# IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 17 S.C.R. 1122
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-06-03
- **Case number:** I.A. No.1000 of 2003
- **Bench:** L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, Aniruddha Bose
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/in-re-t-n-godavarman-thirumulpad-v-union-of-india-and-ors-35536
- **Pages:** 45

## Headnote

Environment Law - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Wildlife
sanctuaries and National parks - The present set of applications
arise out of a report of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC)
specifically pertaining to Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary in State
of Rajasthan - Report stated about exploitation of protected forest
mainly by private miners mostly with temporary working permits
obtained from the Governmental agencies - Supreme Court had
converted the report with its set of recommendations into an
Interlocutory Application - Recommendations made in the second
report by the CEC, went beyond the Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary
and dealt with creation of identification and declaration of safety
zones around protected forests all across the country - In the present
order Supreme Court dealt with two issues i.e. Scope of mining
activities in and around a wildlife sanctuary in the State of Rajasthan
(Jamua Ramgarh) and prescribing Eco sensitive zones (ESZ)
surrounding the wildlife sanctuaries and national parks - Held:
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 - For Jamua Ramgarh
wildlife sanctuary, it shall be 500 metres - If the ESZ is already
prescribed as per law that goes beyond one kilometre buffer zone,
the wider margin as ESZ shall prevail - Mining within the national
parks and wildlife sanctuaries shall not be permitted - If any activity
is already being undertaken within the one kilometre or extended
buffer zone (ESZ) of any wildlife sanctuary or national park that
does not come within the ambit of prohibited activities, such activities
may continue with permission of the Principal Chief Conservator
of Forests of each State or Union Territory - The minimum width of
the ESZ may be diluted in overwhelming public interest but for that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1123
purpose the State or Union Territory concerned shall approach the
CEC and MoEF&CC and both these bodies shall give their respective
opinions/recommendations before Court - 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
shall be implemented - 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.
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 par

## Text

_Characters 0–39,548 of 101,769. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39548 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
 [2022] 17 S.C.R. 1122
1122
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(I.A. No.1000 of 2003)
(In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995)
JUNE 03, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Environment Law - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Wildlife
sanctuaries and National parks - The present set of applications
arise out of a report of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC)
specifically pertaining to Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary in State
of Rajasthan - Report stated about exploitation of protected forest
mainly by private miners mostly with temporary working permits
obtained from the Governmental agencies - Supreme Court had
converted the report with its set of recommendations into an
Interlocutory Application - Recommendations made in the second
report by the CEC, went beyond the Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary
and dealt with creation of identification and declaration of safety
zones around protected forests all across the country - In the present
order Supreme Court dealt with two issues i.e. Scope of mining
activities in and around a wildlife sanctuary in the State of Rajasthan
(Jamua Ramgarh) and prescribing Eco sensitive zones (ESZ)
surrounding the wildlife sanctuaries and national parks - Held:
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 - For Jamua Ramgarh
wildlife sanctuary, it shall be 500 metres - If the ESZ is already
prescribed as per law that goes beyond one kilometre buffer zone,
the wider margin as ESZ shall prevail - Mining within the national
parks and wildlife sanctuaries shall not be permitted - If any activity
is already being undertaken within the one kilometre or extended
buffer zone (ESZ) of any wildlife sanctuary or national park that
does not come within the ambit of prohibited activities, such activities
may continue with permission of the Principal Chief Conservator
of Forests of each State or Union Territory - The minimum width of
the ESZ may be diluted in overwhelming public interest but for that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1123
purpose the State or Union Territory concerned shall approach the
CEC and MoEF&CC and both these bodies shall give their respective
opinions/recommendations before Court - 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
shall be implemented - 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.
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
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1125
(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
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1127
388 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 12; Goa Foundation v.
Union of India and Others (2014) 6 SCC 590 : [2014]
5 SCR 302 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 15 SCC 79
referred to
Para 4
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 12
referred to
Para 28
[2014] 5 SCR 302
referred to
Para 30
Civil Original Jurisdiction : I.A. No.1000 of 2003
(Recommendation Of Cec Dated 20.11.2003) With I.A. Nos.
