Supreme Court Modified Its Previous Order Mandating A 1 Km Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) Around Protected Forests

A bench comprising Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol noted:

“The area to be declared as ESZ cannot be uniform and will be Protected Area specific. In some cases, it may be 10 kilometres on one side and 500 meters on the other side. In certain cases, it may not be possible to have a uniform minimum area by virtue of inter-state boundaries or a sea or a river beyond one side of the Protected Area. In any case, a detailed procedure is required to be followed as prescribed under Rule 5 of the 1986 Rules which we have already referred hereinabove. We find that once such a notification is issued after following the procedure prescribed under the 1986 Rules, the ESZs will have to be as per the said notification.”

The Supreme Court was hearing an Interlocutory Application filed by the Union of India praying for the modification/clarification of the order passed it dated June 3, 2022 in I.A. No. 1000 of 2003 in WP(C) No. 202 of 1995.

The Court noted that the requirement of declaring ESZs is not to hamper day to day activities of the citizens but is meant to protect the precious forests/Protected Areas from any negative impact, and to refine the environment around the Protected Areas.

The Court observed:

“If the direction as issued by this Court in paragraph 56.5 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) is continued, then no permanent structure would be permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose in the aforesaid ESZs. As already pointed out from the aforesaid examples, hundreds of villages are situated within the ESZs in the country. If no permanent construction is to be permitted for any purpose, a villager who is desirous to reconstruct his house would not be permitted.”

The Court further noted that similarly, if the Government decides to construct schools, dispensaries, anganwadis, village stores, water tanks and other basic structures for improvement of the life of the villagers, the same would also not be permitted.

“The effect of the order will be to prevent the State or the Central Government from constructing roads and provide other facilities to the villagers.”, the Court said.

The Court further pointed that if the direction as contained in paragraph 56.5 of the order dated June 3, 2022 that even for continuation of existing activities, the permission of the PCCF of each State or Union Territory would be necessary, remains unmodified, taking into consideration that in each State or Union Territory there will be hundreds of villages wherein millions of people would be residing, the PCCF would be left with no other job except to consider such applications for permission to continue such activities.

“Even a farmer desirous to continue farming activities would be required to seek such permission. We find that such a direction is impossible to be implemented.”, the Court noted.

The Court further opined that if such a direction is continued, rather than avoiding man-animal conflict, it will intensify the same.

The Court modified the directions contained in paragraph 56.5 of the order dated June 3, 2022 as follows:

1. The MoEF & CC and all the State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow the provisions in the said Guidelines dated 9th February 2011 and so also the provisions contained in the ESZs notifications pertaining to the respective Protected Areas with regard to prohibited activities, regulated activities and permissible activities.
2. We further direct that while granting Environmental and Forest Clearances for project activities in ESZ and other areas outside the Protected Areas, the Union of India as well as various State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow the provisions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 17th May 2022 issued by MoEF & CC.

However, the Court held that mining within the National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary and within an area of one kilometre from the boundary of such National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary shall not be permissible.

Case Title: In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.

Coram: Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment