble Supreme court has looked at the environment and forests as closely
related entities. The Honble Supreme court initially intervened in cases of environment to
protect the Fundamental Right to Life (Article 21 of constitution of India) and later the
interventions were extended to protect forests and wildlife as well. For conservation of forests
and wildlife the higher judiciary has played a proactive role.
The intervention by Honble Supreme Court in case of forest and wildlife
conservation has been innovative and has devised and suggested many innovative tools for
example- Writ of Continuum Mandamus, Central Empowered Committee, PIL, Green
Tribunal, CAMPA etc.
The most remarkable contribution of Honble Supreme Court in forest conservation is
to define forest. Though the legislation Indian Forest Act for conservation of forests had
been passed by the British in year 1865, then amended in year 1878 & 1927, but the term
forest was not defined in the acts. And the term Forest remained undefined until the
Honble Supreme Court defined it, in order dated 12.12.1996 in TN Godavernman Case (WP
202/1995). The term forest was given a broad interpretation to include, the dictionary
meaning of the word- forest beside the recorded and notified forest areas.
3

II. INSTRUMENTS
The higher judiciary has played active role and used the constitutional mandate to the
best advantage for conservation of forests and environment. The instruments and
provisions available to judiciary to safeguard the environment and forests are as follow:-
a) Fundamental Rights - Article 21 & 32 For Constitutional remedy the higher
judiciary can be approached directly, if there is violation of fundamental rights. The
Supreme Court has in this regard given a wide interpretation to fundamental right to
life, Article 21, and brought under its preview, the right to healthy environment.
b) Directive Principles of State Policy, Article 48-A - The State shall Endeavour to
protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the
country. It gives directive to the State for protection and improvement of
environment.
c) Fundamental duties; Article 51-A, it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to
protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and
wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. It casts/imposes a duty on every
citizen to help in the preservation of natural environment.
d) Enforcement of various provisions of laws enacted by legislature. The judiciary has
provided relief under various sections of laws passed for protection of environment
and forests & wildlife, namely the Environmental Protection Act 1986, Indian Forest
Act 1927, Wildlife Protection Act 1972, Forest Conservation Act 1980, Biodiversity
Act 2005, Water Act & Air Act and other related Acts & Rules.
e) Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India, the Forest is included in the Concurrent
List under Entry 17A. This gives the concurrent powers to State and Union to
legislate on the subject of forest. And supremacy of Union legislation over state.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is allowed under Doctrine of Public trust and the
condition of Locus standi is done away. Most of the PIL related to environment are
allowed to protect fundamental right to life Article 21 (Right to healthy environment).
And any public spirited person can approach the higher courts for remedial measures. The
Honble Supreme Court has even observed that a simple post card addressed to it can be
considered as PIL. The higher courts have effectively used this tool to draw attention of
public and demanded actions from executive.
4

Few critics have pointed out that in view of large number of pending cases in various
courts, entertaining frivolous petitions may waste precious time of courts. Also, in case
of PILs there are no set guidelines and it solely depends on the courts to admit it or not.
However, many landmark judgements have been delivered through this mechanism, for
example- MC Mehta Case, Centre for Environmental Law-WWF Case, Mussorie
Quarrying Case, Goa Foundation Case etc. With time the PIL has emerged as effective
tool to address any emergent issue of public importance.

Writ of Mandamus
The writ of Mandamus is issued under this Article 32 & 226 of Constitution to
enforce the fundamental rights enlisted in Chapter-II of the Constitution. In this regard the
Supreme Court has devised new tool of Writ of Continuing Mandamus which is being
issued from time to time to executive in TN Godavarman Case (WP(c) 202of 1995), for
last 18 years from year 1996. Many critics have raised concerns that judiciary has taken
over the work of executive. And the administration of forests is effectively being done by
Honble Court. Also, the court have allowed raising connected matters and effectively
dealing with and issuing orders in respect of almost all the issues of forest administration
in one Writ Petition.
Though the critics have raised concerns but this mechanism of Writ of Continuing
Mandamus has brought some sense and streamlined many administrative actions of
executive. Also this has given strength to executive to strictly implement the law.