982-984 of 2003 And I.A. Nos.1026-1028 of 2004 And I.A. Nos. 11231124 of 2004 And I.A. Nos.1197-1199 of 2004 And I.A. Nos. 12101211of 2004 And I.A. Nos.1250-1251 of 2004 And I.A.
No. 1412 of 2005 And I.A. No. 1512 of 2006 And I.A. No. 1992 of 2007
And I.A. No. 3880 of 2015 And I.A. No. 96949 of 2019 And
I.A. No. 117831 of 2019 And I.A. No. 65571 of 2021.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995.
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
Balbir Singh, ASG, Saurabh Mishra and Nikhil Goel, AAGs, A.D.N.
Rao, Sr. Adv. [A.C.], Ms. Aparajita Singh, Sr. Adv. [A.C.], Nalin Kohli,
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Siddharth Bhatnagar, V. K. Shukla, Sr. Advs.,
Siddhartha Chowdhury, Adv. [A.C.], Rahul Mishra, Amit P. Sahi, D.
Shiva Shankar, Ms. Ananya Khandhelwal, Agrimaa Singh, M R. Chanchal
Kumar Ganguli, Syed Mehdi Imam, T. Harish Kumar, M/S. Mitter &
Mitter Co., M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Shuvodeep
Roy, Ankit Roy, Ishaan Borthakur, Ms. Nimisha Menon,. Shri.
Gaichangpou Gangmei, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Umesh Bhagwat, E. C.
Agrawala, Ranjan Mukherjee, Gopal Singh, Jitendra Mohan Sharma,
Ms. C. K. Sucharita, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Ejaz Maqbool, M/S. Corporate
Law Group, Himanshu Shekhar, P. N. Gupta, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,
Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla Chong, Raghvendra Kumar, Anand
Kr. Dubey, Ms. Rajlakshmi Singh, Nishant Verma, Rajiv Kumar Sinha,
Simanta Kumar, Sunil Saraogi, Narendra Kumar, Mahfooz A. Nazki,
Polanki Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad Haneef, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy,
K.V. Girish Chowdary, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Ms. Aruna Gupta,
Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, Suhaan Mukerji,
Nikhil Parikshith, Vishal Prasad, Abhishek Manchanda, Sayandeep Pahari,
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
Tanmay Sinha, PLR Chambers & Co., Avijit Mani Tripathi, T.K. Nayak,
Upendra Mishra, P.S. Negi, S.R. Kochhar, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Ms.
Madhu Moolchandani, Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Naresh K. Sharma, Jai
Prakash Pandey, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, C. L. Sahu, Ms. Abha R.
Sharma, S. R. Setia, Rajat Joseph, Mrs. Nandini Gore, M/S. M. V. Kini
& Associates, Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, Ms. Divya Roy, Radha Shyam
Jena, Ms. Charu Mathur, T. V. George, Neeraj Shekhar, E. M. S. Anam,
Ms. S. Janani, Surya Kant, Amit Anand Tiwari, Mrs. Bina Gupta, M/S.
K J John And Co, S. C. Birla, Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Punit
Dutt Tyagi, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Ms. Binu Tamta, Tejaswi Kumar
Pradhan, Pawan Kumar Sharma, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Ms. Sujata
Kurdukar, Shibashish Misra, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, Ms. Baby Krishnan,
B V Deepak, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Irshad Ahmad, Rauf Rahim, Rajeev
Singh, Ramesh Babu M. R., Shiva Pujan Singh, K. V. Vijayakumar, Sarad
Kumar Singhania, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, S. K. Rajora, Akhileshwar
Jha, Vivek Sharma, Ms. Meenakshi Kamble, Kuldip Singh, Mrs. Rekha
Pandey, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Ms. Malini Poduval, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,
Kamal Mohan Gupta, Rajesh,. Lakshmi Raman Singh, Ashok Mathur,
Gopal Prasad, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, P. V.
