Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 78
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 202/1995
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD …PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
P.C.
1. This judgment is in the context of institutionalisation and
1
reconstitution of the Central Empowered Committee. The CEC
was originally directed to be constituted by an order of this Court
2
dated 09.05.2002. Almost for a period of two decades, the CEC
was functioning as an ad hoc body. We noticed that the present
composition of the CEC also consisted of persons who are more
than 75 years of age and some of whom are also residing outside
India. We also noticed that much water had flown when the CEC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2024.01.31
16:54:13 IST
Reason:
1 Hereinafter ‘CEC’.
2
In IA No. 295 in WP(C) No. 202/1995 reported as T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union
of India , (2013) 8 SCC 198 . Pursuant to the said direction, a notification dated 17.09.2002
was issued by the Central Government constituting the CEC as a statutory authority under
Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
1
was initially constituted, inasmuch as, various enactments
concerning environmental issues were enacted, so also various
regulatory bodies were constituted under the said enactments.
We further found it necessary to have a relook at the CEC’s
functioning. We, therefore, passed orders dated 24.03.2023 and
18.05.2023 in this regard.
2. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
thereafter issued a Notification dated 05.09.2023 under Section
3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, constituting the
CEC as a permanent body for “the purposes of monitoring and
ensuring compliance of the orders of the Supreme Court covering
the subject matter of Environment, Forest and Wildlife, and related
issues arising out of the said orders and to suggest measures and
recommendations generally to the State, as well as Central
Government, for more effective implementation of the Act and other
3
orders of the Court” . By our order dated 18.08.2023, we have
approved the aforesaid Notification. While approving the
Notification, we also declared that the CEC shall continue to
function subject to such orders and directions that this Court
may pass from time to time.
3 See the Preamble of the notification dated 05.09.2023.
2
3. In Part I of this judgment, we will first present the
conception, constitution, functions, and finally the
institutionalisation of the CEC. In Part II, to entrench
environmental rule of law in our environmental governance, we
have attempted to formulate some new principles for the effective
monitoring of various bodies, institutions, and regulators
established for protecting our forests, wildlife, environment, and
ecology.
PART I
4. Original Constitution and Functioning of CEC till 2023: This
Court’s endeavours to protect forests in India and to ensure
regulation of nonforest activities in forests commenced in 1996.
Even prior to the constitution of the CEC, this Court directed the
constitution of various bodies to oversee and monitor the
compliance of its orders. In one of the most important orders
4
dated 12.12.1996, this Court defined the term ‘forest’ as
covering all statutorily recognised forests, irrespective of how they
were designated (either as reserved, protected or otherwise). The
term ‘forest land’ in Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 was held to include any area recorded as a forest in
4 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India , (1997) 2 SCC 267.
3
government records, irrespective of its ownership. Along with
mandating prior approval of the Central Government to
undertake any nonforest activities in forests and issuing
directions on the felling of trees, this Court also directed the
constitution of Expert Committees by each state government to
identify ‘forests’ and sustainable existence of saw mills in forests.
This Court also directed each state government to constitute a
committee with the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and
another Senior Official to oversee the compliance of its orders and
the filing of status reports by the states.
5
5. In its order dated 04.03.1997, this Court constituted a
6
HighPowered Committee to oversee the implementation of its
orders in the NorthEastern region and to also oversee
preparation of inventory of timber, apart from permitting its sale.
7
By order dated 17.04.2000, this Court empowered the HPC to
also supervise the transportation of illegal timber, oversee
investigation into cases of illegal felling of trees, and to re
examine licensing of units.
The CEC was constituted by this Court by order dated
6.
8
09.05.2002 to monitor the implementation of its orders and to
5 v. , (1997) 3 SCC 312.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Union of India
6 Hereinafter ‘HPC’.
7
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , (2002) 10 SCC 646.
8 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , (2013) 8 SCC 198.
4
present cases of noncompliance, including with respect to
encroachment removals, implementation of working plans,
compensatory afforestation, plantations and other conservation
issues. The Court directed that the CEC must be constituted
until such time that the Central Government constitutes a
statutory body under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection)
Act. The CEC, so constituted comprised: (i) a Chairman,
9
nominated by the Ministry of Environment and Forests in
consultation with the amicus curiae, (ii) a nominee of the MoEF,
(iii) two NGOs who are to be nominated in consultation with the
amicus curiae, and (iv) a Member Secretary. These members
(other than the nominee of the MoEF) could not be removed
without the Court’s permission.