Central Empowered Committee
The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India by order dated 9.5.2002 in Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 202/95 & 171/96. The
Central Empowered Committee is set up as an authority under Section 3 (3) of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to adjudicate and hear grievances on forest and
wildlife related issues.
The Honble Supreme Court has constituted the CEC with specific mandate as
follow:-
a) Pending interlocutory application in these two writ petitions as well as the
reports and affidavits filled by the States in response to the orders made by the
5

Court shall be examined by the Committee, and their recommendations will be
placed before Hon'ble Court for orders.
b) Any individual having any grievance against any steps taken by the
Government or any other authority in purported compliance with the orders
passed by this Hon'ble Court will be at liberty to move the Committee for
seeking suitable relief. The Committee may dispose of such applications in
conformity with the orders passed by Hon'ble Court. Any application, which
cannot be appropriately disposed of by the Committee may be referred by it to
this Hon'ble Court.
Also the CEC have been given the following powers to achieve the above mandate.
The Committee have the power to:
a) Call for any documents from any person or the government of the Union or the
State or any other official.
b) Summon any person and receive evidence from such person on oath either on
affidavit or otherwise.
c) Seek assistance / presence of any persons(s) / official(s) required by it in
relation to its work.
The CEC is not a statutory body constituted under any statute of parliament. But, the
CEC has practically become the investigative wing of the Honble Supreme Court in
matters of forest & wildlife conservation and almost on all the matters the report from
CEC is being sought by the Honble court before passing an order. The CEC has
practically become the eyes and ears of the court and also it has given very bold and true
picture of ground situations on basis of which many landmark orders have been passed.
For example Report by CEC on Mining activities in Kudremukh National Park situated
in fragile Western Ghats, Illegal mining in Bellary, Karnataka, etc.

Forest Advisory council
The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) is constituted under Section-3 of the Forest
Conservation (FC) Act, to advise the Government in matters related to the FC Act. The
Rules 7 and 8 of Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003 provide that the FAC, will tender its
advise on the proposals referred to it by the Union Government.
6

FAC play crucial role in decision making of diversion cases in Ministry of Environment
and forests. The Supreme Court ruled that the inclusion of non-official members who are
civil society members, environmentalist and activists, will broad-base the decision
making and free FAC from official control and made the decision making of diversion
cases more objective.

Compensatory Afforestation Management & Planning Agency (CAMPA)
The CAMPA is constituted by Govt. of India under section 3 of the Environmental
Protection Act, 1986 vide Notification dated 23.04.2004. It was created in compliance to
the Honble Supreme Court order dated 30.10.2002 in I.A. No. 566 in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 202 of 1995.
Honble Supreme Court gave direction in Writ petition 202 of 1995 to collect NPV,
compensatory afforestation charges and other charges for all the forest lands diverted for
non forestry activities. The Honble court has directed to collect NPV in a range of
Rs.5.80 lakhs per hector to Rs. 9.20 lakhs per hectare depending upon density and eco-
class of forest land diverted. The NPV and others charges, so collected are required to be
deposited in CAMPA fund. The CAMPA fund constitute of (i)NPV (ii)CA (iii) Penal CA
(iv) CAT (v) Felling of Trees in the diverted area (vi) SSD (vii) Reclamation of mines
etc charges. It is an innovative idea of Honble Supreme Court to compensating for the
forest land diverted to non-forestry use.
The CAMPA is a body for Management of Compensatory Afforestration Fund and
collection of Net Present Value and other charges in lieu of diverted forest lands. And to
act as National Advisory Council (under the chairmanship of the Union Minister of
Environment & Forests) for monitoring, technical assistance and evaluation of
compensatory afforestation activities.
The setting up of CAMPA has led to reduction in demand of forest land for various
projects. The condition to handover equal extent of land in lieu of diverted forest land
and imposition of NPV, Compensatory Afforestation Charges and Penal charges has led
to reduction in demand for forest land. Also the lengthy and detailed procedure has
dissuaded people to look for other alternatives. The CAMPA fund has also helped in
improvement of degaraded forest lands by providing fund for compensatory
afforestation.
7

