Supreme Court order: Eco-sensitive zones of 1km a must in protected areas

On June 3, 2022, the Supreme Court directed that all national parks and wildlife sanctuaries in the country which fall under protected forest must earmark a minimum distance of one km as eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) where prohibited activities specified by the Centre, including mining and establishment of any new permanent structure will not be permitted.

The direction of the Court came on a bunch of applications filed in a pending petition filed by TN Godavarman, where the Court is passing orders for protection of forest resources. In the present order, the Court dealt with applications by private miners and states for prescribing ESZ surrounding wildlife sanctuaries and national parks, an issue pending in Court since 2003.Besides, the Court order also dealt with the issue of mining in and around the Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary, situated in Rajasthan.

A bench of justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and Aniruddha Bose said, “We direct that each protected forest, that is national park or wildlife sanctuary, must have an ESZ of minimum one kilometer measured from the demarcated boundary of such protected forest in which the activities proscribed and prescribed in the Guidelines of Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) on 9 February 2011 shall be strictly adhered to.”

Pointing to the role to be played by state in acting as trustee of natural resources more than facilitating economic activity in forests, Justice Bose who wrote the judgment for the bench said, “The state has to act as a trustee for the benefit of the general public in relation to the natural resources so that sustainable development can be achieved in the long term.”

The Court further stated, “Such role of the state is more relevant today, than, possibly at any point of time in history, with the threat of climate catastrophe resulting from global warming looming large.

Due to the long passage of time, the Court noted that in December 2006, the Supreme Court in another case relating to Goa mining had passed a direction for maintaining 10-kilometre-wide safety zone from the boundaries in respect of sanctuaries and national parks. However, this did not deal with the minimum boundary for ESZ.

The Court said that the present order would apply in all such states/UTs where the minimum ESZ is not prescribed. However, in the event there are states which have prescribed minimum ESZ beyond one kilometer, in that event the order said, “In the event, the ESZ is already prescribed as per law that goes beyond one kilometer buffer zone, the wider margin as ESZ shall prevail.” The CEC was also asked to examine the need for widening ESZ in respect of any national park or sanctuary and seek approval from Court after consulting the respective state/UT, Centre or Standing Committee of National Board of Wildlife.

The Centre had while coming out with February 2011 guidelines on ESZ had prescribed a 10-kilometre boundary based on responses received from states and UTs. The Court was conscious of the fact that a uniform ESZ for all national parks and sanctuaries would not be feasible as it noted special cases such as Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai and Guindy National Park in Chennai which are situated very close to the metropolis.

Even in case of Jamua Ramgarh national park, the Rajasthan government informed the top court that maintaining 10-kilometre ESZ was not feasible and requested for site-specific demarcation of ESZ. For all such exceptions, the Court made provision by stating that “the minimum width of ESZ may be diluted iin overwhelming public interest”. But for that purpose, the Court said, “The state or UT concerned shall approach the Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and MoEFCC and both these bodies shall give their respective opinions or recommendations before this Court based on which this Court shall pass appropriate order.”

As for Jamua Ramgarh, the Court went by a CEC report of November 2003 giving a “horrific picture” of how private miners ravaged the protected forest area spread over 300 square kilometers and held that the 1-kilometre ESZ norm will apply for commencement of new activity while for subsisting activities, the minimum ESZ of 500 metres would be maintained. The Court further directed the CEC to quantify compensation for each miner who indulged in mining activity within the Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary and file a report in four months with specific recommendations for compensatory afforestation, clearing the overburden dumps and compensation for degradation of forest resources.

In addition, the Court directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) of each state and UT to submit a report in three months to the Court providing a list of activities continuing in the ESZ of every national park or wildlife sanctuary by taking assistance from government for satellite imaging or photography using drones.

Further, the Court entrusted the PCCF to ensure that no new permanent structure comes up within ESZ and those already carrying out any activity will have to apply for permission afresh from the PCCF within six months.

The Court noted that since some of the issues being dealt with had overlap with petitions filed in the Goa mining case, the bench directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for placing the matter before the appropriate bench where the Goa mining matters are pending.

Source: The Hindustan Times