Introduction

The case of Binay Kumar Dalei And Others (S) v. State Of Odisha And Others (S), referenced as (2022 INSC 254), was adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on March 2, 2022. This landmark judgment addresses the contentious issue of stone quarry operations within eco-sensitive zones (ESZ) adjacent to wildlife sanctuaries. The primary parties involved include the appellants, who are leaseholders of the stone quarries, and the respondents, namely the State of Odisha and associated environmental agencies.

The crux of the dispute revolves around the cancellation of stone quarry leases granted near the Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary and the broader implications for environmental conservation, particularly concerning the traditional Similipal-Hadgarh-Kuldiha Elephant Corridor.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the directives issued by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which mandated the cessation of mining activities within and adjacent to the designated elephant corridor. The NGT's orders were based on environmental concerns highlighted in the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan (Cwlmp) and the need to declare the elephant corridor as a conservation reserve under Section 36 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

The appellants contested these orders, arguing that their quarries were not within the ESZ and that natural justice principles were violated. However, the Supreme Court, after deliberation, directed the State of Odisha to implement the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan and expedite the declaration of the elephant corridor as a conservation reserve before any mining activities could resume.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references significant precedents that underscore the judiciary's stance on environmental protection and the preservation of wildlife corridors. Notably:

• Hospitality Association of Mudumalai v. In Defence of Environment & Animals ((2020) 10 SCC 589): This case emphasized the critical role of conserving elephant corridors to ensure the free movement and safety of elephants, mitigating human-wildlife conflicts.
• Goa Foundation v. Union of India ((2014) 6 SCC 590): This judgment reinforced the necessity of maintaining ecological balance and the importance of protected areas in safeguarding biodiversity.

These precedents were instrumental in shaping the court's reasoning, reinforcing the imperative to prioritize environmental safeguards over commercial interests.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning was anchored in the interpretation and application of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, particularly Sections 36 and 36-A. The Supreme Court underscored the following points:

• Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ): Recognizing the ESZ around Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary as critical habitats requiring stringent regulation to prevent environmental degradation.
• Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan (Cwlmp): Emphasizing the necessity of implementing the Cwlmp to mitigate the environmental impacts of quarry operations before granting any operational licenses.
• Conservation Reserve Declaration: Highlighting the importance of declaring the traditional elephant corridor as a conservation reserve under Section 36-A to ensure its protection and sustainability.

The court found that the appellants failed to demonstrate that their quarries were exempt from the ESZ regulations and that allowing mining within or near the corridor without adherence to the Cwlmp and conservation reserve status would jeopardize wildlife movement and habitat integrity.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for environmental jurisprudence in India:

• Strengthened Environmental Regulations: By upholding the NGT's directives, the court reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to enforcing environmental laws and protecting eco-sensitive zones from industrial encroachments.
• Precedence for Wildlife Corridors: Establishing a clear legal framework for the protection of wildlife corridors, ensuring that future projects undergo rigorous environmental assessments and adhere to management plans.
• Enhanced Role of NGT: The decision underscores the pivotal role of the NGT in adjudicating environmental disputes and enforcing compliance among state agencies and private entities.
• Deterrence for Non-Compliance: Potentially serves as a deterrent for other entities considering operations within or near protected areas without proper authorization and environmental safeguards.

Consequently, this judgment not only protects the immediate ecological concerns of the Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary but also sets a robust precedent for future environmental protection endeavors across the nation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ)

Definition: Areas designated around national parks and wildlife sanctuaries where biodiversity conservation is of paramount importance. These zones have specific regulations to control and limit activities that could harm the environment.

Significance: ESZs serve as buffers to protect core areas from ecological disturbances caused by human activities such as mining, construction, and industrial operations.

Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan (Cwlmp)

Definition: A strategic plan outlining measures to manage and mitigate the environmental impact of specific activities, ensuring the preservation of wildlife habitats and ecological balance.

Components: The Cwlmp typically includes strategies for habitat restoration, pollution control, noise and dust mitigation, traffic management, and measures to protect cultural and historical values.

Conservation Reserve under Section 36-A

Definition: A conservation reserve is a protected area that links two or more existing protected areas, facilitating the movement and genetic exchange of wildlife. Section 36-A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, provides the legal framework for declaring such reserves.

Purpose: To maintain ecological connectivity and ensure the sustainability of wildlife populations by preserving corridors essential for their migration and daily activities.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Binay Kumar Dalei And Others (S) v. State Of Odisha And Others (S) marks a significant milestone in India's environmental jurisprudence. By affirming the protection of eco-sensitive zones and reinforcing the implementation of comprehensive wildlife management strategies, the court has clearly prioritized ecological integrity over commercial interests.

This decision not only safeguards the vital elephant corridors and surrounding habitats but also sets a robust legal precedent for future cases involving environmental conservation. It underscores the judiciary's role as a guardian of the environment, ensuring that developmental activities do not compromise the delicate balance of ecosystems essential for biodiversity and the well-being of wildlife populations.

Moving forward, stakeholders involved in industrial operations near protected areas must adhere strictly to environmental regulations, implement effective management plans, and collaborate with environmental authorities to ensure sustainable practices. This judgment serves as a clarion call for responsible environmental stewardship, balancing development with the imperative to conserve and protect India's rich natural heritage.