Yogeswaran, Ms. A. Sumathi, Ajit Pudussery, M. C. Dhingra, Ms. Sumita
Hazarika, Abhishek Chaudhary, T. Mahipal, M/S. Arputham Aruna And
Co, Raj Kumar Mehta, K. L. Janjani, Tarun Johri, Ram Swarup Sharma,
A. Venayagam Balan, Krishnanand Pandeya, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,
Rakesh K. Sharma, Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, E. C. Vidya Sagar, Ish
Karan Singh Chhabra, Shiv Singh Yadav, Ms. Saifali Mitra, Mrs. Rani
Chhabra, V. Balachandran, P. R. Ramasesh, Rajiv Mehta, Rathin Das,
Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Prashant Kumar, P.
Parmeswaran, E.R. Kumar, Lalit Chauhan, Abhiram Naik, Ms. Nitika
Pandey for M/S Parekh and Co., H. S. Parihar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, T.
N. Singh, A. N. Arora, G. Prakash, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Sudarsh
Menon, Vikrant Singh Bais, Rajesh Singh, M. Yogesh Kanna, Somesh
Chandra Jha, Adarsh Nain, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Mrinal Gopal Elker, Ms.
Samridhi Jain, Sunny Choudhury, Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam, Siddhartha
Jha, V.N. Raghupathy, P. K. Manohar, Nishanth Patil, Vinod Sharma,
Arpit Parkash, Sandeep Kumar Jha, D.L.Chidananda, Ms. Suhasini Sen,
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Salvador Santosh Rebello, Shyam Gopal,
Sughosh Subramanyam, Neeraj K. Sharma, Harsh Singhal, Ms. Priyanka
Sharma, Manish Tiwari, Prahil Sharma, Ms. Manjula Chaurasia,
Harender Singh, Mukesh Verma, Ms. Indira Bhakar, G. S. Makker,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1129
Sandeep Dubey, Ambuj Saraswat, James P. Thomas, Ms. Vanshaja
Shukla, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Sarojanand Jha, Karan Sharma, Ms.
Precheta Kar, Aditya Sidhra, Nadeem Afroz, M. R. Shamshad, Ms.
Shalini Kaul, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra,
S. Gowthaman, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Shubhranshu Padhi, P. S. Sudheer,
D. K. Garg, Dinesh K. Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Abhishek Garg, Abhinav
Mukerji, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Dr. Monika Gusain, Harim Om Yaduvanshi,
Nishe Rajen Shonker, Ms. Anu K. Joy, Alim Anvar, Anando Mukherjee,
Gopal Balwant Sathe, Naveen Kumar, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Ms.
Deepanwita Priyanka, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, P. Srinivas
Reddy, M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Kaushik Choudhury, Sachin
Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Ms. Shwetal Shepal,
Ms. Nupur Sharma, Shobhit Dwivedi, Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, B. K.
Pal, Saket Singh, Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Ms. Somyashree, Ms. Niranjana
Singh, Chirag M. Shroff, Amandeep Mehta, Abhishek Atrey, Ajay
Marwah, Sarvam Ritam Khare, Narendra Kumar, M/S. Cyril Amarchand
Mangaldas Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Aravindh S., Ms. C. Rubavathi,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
These proceedings originate from the Writ Petition under Article
32 of the Constitution of India registered as W.P. (Civil) No. 202 of 1995
(T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors.), which is in
the nature of a public interest litigation. It was instituted for protection of
forest lands in the Nilgiris district of the State of Tamil Nadu. Subsequently,
the scope of that writ petition was enlarged so as to protect such natural
resources throughout the country. The original writ petitioner has since
passed away (on 1st June 2016) but in an order passed on 3rd February
2017, this Court opined that being a public interest litigation, there was
no requirement for bringing on record the legal representatives of the
deceased petitioner. The writ petition, in substance, continued with the
cause title "in Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India &
Ors". Various Orders have been passed from time to time in this writ
petition to ensure preservation of forest resources of this country in
balance with economic activities. By an Order of this Court dated 9th
May 2002, a Central Empowered Committee ("CEC") was directed to
be formed primarily for monitoring implementation of this Court's orders
and to place the incidents of non-compliance before us. Subsequently,
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
by a notification issued on 17th September 2002 by the Ministry of
Environment and Forest in exercise of power under Section 3(3) of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, this committee was constituted under
statutory provisions. CEC has been bringing to the notice of this Court
the steps taken for removal of encroachment, implementation of working
plans, compensatory afforestation, plantation and other conservation
issues. In this order, we shall be mainly dealing with two sets of issues.