7. The above order required that the reports and affidavits filed
by states pursuant to this Court’s orders were to be placed before
the CEC for its examination and recommendations. The
recommendations of the CEC would be placed before this Court
for orders. Further, persons who are aggrieved by any steps
taken by the government in purported compliance of this Court’s
orders could seek relief from the CEC, which must decide the
applications in conformity with the Court’s orders. To perform
9 Hereinafter ‘MoEF’.
5
these functions, the CEC was given the power to call for
documents from any person or government, summon any person
and receive evidence on oath, and seek assistance/presence of
any person or official, including the power to coopt persons as
special invitees for dealing with specific issues. When an issue
pertains to a particular state, the Chief Secretary and Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests of that state were to be coopted as
special invitees wherever feasible. The composition of the CEC
10
was finalised by this Court by order dated 09.09.2002. In this
order, the Court also took note of the draft proposed notification
under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act that
constituted the CEC as a statutory body for five years. The Court
directed that once the notification is issued, the functions and
responsibilities of the CEC are to be exercised as a statutory
committee. The Central Government issued the notification
11
constituting the CEC under Section 3(3) on 17.09.2002.
10
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , (2009) 17 SCC 755. Under this order,
the Court appointed the following members of the CEC:
a. PV Jayakrishnan, Secretary, Government of India as Chairman;
b. Shri NK Joshi, ADG of Forests, Member;
c. Valmik Thapar, Ranthambore Foundation as Member;
d. Advocate Mahendra Vyas as Member;
e. MK Jiwrajka, IGF as Member Secretary.
11 No.1321/98SUPT.II.
6
8. The first modification of the order dated 09.05.2002 came
12
by way of order dated 14.12.2007. The modified terms of
reference, which superseded all previous orders, were as follows:
“ 1.2. The committee shall exercise the following powers
and perform the following functions:
(i) to monitor the implementation of this Court's orders
and place reports of noncompliance before the Court and
the Central Government for appropriate action;
(ii) to examine pending interlocutory applications in the
said writ petitions (as may be referred to it by the Court)
as well as the reports and affidavits filed by the States in
response to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Court and
place its recommendations before the Court for orders;
(iii) to deal with any applications made to it by any
aggrieved person and wherever necessary, to make a
report to this Court in that behalf;
(iv) for the purposes of effective discharge of powers
conferred upon the Committee under this order, the
Committee can:
(a) call for any documents from any persons or the
Government of the Union or the State or any other
official;
(b) undertake site inspection of forest area involved;
(c) seek assistance or presence of any person(s) or
official(s) required by it in relation to its work;
(d) coopt one or more persons as its members or as
special invitees for dealing with specific issues;
(e) coopt, wherever feasible, the Chief Secretary or his
representative and Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests of the State as special invitees while dealing
with issues pertaining to a particular State;
(f) to suggest measures generally to the State, as well
as Central Government, for the more effective
implementation of the Act and other orders of this
Court;
12 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , (2013) 8 SCC 204.
7
(v) to examine and advise/recommend on any issue
referred to the Committee. ”
9. The composition of the CEC was modified by this Court by
13
its order dated 21.02.2008 and the term of office for the new
members was directed to be for three years or until further
orders, whichever is earlier. In another order dated 11.09.2009,
14
one of the members of the CEC was replaced and by order dated
15
03.02.2017, the Member Secretary was replaced.
10. Developments in 2023: It is in the context of IA No.
174896/2019 seeking permission of this Court to construct a
Convention Centre at Patnitop that the present issue of
reconstitution of CEC is taken up. The said application was
allowed by this Court on 24.02.2023 subject to obtaining
16
clearance from the concerned statutory authorities.
11. The CEC submitted its report on the subject matter on
13.03.2023. When the report was placed before this Court on
24.03.2023, the Court made the following observations regarding
13 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , (2008) 3 SCC 182.
14 v. , (2009) 16 SCC 401.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Union of India
15
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , (2022) 10 SCC 584.
16 IA No. 196062 and 174896 of 2019 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India ,
W.P. (C) No. 202/1995, order dated 24.02.2023
8
the functioning of the CEC. The relevant portion of the order
17
dated 24.03.2023 is extracted below:
“ 10. In any case, we are of the view that once an order
is passed by this Court, it is not appropriate for a
Committee which was constituted under the very orders
of this Court to give a report which in effect, questions
the correctness or otherwise, of the orders passed by
this Court.
