Balancing Act

Article 21 of the Constitution of India allows its citizens the Right to Life but the environment plays a crucial role when we discuss this right. The right to a clean environment was included in Article 21 due to some important cases. The case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State, (Dehradun Quarrying Case) and M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (Fire in River Ganga case) played key roles in defining the clean environment as a human right. In April 2024, the Honourable Supreme Court added one more important and pertinent element to the Right to Life "fundamental right to be free from adverse impacts of climate change". However, unlike the earlier cases, the right to be free from climate change impact came due to a wildlife case. The context was to put all transmission lines unground in the current and potential habitat of Great Indian Bustard which according to various departments of Government was not feasible and also quite expensive. Also, it was interfering with the ambition of garnering more renewable energy in the country (as the state has the potential for wind and solar energy farms).

There have been many significant cases which, if not directly, but related to linear infrastructure due to "forest" or "forest land" usage for non-forestry purposes. Some significant ones are discussed in this article.

The provision of safeguard for nature was conceived when the Indian Forest Act was developed. The Indian Forest Act 1927 and the subsequent Forest Acts had the provision to conserve forestland, which evolved from preservation to conservation. The Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change gradually modified the guidelines and process of the requirement of forest land for developmental projects.

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P. (1985): The case was filed by a non-governmental organization (NGO) against limestone quarries located in the Mussoorie Hills of the Himalayas, which were causing significant damage to the environment and threatening the livelihoods of local communities. The Hon. Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, ordered the closure of the quarries and directed the government to take measures to protect the environment and the rights of the affected communities. The judgment in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P. (1985) emphasized the need for sustainable development that takes into account the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of development. It also stressed the importance of involving local communities in decision-making processes related to development projects.

Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (1987): The renewal of the mining lease was not permitted as the land fell under the “Reserved Forest” area and hence the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 applied to the forests. The forest department of the State of Gujarat refused to give a ‘no objection’ certificate. However, the appellant was contesting that the land was under the control of the Industries, Mines & Power department, and the 1980 Act did not apply to the same.

Forest Bench, Supreme Court of India vs. State of Karnataka (1995): The formulation of the concept of compensatory afforestation (CAMPA) in India was developed. The case was related to the large-scale felling of trees in the forests of Karnataka, and the Supreme Court issued a series of directions to the state government to prevent further destruction of forests. One of the key directions given by the court was the creation of a Compensatory Afforestation Fund to mitigate the impact of forest destruction. This fund was to be used to undertake afforestation and reforestation activities in other areas to compensate for the loss of forests in the state.

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (1996): This case is also known as the “Forest Conservation case” and is one of the most significant environmental cases in India. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the term “forest” must be interpreted in a broader sense to include all areas that are covered with trees, plants, and shrubs. The court also emphasized that forests should be protected and conserved, and any activity that would damage or destroy forests should be prohibited. The Supreme Court of India, in this case, issued a series of orders to protect forests and wildlife in the country, including a ban on felling trees in forests without prior approval from the central government.

Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Others (2011): The case was related to the environmental clearance given to Lafarge for limestone mining in Meghalaya. The case involved a challenge to the environmental clearance granted to Lafarge because it violated the Forest (Conservation) Act, of 1980, and the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, of 1994. The main issue in the case was whether the grant of environmental clearance was valid.

The laws and guidelines are regularly updated which define the “forest” and “forest land” requirements and clearances for developmental projects. The PARIVESH portal is one portal that provides access to the relevant rules and guidelines.

Continuing in part 2