The first set relates to mining activities in and around a wildlife sanctuary
in the State of Rajasthan- known as "Jamua Ramgarh" (also spelt as
Jamwa Ramgarh). The second set of issues is wider in scope, and involves
prescribing eco-sensitive zones (ESZ) surrounding the wildlife sanctuaries
and national parks. The subject of mining and other commercial activities
within the wildlife sanctuaries and national parks (protected forests) shall
also be dealt by us in this order. The applications before us require
examination in the perspective of a set of recommendations made by
the CEC and we have been urged by a set of applicants to make certain
modifications of this Court's earlier directions concerning steps to be
taken for protection of forest resources. The applicants seeking
modifications of our earlier orders include a set of miners, and, in some
cases, the State Governments asking for opening up of the protected
forest areas and their buffer zones, on which restrictions have been
placed in by our earlier orders, for commercial exploitation. There is
dispute as to what would constitute the buffer zones on ESZ in respect
of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, as there are divergence of
views among the various stakeholders.
2. The present set of applications arise out of a report of the CEC
dated 20th November 2003. This report specifically pertains to Jamua
Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary. This sanctuary covers an area of about 300
square kilometres. The said report gives a horrific picture of ravaging of
a protected forest mainly by private miners mostly with temporary working
permits obtained from the Governmental agencies. Following
recommendations were made in this report:-
"17......... (i) all mining leases which wholly or partly fall
within the forest area inside the Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary
and also within the safety zone, should be immediately
cancelled. The mining activity can be allowed to be resumed
only after the new/amended mining leases, after excluding
the forest area and the safety zone are sanctioned by the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1131
competent authority and the conditions mentioned herein
under are fully complied with;
(ii) presently a safety zone of twenty five meter has been fixed
for Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary and other sanctuaries in
Rajasthan as against 500 meter for Ranthambhore National
Park in Rajasthan itself. In Madhya Pradesh safety zone of
250 meter for all the 20 forest area has been fixed. The CEC
is of the view that minimum 500 meter safety zone around
National Parks and Sanctuaries is necessary where no mining,
construction and other projects should be allowed. Without a
reasonable safety zone the habitat and wild life in the National
Parks and Sanctuaries are adversely affected. Although
stringent conditions are imposed at the time of the sanction
of the mining leases, none are practically complied with due
to weak enforcement of the laws. The mining causes heavy
disturbance in the area due to blasting, removal of over
burden, chiseling, transportation, flying debris and movement
of a large number of labourers and other persons. The safety
zone of twenty five meter presently prescribed by the Rajasthan
Forest Department is totally in adequate as the rocks torn
apart during blasting can travel much beyond the present
safety zone. However, increasing the safety zone to the desired
level of 500 meter will result in closure of large number of
mines. Taking a holistic overall view of the situation, the CEC
recommends that for the Jamua Ramgarh wild life sanctuary,
for the "existing" mines the safety zone may be fixed as 100
meter wherein no mining should be permitted. "For new"
mining leases the safety zone may be fixed as 500 meter.
(iii) reclamation and rehabilitation of the area mined inside
the sanctuary should be carried out in a time bound manner
at the cost of the user agency for which a detailed reclamation
and rehabilitation plan along with various items of work, cost
involved and time frame should be prepared and implemented
on priority basis. The plan presently prepared by the State
Government is totally in adequate. It does not provide for
reclamation and rehabilitation of the mining pits at all. No
provision for removal of stones and rocks scattered in the
sanctuary has been made. Intensive plantations and protection
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA AND ORS. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
has not been provided. The revised plan should incorporate
the above and other necessary measures to provide a congenial
habitat for wild life. In the event adequate funds for this
purpose cannot be recovered from the erstwhile mine lease
owners, the same should be made available by the State
Government;
(iv) mining around the sanctuary should be allowed to restart
only after a fool proof mechanism is put in place to ensure
recovery of funds for implementation of reclamation and
rehabilitation plan by the State Government;
(v) exemplary compensation equivalent to the present market
value of the entire mineral removed by the respective mine
owners by mining inside the sanctuary in violation of the F.C.