11. A Committee which is constituted under the orders
of the Court cannot consider itself to be an appellate
authority in regard to the orders passed by this Court.
12. We are further informed by the learned Solicitor
General that at times, the members of the CEC are not
ad idem on all the issues, which are ultimately reported
to this Court.
13. We, therefore, direct that hereinafter, wherever there
is a separate or dissenting opinion of any of the
members of the CEC, such opinion shall also be placed
before the Court alongwith the report.
14. It is further informed that some of the members of
the Committee have crossed the age of 75 years and
some of the members are also living abroad.
15. No doubt, the Committee has rendered yeomen
services to the cause of environment. However, we are
of the view that for effective functioning of the CEC, it is
appropriate that some experts in the relevant fields who
are relatively younger to the present incumbents, can
contribute in a more energetic and efficient manner. It
will therefore be appropriate that some of the old
members, who have attained an advanced age or are
not available in India all the time, are replaced by
younger members.
16. We, therefore, request the learned Solicitor General
and both the learned Amicus Curiae to give a list of
persons, who have expertise in environmental and
17
IA No. 196062 and 174896 of 2019 along with CEC Report No. 11/2023 in T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , W.P. (C) No. 202/1995, order dated 24.03.2023.
9
ecological fields. The same shall be done within three
weeks from today.
17. List these applications on 19.04.2023 for direction. ”
18
12. When the matter was next listed on 18.05.2023, learned
Solicitor General submitted that the Central Government had
accepted the suggestion of the Court to constitute the CEC as a
permanent statutory body. Union of India was to publish a draft
notification under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986 to constitute the CEC within 15 days and place the
notification before this Court. This notification would contain
provisions on the qualification of members, their tenure, powers
and responsibilities, etc. The relevant portion of the order dated
18.05.2023 is extracted below:
“
On the last date when the matter was heard, a
suggestion was made by the Bench that instead of the
CEC (Central Empowered Committee) being an adhoc
body, it would be in the larger interest that the CEC as
an institution should be a permanent statutory body.
Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, has
accepted the said suggestion. He states that the Union
of India would publish a draft notification under the
provisions of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986 providing for the constitution of the CEC.
He submitted that the draft notification would contain
provisions related to the qualification of the Members to
be appointed, their tenure, their powers and
responsibilities etc.
18 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , I.A. Nos. 196062 and 174896 of 2019 in
W.P. No. 202/1995, order dated 18.05.2023.
10
Learned Solicitor General submits that the draft
notification will be published within a period of 15 days
from today and that the same shall be placed before the
Court on the next date. ”
19
13. On 18.08.2023, a draft notification issued by the Ministry
20
of Environment, Forest and Climate Change for constitution of
the CEC was placed before the Court, with a copy to the learned
amicus curiae. We examined the draft notification in detail and
made certain suggestions about incorporating certain features for
the effective and efficient functioning of the CEC. Certain
suggestions were also made by the learned amicus curiae. The
learned Solicitor General did not have any objection to the same
and submitted that the suggestions would be incorporated in the
final notification. Pursuantly, the Central Government was
permitted to proceed with the issuance of the notification to
constitute the CEC as a permanent body in the interest of all
stakeholders. This Court also permitted the MoEFCC to proceed
with the constitution of members of the CEC in accordance with
the notification. The relevant portion of the order passed by this
Court is extracted below:
19 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , I.A. Nos. 196062 and 174896 of 2019 in
W.P. No. 202/1995, order dated 18.08.2023.
20 Hereinafter ‘MoEFCC’.
11
“ 2. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, Mr. Tushar
Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, has handed
over a draft notification to be issued by the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC)
regarding constitution of Central Empowered Committee
(CEC). The said draft has already been shared with Mr.
K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae.
3. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that he has only one
suggestion to the draft notification i.e. there should be a
provision for periodical audit of the functioning of the
CEC by the MoEFCC.
4. Learned Solicitor General does not have any objection
to the said suggestion. He states that the suggestion
given by the learned Amicus Curiae would be
incorporated in the final notification that would be
issued by the MoEFCC.
5. We, therefore, permit the Union of India to proceed
further with the issuance of notification for constitution
of the CEC as a permanent body.
6. We find that rather than CEC functioning as an ad
hoc body, it functioning as a permanent body would be
in the interest of all the stake holders.