The National Green Tribunal
The Honble Supreme Court in various judgments (namely, M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India, Indian Council for Environmental-Legal Action v. Union of India; A.P. Pollution
Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu) has observed that full fledged Environmental courts are
required to be established. Taking clue from this, the Law commission in its 186th report
recommended for constitution of the National Green Tribunal.
The Green tribunals in country have been established by an Act of Parliament, the
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to deal with matter relating to environment and
forests & wildlife. The Tribunal's dedicated jurisdiction in environmental matters will
provide speedy environmental justice and help reduce the burden of litigation in the
higher courts. The NGT is proposed to be set up at five places of sittings and; New Delhi
is the Principal Place of Sitting of the Tribunal and Bhopal, Pune, Kolkata and Chennai
will be the other 4 place of sitting of the Tribunal
The Tribunal is not bound by the strict procedure laid down under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, but is be guided by principles of natural justice. The Tribunal is
mandated for quick disposal of the cases preferably within 6 months of filing of the same.
The Tribunal has Original Jurisdiction on matters of substantial question relating to
environment (i.e. a community at large is affected, damage to public health at broader
level) & damage to environment due to specific activity (such as pollution). The powers
of tribunal related to an award are equivalent to Civil court and tribunal may transmit any
order/award to civil court have local jurisdiction. Also Tribunal is competent to hear cases
for several acts such as Forest (Conservation) Act, Biological Diversity Act, Environment
(Protection) Act, Water & Air (Prevention & control of Pollution) Acts etc
Few Notable orders of National Green Tribunal:
Coal Blocks in Chhattisgarh Forests: The National Green Tribunal has cancelled the
clearance given by the then Union Environment and Forests Minister, to the Parsa East
and Kante-Basan captive coal blocks in the Hasdeo-Arand forests of Chhattisgarh,
overruling the statutory Forest Advisory Committee.
Yamuna Conservation Zone: The NGA said that the health of Yamuna will be affected by
the proposed recreational facilities on the river. The NGT also recommended the
Government to declare a 52 km stretch of the Yamuna in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh as a
conservation zone.
8

III. IMPORTANT CASES AND THEIR OUTCOMES
The interventions and outcomes in few of the important cases heard in Honble Supreme
Court are discussed here.
(A) Mussorie Quarrying Case: Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of
U.P., AIR 1988 SC 2187.
In early 1980s the rampant quarrying of limestone and phosphate was going on in
Mussorie hills, which lead to destruction of natural beauty and ecology of the region.
The issue raised a great public debate and it was also brought to notice of Ms. Indira
Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India, and then she visited the hills and express great
concern. The Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra and others in a letter to the Supreme
Court complained about the illegal / unauthorized mining in the Mussorie, Dehradun belt
and its adverse impact on the fragile ecology and natural beauty of the region.
The Supreme Court treated the letter as PIL and considered it as writ petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution. The court issued orders to stop the quarrying / mining in
the area. At that time around 104 mines/ quarries were operating in the region. The
orders banning destructive mining were issued under the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986.
The respondents contended / argued that the write petition was registered in 1983 and
the Environment (Protection) Act was passed in 1986 and hence the criminal proceedings
cannot be initiated with retrospective effect. The court rejected the contention of the
respondents and held that the provisions of procedural law shall apply to ordinary
criminal cases and not to the environmental cases. The court directed the Central and
State Governments to take necessary steps to prevent illegal mining and to re-
afforesation in the area of mining. Accordingly, the mine areas were rehabilitated by
forest department and eco-task force.
Important Outcomes
a) PIL- A Letter of compliant to Supreme court was treated as PIL, and condition of
Locus standi was relaxed.
b) Environmental Rights The broad interpretation to Fundamental right was given
and writ petitions were allowed to address environmental issues. Further In M.C.
Mehta vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086. The Supreme Court treated the
9