Act and/or the W. P. Act should be recovered from them on the
basis of the recorded production or the estimated figures
mentioned in the F.C. Act applications. The money so
recovered should be used for protection and development of
the sanctuary to its full potential;
(vi) the left over minerals scattered inside the sanctuary should
be directed to be removed immediately.
(vii) the left over mining equipments such as cranes etc. should
be confiscated and removed outside the sanctuary at the cost
of the erstwhile mine lease holders;
(viii) no mining should be permitted adjoining the sanctuary
till the boundary of the sanctuary is demarcated on the ground
and the boundary pillars are verified with the fixed reference
points;
(ix) disciplinary action should be taken in a time bound
manner against the erring officials in the Mines and the Forest
Departments of the State of Rajasthan and the MoEF for
allowing mining in violation of the F.C. Act, the W. P. Act and/
or this Hon'ble Court's order;"
(quoted verbatim from paperbook)
3. This Court had converted this report with its set of
recommendations into an Interlocutory Application and was allocated
registration number I.A. 1000 of 2003.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1133
4. On 20th September 2012, a second report was submitted by the
CEC. The recommendations made in the second report went beyond
the Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary and dealt with creation of identification
and declaration of safety zones around protected forests all across the
country. The question of having ESZ around the protected forests was
examined by this Court earlier in another Writ Petition [W.P. (Civil) No.
460 of 2004] in Goa Foundation v. Union of India. In the said writ
petition, the following order was passed on 4th December 2006 [reported
in (2011) 15 SCC 791]: -
"4. The Ministry is directed to give a final opportunity to all
States/Union Territories to respond to its letter dated 27-52005. 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. Two writ petitions have been instituted titled as Goa Foundation
v. Union of India [W.P. (Civil) No.460 of 2004] and Goa Foundation
v. Union of India and Others [W.P. (Civil) No.435 of 2012], in relation
enforcement of various circulars issued for enforcement of environmental
laws and to prevent illegal mining in different States including the State
of Goa. There are certain overlapping issues involved in the present writ
petition and the cases of Goa Foundation (supra). The directions which
we propose to issue in this judgment/order shall take into account the
orders passed in the cases of Goa Foundation (supra) and such directions
shall be supplemental to the orders passed in any of the aforesaid two
writ petitions if our directions passed in this order relate to areas or
subjects covered by any mandate passed in the said two writ petitions.
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA AND ORS. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
6. A set of Guidelines for Declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zones
(ESZ) around National Park and Wildlife Sanctuaries had been formulated
by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC)
of the Government of India on 9th February 2011 [F. No.1-9/2007 WL -
I (pt)]. These Guidelines deal with the process and procedures to be
adopted for declaring ESZ. In Clauses 3 and 4 of these Guidelines, it has
been stipulated: -
"3. Purpose for declaring Eco-Sensitive Zones:
The purpose of declaring Eco-sensitive Zones around National
Parks and Sanctuaries is to create some kind of "Shock
Absorber" for the Protected Areas. They would also act as a
transition zone from areas of high protection to areas involving
lesser protection. As has been decided by the National Board
for Wildlife, the activities in the Eco-sensitive zones would be
of a regulatory nature rather than prohibitive nature, unless
and otherwise so required.
4. Extent of Eco-Sensitive Zones:
4.1 Many of the existing Protected Areas have already
undergone tremendous development in close vicinity to their
boundaries. Some of the Protected Areas actually lying in the
urban setup (Eg. Guindy National Park, Tamil Nadu, Sanjay
Gandhi National Park, Maharashtra, etc). Therefore, defining
the extent of eco-sensitive zones around Protected Areas will
have to be kept flexible and Protected Area specific. The width
of the Eco-sensitive Zone and type of regulations will differ
from Protected Area to Protected Area. However, as a general
principle the width of the Eco-sensitive Zone could go up to
10 Kms around a Protected Area as provided in the Wildlife
Conservation Strategy-2002.