7. We also permit the MoEFCC to proceed further with
the constitution of the CEC in accordance with the
notification that will be issued by the MoEFCC. ”
14. Pursuant to the above referred orders dated 18.05.2023 and
18.08.2023, the MoEFCC issued a Notification dated
21
05.09.2023 under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection)
Act to constitute a permanent authority, i.e., the Central
Empowered Committee (CEC), for monitoring and ensuring
compliance of this Court’s orders covering the subjectmatter of
environment, forest, and wildlife and related issues arising out of
these orders; and to suggest measures and make
21 E. F. No. 1312/2022SU.
12
recommendations to the states and Central Government for more
effective implementation of the Act and this Court’s orders.
15. Under the new notification, the CEC shall comprise: i)
Chairman, ii) Member Secretary, and iii) Three expert members
(one each from the fields of environment, forest, and wildlife). The
Chairman and three expert members are to be nominated by the
Central Government for a tenure of 3 years, which can be
extended to one more tenure subject to the prescribed age limit of
66 years. The Member Secretary is appointed by the Central
Government to be the Chief Coordinating Officer of the CEC and
to assist the CEC in the discharge of its functions.
16. The notification also provides for the functions and powers
of the CEC in accordance with the orders of this Court along with
certain other functions. They are:
“
2. The Committee shall exercise the following powers
and perform the following functions:
A. Powers and functions conferred upon the Committee
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 202/1995 and 171/1996 in the case of T. N.
Godavarman Thirumalpad Vs. Union of India and
others:
a) to monitor the implementation of Supreme Court's
orders in above matters and place reports of
noncompliance before the Central Government for
appropriate actions;
b) to deal with any applications made to it by any
aggrieved person and wherever necessary, to make a
report to the Central Government in that matter;
13
c) for the purposes of effective discharge of powers
conferred upon the Committee under this order; the
Committee can:
i. call for any documents from any persons or the
government of the Union or the State or any other
official.
ii. undertake site inspection.
iii. seek assistance or presence of any person(s) or
official(s) required by it in relation to its work.
iv. coopt one or more persons as special invitees for
dealing with specific issues.
v. coopt, wherever feasible, the Secretary of the State
Government dealing with the subjects related to
Forest or Wildlife or Environment or his representative
or the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of the
State as special invitees while dealing with issues
pertaining to a particular State.
vi. to suggest or recommend measures generally to
the State as well as Central Government, for the more
effective implementation of the Act and other orders of
the Supreme Court in above matters.
B. to examine and advise or recommend on any issue
referred to the Committee by the Central Government,
from time to time. ”
17. The notification provides that the states or Central
Government shall give reasons in writing for not accepting any
suggestion or recommendation of the CEC and the decision of the
22
Central Government shall be final. Further, in case of deferment
of the decision of any State Government with the CEC’s
recommendation, the matter shall be referred to the Central
Government and the decision of the Central Government shall be
23
final and binding. We may clarify at this very stage that the
22 ibid, s.3.
23 ibid, s.4.
14
decisions of the Central Government, or, for that matter, State
Governments, are always subject to the orders of this Court.
When this notification was placed before us, we clarified this
position, and we hereby reiterate that the order of the State
and/or Central Government under clauses 3 and 4 will be
subject to any direction or order that this Court may pass from
time to time.
18. The members of the CEC are appointed in their personal
capacity and are to function under the administrative control of
24
the MoEFCC, with headquarters in Delhi. The salaries and
allowances payable, other perks and conditions of service of the
Chairperson and members are to be prescribed and they cannot
25
be varied to their disadvantage after the appointment. MoEFCC
is required to provide suitable and adequate office
accommodation for the CEC and requisite manpower, budgetary
support, and infrastructure for the discharge of functions and
26
powers delegated to the CEC. MoEFCC is also required to meet
the expenditure incurred, including salaries and remuneration to
27
members and supporting staff. The CEC is required to submit
24 ibid, s.5.
25 ibid, s.6.
26 ibid. s.7.
27 ibid, s.8.
15
quarterly reports to the Central Government and MoEFCC for
28
periodical review and audit of the CEC’s functioning.
19. Finally, the Central Government appointed the members of
the CEC by another notification dated 08.09.2023, and the
29
composition is as follows: i) Sri Siddhant Das, Chairman, ii) Sri
Chandra Prakash Goyal, Member, iii) Sri Sunil Limaye, Member,
iv) Dr. J.R. Bhatt, Member and v) Ms Banumathi G, Assistant
Inspector General of Forests, MoEFCC, Member Secretary.