right to live in pollution free environment as a part of fundamental right to life
under Article 21 of the Constitution. And then, A.P. High Court in T. Damodar
Rao vs. S.O., Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, (AIR 1987 A.P. 171) laid down
that right to live in healthy environment was specially declared to be part of
Article 21 to the Constitution.
c) Environmental Protection Act 1986- The Mussorie quarrying Case along with
other environmental cases made it clear that country needed a strong law to
protect environment. And subsequently the Environmental Protection Act 1986
was passed by Parliament of India.
(B) TN Godaverman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India [WP(C) 202 of 1995].
In Year 1995, the writ petition was filed by Mr. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad to
save the Nilgiri forests from degradation and denudation by timber extraction. The
Supreme Court combined with it other similar cases and started looking at it from broad
spectrum rather than just halting the felling in Nilgiris. It is a case concerning the
implementation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
Subsequently, the Court has allowed raising many connected matters through
Interlocutory Applications (IA). So far, more than 2000 IA has been filed and many
orders have been passed. The Supreme Court has not issued final orders in this writ
petition and has devised in this case the Writ of Continuing Mandamus. By this the
Honble Supreme court has effectively taken over the control of forest administration and
management. Many landmark orders have been passed; few outcomes are detailed below.
Important Outcomes:
a) Definition of forest- The definition of forest was broadened to include the areas
falling under dictionary meaning of forest, along with the statutory forests &
recorded forest areas in Govt. Records.

............... The term forest land occurring in Section 2, will not only
include forest as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area
recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of its
ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of
Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation
Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests, and the matters connected
therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of
the ownership or classification thereof..........

(Supreme Court orders dated 12.12.1996 in WP No.202/1995)

10

b) Forest Conservation Act 1980- The provision of FC Act 1980 were directed to be
followed strictly and no diversion of forest can happen without prior consent of
Union government this has lead to greater scrutiny of Diversion cases. Also
imposition of NPV and creation of CAMPA has led to improvement of degraded
forests. And acquiring of alternate land of equal extent in lieu of diverted forest
land.
c) Formation of Expert committee to identify forest in states Directed all states to
identify the forest areas in respective states by formation of expert committee and
file an affidavit in Supreme Court in that respect.
d) Ban on green felling in certain areas and regulation in others Supreme Court
banned green felling in few hill states above certain altitude to save water
catchments. And regulated felling in other states by imposing condition that no
felling can be done without an approved Working Plan.
e) Regulation on Saw Mills operations- Formulated strict conditions on
establishment of new saw mills near forests and made it mandatory that no new
saw mill can be opened without approval of CEC. Also stipulated conditions on
shifting and renewal of saw mill licenses.
f) Formation of High Powered Committee and Central Empowered Committee
The High power committee was formed to monitor the implementation of orders
passed in WP 202 of 1995. The CEC is formed to redress the grievances, if any,
emerging out of court orders and act as advisory body on matters of forest
conservation to Honble Supreme court.
g) Broad basing the selection of Forest Advisory Council members to include Civil
Society members and environmentalists & activists. The FAC is advisory body
which is involved in decision making on diversion cases in MOEF, the inclusion
of non-official members has brought more transparency in functioning of
Ministry.

(C) Centre for Environmental Law- WWF vs Union of India and Others [WP(C) 337
of 1995].
The case was file in year 1995 by NGO Centre for Environmental Law-WWF in
Supreme Court. The case is related to the implementation of the Wildlife (Protection)
Act, 1972 and the issue of settlement of Rights in National Parks and Sanctuaries. The
11

case is continuing from year 1995 and the final order has not been in this writ petition.
The Supreme Court is utilising the Writ of Continuing Mandamus to deliver orders on
many related Interlocutory Applications (IA) filed in respect of wildlife protection. This
case has lead to fundamental change in wildlife protection and management of protected
areas. Few of the important outcomes are discussed below.
Important Outcomes
a) I.A. No. 2 of WP(C) 337 of 1995, Order dated 13.11.2000:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had passed the following order on
13/11/2000 in I.A. No. 2 of WP(C) 337 of 1995:

"Pending further orders, no dereservation of forests / National Parkes /
Sanctuaries shall be effected."