4.2 In case where sensitive corridors, connectivity and
ecologically important patches, crucial for landscape linkage,
are even beyond 10 kms width, these should be included in
the Eco-sensitive Zone.
4.3 Further, even in context of a particular Protected Area,
the distribution of an area of Eco-sensitive Zone and the extent
of regulation may not be uniform all around and it could be
of variable width and extent."
(quoted verbatim from paperbook)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1135
7. In Clauses 6 and 7 of the said Guidelines, it has been specified:-
"6. The procedure to be adopted:
6.1 As has been indicated in the forgoing paras, the basic
aim is to regulate certain activities around National Park and
Wildlife Sanctuary so as to minimize the negative impacts of
such activities on the fragile ecosystem encompassing the
Protected Area. As a first step towards achieving this goal, it
is a pre-requisite that an inventory of the different land use
patterns and the different types of activities, types and number
of industries operating around each of the Protected Area
(National Parks, Sanctuaries) as well as important Corridors
be made. The inventory could be done by the concerned Range
Officers, who can take a stock of activities within 10 km of
his range.
6.2 For the above purpose, a small committee comprising the
concerned Wildlife Warden, an Ecologist, an official from the
Local Self Government and an official of the Revenue
Department of the concerned area, could be formed. The said
committee could suggest the:
(i) Extent of eco-sensitive zones for the Protected Area being
considered.
(ii) The requirement of such a zone to act as a shock absorber.
(iii) To suggest the best methods for management of the ecosensitive zones, so suggested.
(iv) To suggest broad based thematic activities to be included
in the Master Plan for the region.
6.3 Based on the above, the Chief Wildlife Warden could group
the activities under the following categories (an indicative
list of such activities is attached as ANNEXURE-1):-
(i) Prohibited
(ii) Restricted with safeguards.
(iii) Permissible
6.4 Once the proposal for Eco-sensitive zones has been
finalized, the same may be forwarded to the Ministry of
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA AND ORS. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
Environment and Forests for further processing and
notification. Here, it may be noted that, the State/ Union
Territory Forest Department could forward the proposals to
the respective authority in the State Government with copy to
the Ministry of Environment and Forests, as and when the
proposals (even if it is for single Protected Area) are complete.
An indicative list of details that need to be submitted along
with the proposals is at ANNEXURE-2.
6.5 It is to mention here that in cases where the boundary of
a Protected Area abuts the boundary of another State/Union
Territory where it does not form part of any Protected Area, it
shall be the endeavour of both the State/ Union Territory
Governments to have a mutual consultation and decide upon
the width of the ecosensitive zone around the Protected Area
in question.
6.6 The State Government should endeavour to convey a very
strong message to the public that ESZ are not meant to hamper
their day to day activities, but instead, is meant to protect the
precious forests/Protected Areas in their locality from any
negative impact, and also to refine the environment around
the Protected Areas. A copy of the notification of the Sultanpur
Eco-sensitive Zone issued by the Ministry is attached herewith
at ANNEXURE-3 for reference and guidance.
7. These guidelines are indicative in nature and the State /
Union Territory Governments may use these as basic
framework to develop specific guidelines applicable in the
context of their National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries,
important corridors, etc. with a view to minimizing and
preferably eliminating any negative impact on protected
areas."
(quoted verbatim from paperbook)
8. As per the said Guidelines, commercial mining, setting up of
saw mills and industries causing pollution, commercial use of firewood,
establishment of major hydro-electric projects, use of production of any
hazardous substances, undertaking activities related to tourism like overflying the national park area by any aircraft, hot-air balloons, discharge
of effluents and solid waste in natural water bodies or terrestrial areas
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1137
have been proposed to be made prohibited activities. Certain other
activities having lesser environment damaging potential have been
proposed to be regulated.
9. By an order passed on 4th August 2006, this Court had, interalia, restrained grant of temporary working permits for mining within
safety zones around any national park/wildlife sanctuary declared under
Sections 18, 26-A or 35 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. As an
interim measure, direction was issued to maintain one kilometre safety
zone, which was subject to the orders that may be made in the present
IA (I.A. No.1000 of 2003).