Thereafter, the matter came up before us on 11.12.2023. On the
said date, we heard the learned Solicitor General as well as the
learned amicus curiae at length. We had also called for
suggestions for more effective functioning of the CEC.
20. We find that by virtue of the Notification dated 05.09.2023,
our concerns regarding the functioning of the CEC as an ad hoc
body and that hereinafter it should be institutionalised as a
permanent body have been taken care of. The said Notification
provides for the constitution of the CEC, its powers, functions,
mandate, members, method of appointment, terms of service,
and monitoring of its functioning.
28 ibid, s.9.
29 F. No. 1312/2022SU.
16
21. We further direct the CEC to adopt the following measures
to promote institutional transparency, efficiency, and
accountability in its functioning:
i. The CEC shall formulate guidelines for the conduct of its
functions and internal meetings. The CEC shall formulate
the operating procedures delineating the roles of its
members and the Secretary of the CEC.
ii. The CEC shall formulate guidelines about the public
meetings that it holds, ensure the publication of meeting
agenda in advance on its website, maintain minutes of
meetings, and set out rules regarding notice to parties.
iii. The CEC shall formulate guidelines for site visits and, if
necessary, hearing the public and affected parties
therein.
iv. The CEC shall formulate guidelines fixing time limits for
site visits, preparation of reports, and also the manner of
preparation of reports.
v. We further direct that these guidelines/regulations must
be accessible for anyone to seek. They shall be posted on
the official website of the CEC.
PARTII
22. As new bodies, authorities, and regulators for
environmental governance emerge from time to time, their
17
institutionalisation assumes extraordinary importance.
Institutionalisation means that these bodies must work in
compliance with institutional norms of efficiency, integrity, and
certainty. In this context, the role of the constitutional courts is
even greater.
23. Environmental Rule of Law: Environmental rule of law refers
to environmental governance that is undergirded by the
30
fundamental tenets of rule of law. The rule of law regime is one
that has effective, accountable, and transparent institutions;
responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision
31
making; and public access to information. It recognises the vital
role that institutions play in governance and focuses on defining
the structural norms and processes that guide institutional
32
decisionmaking.
30 United Nations, ‘Environmental Rule of Law: First Global Report’ (2019)
https://www.unep.org/resources/assessment/environmentalrulelawfirstglobalreport ,
p.1, 8. The United Nations has defined environmental rule of law with reference to 7 core
components, which are:
i. Fair, clear, and implementable environmental laws;
ii. Access to information, public participation, and access to justice through
courts, tribunals, commissions, and other bodies;
iii. Accountability and integrity of decisionmakers and institutions;
iv. Clear and coordinated mandates and roles, across and within institutions;
v. Accessible, fair, impartial, timely and responsive dispute resolution
mechanisms;
vi. Recognition of the mutually reinforcing relationship between rights and
environmental rule of law; and
vii. Specific criteria for the interpretation of environmental law.
31 v , (2019) 15 SCC 401, para 156.
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar . Union of India
32
Himachal Pradesh BusStand Management & Development Authority v. Central
Empowered Committee , (2021) 4 SCC 309, para 48.
18
24. While several laws, rules, and regulations exist for
protection of the environment, their objective is not achieved as
there is a considerable gap as these laws remain unenforced or
ineffectively implemented. Rule of law in environmental
governance seeks to redress this issue as the implementation gap
has a direct bearing on the protection of the environment, forests,
wildlife, sustainable development, and public health, eventually
affecting fundamental human rights to a clean environment that
33
are intrinsically tied to right to life. Accountability of the
authorities impressed with the duty to enforce and implement
environmental and other ecological laws is an important feature
of judicial governance. In the context of accountability, this Court
34
in Vijay Rajmohan v. CBI has held:
“ 34. Accountability in itself is an essential principle of
administrative law. Judicial review of administrative
action will be effective and meaningful by ensuring
accountability of the officer or authority in charge.
35. The principle of accountability is considered as a
cornerstone of the human rights framework. It is a
crucial feature that must govern the relationship
between “duty bearers” in authority and “right holders”
affected by their actions. Accountability of institutions is
also one of the development goals adopted by the United
Nations in 2015 and is also recognised as one of the six
principles of the Citizens Charter Movement.
