Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Judges
  • Justice C.K. Thakker
  • Justice Y.K. Sabharwal
Acts
  • Rio Declaration, 1992
  • Sections 5-B and 5-C(2) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act
  • Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Judges
  • Justice C.K. Thakker
  • Justice Y.K. Sabharwal
Acts
  • Rio Declaration, 1992
  • Sections 5-B and 5-C(2) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act
  • Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) issued a letter dated 27-5-2005 to every State and Union Territory, asking them to identify suitable areas around national parks and sanctuaries and to submit detailed proposals. When most States/UTs failed to comply, the Supreme Court, by orders dated 30-1-2006 and 16-10-2006, directed MoEF and the defaulting governments to expedite the process and to place the proposals before the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife. Despite reminders, only the State of Goa responded, and its proposal was incomplete. The present order records this continuing non-compliance and issues further directions.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the States and Union Territories must submit the requisite proposals for declaring eco-sensitive areas in response to MoEF’s letter dated 27-5-2005 and prior court orders.
  2. Whether MoEF is obliged to place any received proposals, as well as previously granted environmental clearances within the 10 km zone, before the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife under Sections 5-B and 5-C(2) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
  3. What consequential steps the Court should take if the States/UTs persist in their non-compliance.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
(2011) 15 SCC 793 (order dated 30-1-2006) Recorded the decision of 21-1-2002 to notify areas within 10 km of national parks and sanctuaries as eco-sensitive zones. The Court referred to this earlier order to underscore that, failing fresh proposals, it may revert to the 21-1-2002 decision and direct immediate notification of the 10 km zones.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that, despite repeated directions and reminders, almost all States and Union Territories had ignored their statutory and court-mandated obligations to protect the environment by proposing eco-sensitive areas. Recognising that only Goa had submitted an incomplete proposal, the Court concluded that a final opportunity should be afforded before coercive measures are taken. It highlighted the “precautionary principle” and the significance of post-Rio environmental legislation, indicating that continued default would justify implementing the original 21-1-2002 decision to declare the 10 km buffer zones. The Court also identified a need for institutional scrutiny, directing MoEF to place existing projects located within the 10 km radius before the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife under Sections 5-B and 5-C(2) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Holding and Implications

ORDER: MoEF must issue a final communication to every State/UT, requiring full proposals within four weeks; Goa may submit a supplementary proposal. MoEF shall also refer to the Standing Committee all projects within the 10 km zone for which environmental clearance has already been granted. The matter is to be listed after eight weeks.

Implications: If States/UTs fail to respond within the stipulated time, the Court signalled its readiness to implement the 21-1-2002 decision and unilaterally notify the 10 km eco-sensitive zones. The order exerts significant pressure on sub-national governments to comply but does not, in itself, set a new legal precedent beyond enforcing existing environmental obligations.

Show full summary ...

    Goa Foundation v. Union Of India .

    Order

    1. The order dated 16-10-2006 refers to a Letter dated 27-5-2005 which was addressed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to the Chief Wildlife Wardens of all States/Union Territories requiring them to initiate measures for identification of suitable areas and submit detailed proposals at the earliest. The order passed on that date was that MoEF shall file an affidavit stating whether the proposals received pursuant to the Letter of 27-5-2005 have been referred to the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 or not. It was further directed that such of the States/Union Territories who have not responded to the Letter dated 27-5-2005 shall do the needful within four weeks of the communication of the directions of this Court by the Ministry to them.

    2. It seems that despite the Letter dated 27-5-2005 and despite the Ministry having issued reminders and also bringing to the notice of the States/Union Territories the orders of this Court dated 16-10-2006, the States/Union Territories have not responded. However, we are told that the State of Goa alone has sent the proposal but that too does not appear to be in full conformity with what was sought for in the Letter dated 27-5-2005.

    3. The order earlier passed on 30-1-2006 (2011) 15 SCC 793 refers to the decision which was taken on 21-1-2002 to notify the areas within 10 km of the boundaries of national parks and sanctuaries as eco-sensitive areas. The Letter dated 27-5-2005 is a departure from the decision of 21-1-2002. For the present, in this case, we are not considering the correctness of this departure. That is being examined in another case separately. Be that as it may, it is evident that the States/Union Territories have not given the importance that is required to be given to most of the laws to protect environment made after Rio Declaration, 1992.

    4. The Ministry is directed to give a final opportunity to all States/Union Territories to respond to its Letter dated 27-5-2005. The State of Goa also is permitted to give appropriate proposal in addition to what is said to have already been sent to the Central Government. The communication sent to the States/Union Territories shall make it clear that if the proposals are not sent even now within a period of four weeks of receipt of the communication from the Ministry, this Court may have to consider passing orders for implementation of the decision that was taken on 21-1-2002, namely, notification of the areas within 10 km of the boundaries of the sanctuaries and national parks as eco-sensitive areas with a view to conserve the forest, wildlife and environment, and having regard to the precautionary principles. If the States/Union Territories now fail to respond, they would do so at their own risk and peril.

    5. The MoEF would also refer to the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, under Sections 5-B and 5-C(2) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, the cases where environment clearance has already been granted where activities are within 10 km zone.

    6. List the matter after eight weeks.

    Court Masters

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Goa Foundation v. Union Of India .
    (Dec 4, 2006)