10. The second report of the CEC dated 20th September 2012
makes the following recommendations as regards identification and
declaration of ESZ. This report entitled "Note regarding safety zones
(Eco-sensitive zones) around National Parks and Wildlife
Sanctuaries" makes the following recommendations:-
"10. After considering that during the last ten years no
significant progress has been made regarding identification
and declaration of Safety Zones around protected areas and
considering the matter in its totality, an implementable scheme
has been prepared by the CEC and which has been dealt with
in subsequent paragraphs.
11. For the purpose of identification and declaration of the
Safety Zones around National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries
(hereinafter referred to as protected areas), the protected
areas based on their areas, are classified into four categories:
i) CATEGORY-A - the protected areas having an area of 500
sq. km. or more. The total number of such protected areas is
73 and their total area is about 1,01,389 sq. km (63.44 % of
total area of protected areas);
ii) CATEGORY-B - the protected areas having an area
between 200 sq. km. to 500 sq. km. The total number of such
protected areas is 115 and their total area is about 38942 sq.
km. (24.37 % of total area of protected areas);
iii) CATEGORY-C - the protected areas having an area
between 100 sq. km. to 200 sq. km. The total number of such
protected areas is 85 and their total area is about 12,066 sq.
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA AND ORS. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
km (about 7.55 % of total area of protected areas); and
iv) CATEGORY-D - the protected areas having an area up to
100 sq. km. The total number of such protected areas is 344
and their total area is about 7,422 sq. km (about 4.65 % of
total area of all protected areas).
12. Wherever two or more protected areas are contiguous to
each other, such protected areas will be placed in the
appropriate category based on the sum total of their areas
(and not on the basis of area of individual protected area).
The details of some of the contiguous protected areas are
given below:
i) Corbett National Park (520 sq. km.) and Sonanadi
Sanctuary (301 sq. km) - total area is 821 sq. km and
therefore both will fall in Category-A;
ii) Gir National Park (258 sq. km.) and Gir Sanctuary
(1,153 sq. km.) - total area is 1,411 sq. km. and therefore
both will fall in Category-A;
iii) Periyar National Park (350 sq. km.) and Periyar
Sanctuary (427 sq. km.) - total area is 777 sq. km. and
therefore both will fall in Category-A;
iv) Satpura National Park (585 sq. km.), Bori Sanctuary
(485 sq. km.) and Pachmarhi Sanctuary (417 sq. km.) -
total area is 1488 sq. km. and therefore all three will fall in
Category-A;
iv) Valmiki National Park (335 sq. km.) and Valmiki
Sanctuary (545 sq. km.) - total area is 880 sq . km. and
therefore both will fall in Category-A;
vi) Tadoba National Park (116 sq. km.) and Andhari Wildlife
Sanctuary (509 sq. km.) - total area is 625 sq. km. and
therefore both will fall in Category-A; and
vii) Sariska National Park (273 sq. km.) and Sariska
Sanctuary (219 sq. km.) - total area is 492 sq. km. and
therefore both will fall in Category-B;
13. The Safety Zone, in respect of protected areas falling in
'Category-A and Category-B, may comprise of all the areas
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1139
including non-forest areas falling within a distance of two
kilometers and one kilometer respectively from the boundaries
of the protected area. Such distances, in respect of protected
areas falling within Category-C and Category-D, may be kept
at 500 meter and 100 meter respectively.
14. The grant/renewal of mining leases (excluding for
collection of boulders, gravel and sand from river beds),
setting up of hazardous industries, brick kilns, wood based
industries (except MDF/Particle Boards Plants) will be treated
as prohibited activities within the Safety Zone (eco-sensitive
zones). The activities such as setting up of industries (other
than those included in the list of prohibited activities), hotels
and restaurants including resorts, commercial helicopter
services, hydel projects, irrigations projects, canals, laying
of transmission lines and distribution lines above 33 KV, roads
of more than five meter width and collection of boulders,
gravel and sand from the river beds will be treated as regulated
activities and which will be permissible only after obtaining
environment clearance and clearance of the Standing
Committee, National Board for Wildlife. All other activities
which are not prescribed as prohibited activities or regulated
activities will be treated as permissible activities.
15.