36. Accountability has three essential constituent
dimensions : (i) responsibility, (ii) answerability, and (iii)
enforceability. Responsibility requires the identification
33 Hanuman Laxman Aroskar (supra), paras 143144.
34 (2023) 1 SCC 329.
19
of duties and performance obligations of individuals in
authority and with authorities. Answerability requires
reasoned decisionmaking so that those affected by their
decisions, including the public, are aware of the same.
Enforceability requires appropriate corrective and
remedial action against lack of responsibility and
accountability to be taken. Accountability has a
corrective function, making it possible to address
individual or collective grievances. It enables action
against officials or institutions for dereliction of duty. It
also has a preventive function that helps to identify the
procedure or policy which has become nonfunctional
and to improve upon it. ”
25. In India, environmental rule of law must draw attention to
the existing legal regime, rules, processes, and norms that
environmental regulatory institutions follow to achieve the goal of
effective and good governance and implementation of
environmental laws. More importantly, the focus must be on the
policy and regulatory and implementation agencies. In doing so,
environmental rule of law fosters open, accountable, and
transparent decisionmaking and participatory governance. The
renewed role of constitutional courts will be to undertake judicial
review to ensure that institutions and regulatory bodies comply
with the principles of environmental rule of law.
Existing Institutional Governance of the Environment in India:
26.
Environmental regulation in our country is performed by various
bodies constituted under legislations concerning the
20
environment, forests, and wildlife. Governance is also through
the exercise of executive power by the Central and State
Governments. These bodies perform their function of regulating
private and public activities that impact the environment, forests,
and wildlife in accordance with environmental legislations, rules,
regulations, and notifications passed under them. An overview of
some of the main bodies that regulate the environment in India
can be encapsulated as follows:
i. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution
(SPCB): These Boards were initially
Control Boards
constituted under the Water (Prevention and Control of
35
Pollution) Act, 1974. They also function under the Air
36
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The
function of the CPCB under these Acts is to promote
cleanliness of water streams and wells and to improve air
quality and combat air pollution. In furtherance of these
functions, the Board advises the Central Government,
coordinates activities of states, provides technical
assistance to SPCBs, lays down standards, and performs
any other function as may be prescribed. The SPCBs
35 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, ss. 3 and 4.
36 Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, ss. 3 and 4.
21
perform similar functions by advising the State
Governments on matters concerning air and water
37
pollution.
ii. Authorities concerning protection of wildlife under the
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972: The Central Government
appoints a Director of Wild Life Preservation and the
State Government appoints Chief Wild Life Wardens, Wild
38
Life Wardens, and Honorary Wild Life Wardens.
The Central Government shall constitute the National
Board for Wild Life to promote the conservation and
39
development of wildlife and forests. The National Board
can frame policies and advise the Central and State
Governments on promoting wildlife conservation and
effectively controlling poaching and illegal trade;
recommend setting up and managing national parks and
sanctuaries; conduct impact assessment of activities on
wildlife; review progress of wildlife conservation; and
prepare and publish status reports on wildlife in the
40
country. Similarly, State Board(s) for Wild Life must also
be constituted under the Act for selecting and managing
37 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, ss. 16 and 17; Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act 1981, ss. 16 and 17.
38 Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, ss. 3 and 4.
39 Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, ss. 5A and 5C.
40 ibid.
22
protected areas; formulating policies for protection and
conservation of wildlife; harmonising the needs of tribals
and forest dwellers with wildlife conservation; and any
41
other matter referred to it by the State Governments.
The Central Government must constitute the Central Zoo
Authority that regulates the functioning of zoos by laying
down minimum standards, recognition and
derecognition, maintaining records, coordinating
42
personnel training, and providing assistance. The
Central Government must also constitute the National
43
Tiger Conservation Authority under the Act, whose
powers and functions have been set out in Section 38O.
iii. The Central Government constitutes the Advisory
Committee under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 to
advise the Central Government on the grant of approval
for State Government’s use of forest land for nonforest
purposes and on any other matter connected with forest
conservation which may be referred to it by the Central
44
Government.
41 Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, ss. 6 and 8.
42 Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, ss. 38A and 38C.
43 Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, s. 38L.
44 Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, s. 3.