Further, on 09/02/2004, the Hon'ble Court rejected the appeal of the Government
of India praying for deletion of the word "forests" from the above mentioned
order. Therefore, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13/11/2000, as
mentioned above, is still operative.
Thus, no dereservation/ denotification of any forests/ National Park/ Wildlife
Sanctuary can be done without the approval of the Supreme Court.
b) I.A. No. 18 of WP(C) 337 of 1995, Order dated 09.05.2002
The Supreme Court observed:
"..... In the meantime, no permission under Section 29 of the Wildlife (
Protection ) Act, 1972 should granted without getting of the Standing
Committee of Indian Board for Wildlife....."
(Supreme Court orders dated 09.05.2002 in I.A. No. 18 In WP No. 337/1995)
i) Diversion of land in Sanctuary / National Park: The Section 29 of the Wild
Life (protection) Act, 1972 provides for the seeking the recommendation of
the State Board for Wildlife (a Board chaired the State Chief Minister) in case
of Sanctuary and Section 35 mandates the recommendation of National Board
for Wildlife (NBWL) in case of National Parks, for any diversion of land or
produce including water, etc. from a Sanctuary/National Park.
The Supreme Court above mentioned order ruled that no permission under
Section 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 should be granted without
12

getting approval of the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife.
All such approval under section 29 and 35 also needs approval of Honble
Supreme court.
ii) Non-forestry activities in Sanctuary/ National Park: The Section 33
provides that no construction of commercial tourist lodges, hotels, zoos and
safari parks can be undertaken inside a Sanctuary/ National Park except with
prior approval of the Standing Committee of NBWL.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in above order ruled that, all such proposals in
respect of a Sanctuary or a National Park also require Supreme Court's
approval based on the recommendation of the Standing Committee of National
Board for Wildlife.
c) Also in WP No. 202/1995, the Supreme Court an interim orders dated
14.02.2000 and 21.02.2000 in I.A. No. 548 prohibited the removal of any dead or
decaying trees, grasses, driftwood, etc from any area comprising a National Park
or Sanctuary. It was also directed that if any order to the contrary had been passed
by any State government or other authorities, that order shall be stayed.
(D) Goa Foundation case [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 460/2004]
The writ petition was filed in Supreme Court to implement the decision taken by
National Wildlife board regarding declaration of eco-sensitive zone around protected
areas for wildlife. In petition, the operation of a mine with in 10 km of Wildlife sanctuary
in Goa was challenged.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in it order dated 4th December 2006 in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 460/2004, ruled that any project requiring Environmental Clearance, is located within
the eco-sensitive zone around a Wildlife Sanctuary or National Park or in absence of
delineation of such a zone, within a distance of 10 kms from its boundaries, the User
agency/Project Proponent is required to obtain recommendations of the Standing
Committee of NBWL.

Important Outcome
The Supreme Court has directed all the states to send proposal for declaration of eco-
sensitive zone around Wildlife Sanctuary / National Park to Government of India to
finally notify the eco-sensitive zone under Section 3 of Environmental Protection Act
13

1986. In case of failure to declare the eco-sensitive zone the default zone of 10 km to be
considered as eco-sensitive zone. The Proposal requiring environmental clearance under
EIA Notification 2006 located in eco-sensitive zone/ 10km default zone are required to
seek approval of NBWL.

(E) Lafarge Umiam Mining Case [(2011) 7 SCC 338]
[I.A. Nos. 1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380, 2568 and 2937 in WP(C)- 202 of 1995]

The case is regarding mining of lime stone in forest area of Nongtrai in the East Khasi
Hills District of Meghalaya by M/s Lafarge. The mine material is used in cement plant
established in Bangladesh. The issues raised in case are regarding the nature of land and
whether the forest clearance is obtained by means of misrepresentation. This case is
landmark judgement in term of bringing reforms in process of grant of environmental
clearance.
The Supreme Court hold the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine would apply in cases
of deciding whether a governmental authority had erred in granting environmental
clearance and the principles of sustainable development and intergenerational equity
will also need to be considered before grant of environmental clearance. Since, the
limestone mines existed in neighbouring areas and other records produced in respect of
ownership; the forest clearance given by MOEF was upheld. But Court suggested a
decision support database to arrive at unbiased decision.
The important portions of Supreme Court orders dated 06.7.2011 are as follow;
....we are of the view that under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986, the Central Government should appoint a National Regulator for
appraising projects, enforcing environmental conditions for approvals and to
impose penalties on polluters.

