In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India and Ors.

Disposing the I.A., the Court

HELD : 1. The role of the State cannot be confined to that of a facilitator or generator of economic activities for immediate upliftment of the fortunes of the State. The State also 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. 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. This Court has highlighted the Public Trust Doctrine in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others and opined that the Public Trust Doctrine is part of the law of land. [Para 28][1152D-F]

2. In this Court’s opinion, the Guidelines framed on 9th February 2011 appears to be reasonable and accept the view of the Standing Committee that uniform Guidelines may not be possible in respect of each sanctuary or national parks for maintaining ESZ. This Court is of the opinion, however, that a minimum width of 1 kilometre ESZ ought to be maintained in respect of the protected forests, which forms part of the recommendations of the CEC in relation to Category B protected forests. This would be the standard formula, subject to changes in special circumstances. This Court has considered CEC’s recommendation that the ESZ should be relatable to the area covered by a protected forest but the Standing Committee’s view that the area of a protected forest may not always be reasonable criteria also merits consideration. It was argued before that the

1 km wide “no-development-zone” may not be feasible in all cases and specific instances were given for Sanjay Gandhi National Park and Guindy National Park in Mumbai and Chennai metropolis respectively which have urban activities in very close proximity. These sanctuaries shall form special cases. [Para 42][1162-B-E]

3. Turning specifically to Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary, the first report of the CEC proposed 100 metres as ESZ. In the second report, however, one kilometre width has been recommended for all protected forests falling under category ‘B’. Having regard to its area, the said sanctuary comes in that category. In the order of this Court passed on 4th August 2006, the same margin, i.e. one kilometre as buffer zone has been prescribed. In the given facts concerning the Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary, in our opinion the margin of 25 metres as contemplated in the 1994 Mineral Policy of the State of Rajasthan is grossly inadequate. This Court, however, treat Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary as a special case for fixing the ESZ as in the past, the buffer zone varied from 25 metres to 100 metres. In opinion of this Court, ESZ of 500 metres would be a reasonable buffer zone, within which subsisting activities which does not come within the prohibited list as per the Guidelines of 9th February 2011 could be carried on. But for commencing of any new activity which would be otherwise permissible, the ESZ norm of one kilometre shall be maintained for Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary. [Para 43][1162-E-H; 1163-A]

4. This Court directed:

(a) Each protected forest that is national park or wildlife sanctuary must have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundary of such protected forest in which the activities proscribed and prescribed in the Guidelines of 9th February 2011 shall be strictly adhered to. For Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary, it shall be 500 metres so far as subsisting activities are concerned.

(b) In the event, however, the ESZ is already prescribed as per law that goes beyond one kilometre buffer zone, the wider margin as ESZ shall prevail. If such wider buffer zone beyond one kilometre is proposed under any statutory instrument for a particular national park or wildlife sanctuary awaiting final decision in that regard, then till such final decision is taken, the ESZ covering the area beyond one kilometre as proposed shall be maintained.

(c) Mining within the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries shall not be permitted.

(d) In the event any activity is already being undertaken within the one kilometre or extended buffer zone (ESZ), as the case may be, of any wildlife sanctuary or national park which does not come within the ambit of prohibited activities as per the 9th February 2011 Guidelines, such activities may continue with permission of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of each State or Union Territory and the person responsible for such activities in such a situation shall obtain necessary permission within a period of six months. Such permission shall be given once the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is satisfied that the activities concerned do not come within the prohibited list and were continuing prior to passing of this order in a legitimate manner. No new permanent structure shall be permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose within the ESZ.

(e) The minimum width of the ESZ may be diluted in overwhelming public interest but for that purpose the State or Union Territory concerned shall approach the CEC and MoeEF&CC and both these bodies shall give their respective opinions/recommendations before this Court. On that basis, this Court shall pass appropriate order.

(f) In the event the CEC, MoEF&CC, the Standing Committee of National Board of Wildlife or any other body of persons or individual having special interest in environmental issues consider it necessary for maintaining a wider or larger ESZ in respect of any national park or wildlife sanctuary, such body or individual shall approach the CEC. In such a situation the CEC shall be at liberty to examine the need of a wider ESZ in respect of any national park or wildlife sanctuary in consultation with all the stakeholders including the State or Union Territory concerned, MoEF&CC as also the Standing Committee of National Board of Wildlife and then approach this Court with its recommendations.

(g) In respect of sanctuaries or national parks for which the proposal of a State or Union Territory has not been given, the

10 kilometres buffer zone as ESZ, as indicated in the order passed by this Court on 4th December 2006 in the case of Goa Foundation (supra) and also contained in the Guidelines of 9th February 2011 shall be implemented. Within that area, the entire set of restrictions concerning an ESZ shall operate till a final decision in that regard is arrived at.

(h) The CEC shall quantify the compensation to be recovered from each miner indulging in mining activities within the Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary in violation of any statutory provision or order of this Court. Specific recommendations for compensatory afforestation, reclamation, clearing overburden dumping as also compensation in monetary units for degradation of forest resources shall also be made. A further set of recommendations concerning confiscation of earth moving equipments and other machineries lying within or in the periphery of the said sanctuary shall be made by the CEC. Recommendations shall be made within a period of four months before this Court in the form of an application. This Court shall consider passing appropriate order upon going through such application. The exercise concerning such reparation, including quantifying compensation shall be undertaken upon giving the mining operator, State and MoEF&CC opportunity of hearing.

(i) In the event there is any subsisting order of any High Court or any Court subordinate to such High Court covering any of the issues dealt with by this Court in this order, this order shall prevail over any such order which may be contrary to these directions. [Para 44][1163-B-D, G-H; 1164-A-H; 1165-G-H; 1166A-C] Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2011) 15 SCC 79; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others (1997) 1 SCC

388 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 12; Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Others (2014) 6 SCC 590 : [2014]

5 SCR 302 – referred to.