23
iv. The Central Government, in exercise of its power under
Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
constitutes the State Environment Impact Assessment
Authorities (SEIAA) at the state level to grant prior
environmental clearance to certain projects, as specified
in the Environment Impact Assessment Notification.
v. and
National Biodiversity Authority State Biodiversity
Boards are constituted under the Biological Diversity Act,
45
2002. The National Biodiversity Authority has the power
to grant permission for obtaining biological resources and
to regulate matters pertaining to the grant of such
permission, including intellectual property rights. The
Authority also advises the Central Government on
conservation and sustainable and equitable use of
biodiversity, the State Governments on the management
of heritage sites, and such other functions as may be
46
prescribed by the Central Government. The State
Biodiversity Boards are tasked with advising State
Governments on conservation and sustainable and
equitable use of biodiversity, regulating the grant of
45 Biological Diversity Act, 2002, ss. 8 and 22.
46 Biological Diversity Act, 2002, s. 18.
24
approvals for commercial utilisation, biosurvey and bio
utilisation of biological resources in India, and such other
functions as may be prescribed by the State
47
Government.
vi. National Green Tribunal (NGT) has been constituted by
the Central Government by notification under the NGT
48
Act, 2010. It has jurisdiction over all civil cases where a
substantial question relating to the environment is
involved and such question arises out of implementation
49
of various legislations pertaining to the environment.
The NGT also has appellate jurisdiction over certain
matters arising out of the Water (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1974; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; and Biological
50
Diversity Act, 2002. In Municipal Corporation of Greater
51
Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha , this Court has held that the
NGT is a sui generis body with allencompassing
47
Biological Diversity Act, 2002, s. 23.
48 NGT Act, 2010, s. 3.
49 As per Schedule I of the NGT Act, the following legislations are covered: (i) The Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; (ii) The Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Cess Act, 1977; (iii) The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; (iv) The Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; (v) The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; (vi) The
Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991; (vii) The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
50 NGT Act 2010, s. 16.
51 2021 SCC OnLine SC 897, para 61.
25
jurisdiction to protect the environment. It not only
performs an adjudicatory role but also performs wider
functions in the nature of prevention, remedy, and
52
amelioration.
53
vii. In S. Jagannath v. Union of India , which was a writ
petition regarding prawn farming in ecologically fragile
coastal areas, this Court directed the Central
Government to constitute an authority under the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and confer it with
powers to protect ecologically fragile coastal areas,
seashores, waterfronts, and other coastal areas. Pursuant
to this judgment, the Central Government by notification
under Section 3(3) constituted the National Coastal Zone
54
Management Authority , State Coastal Zone Management
55
Authorities , and Union Territory Coastal Zone
56
Management Authorities in coastal states and union
territories. The NCZMA coordinates the actions of
SCZMAs and UTCZMAs, examines proposals for
classifying coastal zonal areas, reviews violations, and
52 ibid, para 46.
53 (1997) 2 SCC 87, para 52.
54 Hereinafter ‘NCZMA’.
55 Hereinafter ‘SCZMA’.
56 Hereinafter ‘UTCZMA’.
26
provides technical assistance to the State Governments
and Central Government.
57
viii. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India , this Court took suo
motu cognisance of falling ground water levels and
directed the Central Government to constitute a Central
Groundwater Board as an authority to regulate and
control groundwater management and development
under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986. The main object of constituting the Board was the
urgent need to regulate indiscriminate boring and
58
withdrawal of underground water.
There are many more bodies, authorities, and officers under the
Union and states that are involved in environmental governance.
A comprehensive list of such bodies, including the above, is as
follows:
59
i. Animal Welfare Board of India
60
ii. Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
61
iii. Central Pollution Control Board
62
iv. State Pollution Control Boards
57 (1997) 11 SCC 312, para 9.
58 ibid, para 12.
59 Constituted under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
60 Constituted under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962.
61 Constituted under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1981.
62 ibid.
27
v. Director of Wild Life Preservation, Chief Wild Life
Wardens, Wild Life Wardens, and Honorary Wild Life
63
Wardens
64
vi. National Board for Wild Life
65
vii. State Boards for Wild Life
66
viii. Central Zoo Authority
67
ix. National Tiger Conservation Authority
68
x. Coastal Zone Management Authority
69
xi. Central Groundwater Board
70
xii. Advisory Committee
71
xiii. National Biodiversity Authority
72
xiv. State Biodiversity Boards
73
xv. National Disaster Management Authority
74
xvi. State Disaster Management Authorities
75
xvii. District Disaster Management Authorities
76
xviii. National Green Tribunal
77
xix. State Level Advisory Bodies
xx. National Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management
78
and Planning Authority
xxi. State Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and
79
Planning Authority
63 Appointed under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
64 Constituted under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
65 ibid.