....
Creation and regular updating of a GIS based decision support database,
tentatively containing inter-alia the district-wise details of the location and
boundary of
(i) each plot of land that may be defined as forest for the purpose of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980;
(ii) the core, buffer and eco-sensitive zone of the protected areas constituted
as per the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972;
(iii) the important migratory corridors for wildlife; and
14

(iv) the forest land diverted for non-forest purpose in the past in the district.

The Survey of India toposheets in digital format, the forest cover maps
prepared by the Forest Survey of India in preparation of the successive State
of Forest Reports and the conditions stipulated in the approvals accorded
under the Forest (Conservations) Act, 1980 for each case of diversion of forest
land in the district will also be part of the proposed decision support
database. ....

.....
Completion of the exercise undertaken by each State/UT Govt. in compliance
of this Courts order dated 12.12.1996 wherein inter-alia each State/UT
Government was directed to constitute an Expert Committee to identify the
areas which are forests irrespective of whether they are so notified,
recognized or classified under any law, and irrespective of the land of such
forest and the areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded,
denuded and cleared, culminating in preparation of Geo-referenced district
forest-maps containing the details of the location and boundary of each plot of
land that may be defined as forest for the purpose of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980. .....
Important Outcomes:
a) For obtaining the environment clearance the Public consultation is mustand
appointment of National regulator to appraise the projects and monitor the
compliance and impose penalties on polluters.
b) Creation of a GIS based decision-support database- Preparation of Geo-
referenced district forest-maps containing the details of the location and
boundary of each plot of land that may be defined as forest for the purpose of
the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
c) In cases where environmental clearance is required for a project on forest land,
the forest clearance shall be obtained before the grant of the environment
clearance.
IV. CONCLUSION
The environmental jurisprudence in India is developing one. The principles of
environmental accountability and responsibility were propounded in 46
th
Amendment to
the constitution. Subsequently, Forest Conservation Act 1980 and Environmental
Protection Act 1986 were passed, but in last twenty years hardly any new law has been
passed in respect of protection of environment. The higher judiciary has played an activist
role to evolve this jurisprudence. The application of fundamental rights enshrined in
15

Constitution of India to an environmental case by judiciary is most innovative step taken
in this regard.
In field of environmental laws, many doctrines have been evolved by the Courts to
achieve the objectives of Welfare State as enshrined in Directive Principles of State
Policies. The court has ruled that use of natural resources should be for common good and
to maintain intergenerational parity. The courts have come done heavily on the
unscientific and wasteful mining and loot of the natural resources. And also has not
hesitated to levy heavy penalties on polluters, through polluter pays principle.
In case of Forests and Wildlife the Supreme Court of India has effectively taken over
control of administration and management of forests and wildlife by way of Writ of
Continuing Mandamus in TN Godavarman case (WP 202 of 1995) and Centre for
Environmental law WWF case (WP 337 of 1995). Also the court has devised many
innovative tools and mechanism to protect the forests and wildlife, for example CEC,
NPV, CAMPA etc. The court have also been mindful of grievances emerging of it orders
in various Writ petition in relation of forests and wildlife therefore it has directed to
constitute the central empowered committee to look into such grievances and bring it to
the notice of court.
The void left in policy formulation and implementation has been to an extent was
filled by the proactive approach of the Honble Supreme Court and High Courts. But
preference to adopt the writ petitions under Article 32 & 226 and PIL route to address
environmental issues, over the regular route has its own disadvantages. Therefore, the
Parliament has passed The National Green Tribunal Act 2010 and has established the
National Green Tribunal. The Tribunal is composed of Judicial member and subject
experts to adjudicate and award compensation in environmental and forest conservation.
With establishment of National Green Tribunal a new initiative by Government has been
taken, which is sure to bring fruitful results and lessen the burden of higher judiciary.

_____________*******______________