66 ibid.
67 ibid.
68 Constituted by the Central Government under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection
Act pursuant to Supreme Court Directions in S. Jagannath v. Union of India , (1997) 2 SCC
87.
69 Constituted by the Central Government under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection
Act pursuant to Supreme Court Directions in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India , (1997) 11 SCC
312.
70
Constituted under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
71
Constituted under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
72 ibid.
73 Constituted under The Disaster Management Act, 2005.
74 ibid.
75 ibid.
76 Constituted under the NGT Act, 2010.
77 Constituted under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
78 Constituted under the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016.
79 ibid.
28
80
xxii. Environment Impact Assessment Authorities
81
xxiii. Expert Appraisal Committee
82
xxiv. Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority
xxv. Wildlife Crime Control Bureau
xxvi. Forest Survey of India
27. The above referred bodies, authorities, regulators, and
officers are constituted with persons having expertise in the field.
They have the requisite knowledge to take appropriate decisions
about contentious issues of the environment, forests, and
wildlife, and also to ensure effective implementation of
environmental laws. These bodies constitute the backbone of
environmental governance in our country. They need to function
with efficiency, integrity, and independence. As dutybearers,
they are also subject to accountability.
28. We may ask a simple question – how effectively are these
environmental bodies functioning today? This question has a
direct bearing on the protection and restoration of ecological
balance.
29. As environmental governance through these bodies
emerges, the obligation of the constitutional courts is even
greater. Hitherto, the constitutional courts focused on decisions
and actions taken by the executive or private persons impacting
80 Constituted under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification issued by the
Central Government under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
81 ibid.
82 Constituted by the Central Government under Section 3(3) of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986.
29
the environment and ecology because the scrutiny by regulators
was felt to be insufficient. Their judgment, review, and
consideration did not inspire confidence and therefore, the Court
took up the issue and would decide the case. In this process, a
large number of decisions rendered by this Court on sensitive
environmental, forest, and ecological matters constitute the
critical mass of our environmental jurisprudence. This Court
would continue to exercise judicial review, particularly in
environmental matters, whenever necessary.
30. We however seek to emphasise and reiterate the importance
of ensuring the effective functioning of these environmental
bodies as this is imperative for the protection, restitution, and
development of the ecology. The role of the constitutional courts
is therefore to monitor the proper institutionalisation of
environmental regulatory bodies and authorities.
31. In furtherance of the principles of environmental rule of law,
the bodies, authorities, regulators, and executive offices
entrusted with environmental duties must function with the
following institutional features:
i. The composition, qualifications, tenure, method of
appointment and removal of the members of these
authorities must be clearly laid down. Further, the
30
appointments must be regularly made to ensure continuity
and these bodies must be staffed with persons who have the
requisite knowledge, technical expertise, and specialisation
to ensure their efficient functioning.
ii. The authorities and bodies must receive adequate funding
and their finances must be certain and clear.
iii. The mandate and role of each authority and body must be
clearly demarcated so as to avoid overlap and duplication of
work and the method for constructive coordination between
institutions must be prescribed.
iv. The authorities and bodies must notify and make available
the rules, regulations, and other guidelines and make them
accessible by providing them on the website, including in
regional languages, to the extent possible. If the authority or
body does not have the power to frame rules or regulations,
it may issue comprehensive guidelines in a standardised
form and notify them rather than office memoranda.
v. These bodies must clearly lay down the applicable rules and
regulations in detail and the procedure for application,
consideration, and grant of permissions, consent, and
approvals.
vi. The authorities and bodies must notify norms for public
hearing, the process of decisionmaking, prescription of
right to appeal, and timelines.
31
vii. These bodies must prescribe the method of accountability
by clearly indicating the allocation of duties and
responsibilities of their officers.
viii. There must be regular and systematic audit of the
functioning of these authorities.
32. The role of the constitutional courts is to ensure that such
environmental bodies function vibrantly, and are assisted by
robust infrastructure and human resources. The constitutional
courts will monitor the functioning of these institutions so that
the environment and ecology is not only protected but also
enriched.
33. Ordered accordingly.
……………………………………….J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
……………………………………….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
……………………………………….J.
[PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA]
NEW DELHI.
JANUARY 31, 2024.
32