DATE: 10/05/1996
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Chief Justice A.M. Ahmadi and
Justice B.L. Hansaria and Justice S.C. Sen
FACTS:
The petitioner,
environmentalist Pradeep Krishen, filed a writ petition under Article 32
challenging an order dated 28 March 1995 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh’s Department of
Forest. This order permitted villagers residing near national parks and
wildlife sanctuaries to collect tendu leaves, classified as minor forest
produce, under the guise of preserving their traditional rights. Krishen
contended that this policy direction was issued without issuance of mandatory
notifications under Sections 26A and 35 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,
and thus was ultra vires the Act. He argued that allowing such collection
within protected zones violated statutory restrictions and threatened wildlife
ecosystems through deforestation, soil erosion, and disturbance of flora and
fauna
Krishen further
pointed out that at the time, eleven national parks and thirty-three
sanctuaries in Madhya Pradesh accounted for approximately 12.4% of the state's
forest area, which was already under decline due to unsustainable practices.
Reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General revealed that between 1991 and
1993 alone, the state lost 145 square kilometres of forest cover. He also
highlighted a policy reversal: in 1992 the government had lifted an earlier ban
on minor forest produce collection and then, in December 1994, limited
collection to areas outside notified parks and sanctuaries. The March 1995 directive,
he alleged, marked a questionable retreat under pressure from vested commercial
interests, contradicting environmental statutes and constitutional mandates
under Articles 14, 21, 48‑A, and 51‑A(g)
ISSUES:
The primary issue was whether the
Government of Madhya Pradesh’s policy permitting local villagers to collect
minor forest produce, particularly tendu leaves, from within the boundaries of
national parks and sanctuaries violated the provisions of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972. The Court was called upon to decide whether such an
executive action, taken without formal notifications under Sections 26A and 35
of the Act, undermined the statutory protection accorded to ecologically
sensitive areas, and whether it contravened constitutional mandates aimed at
environmental preservation.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court struck down the impugned
order of the Madhya Pradesh Government dated 28 March 1995 and held that no
collection of forest produce or other human activity can be permitted within
the boundaries of a national park or sanctuary unless expressly allowed by law.
The Court mandated that once an area is notified as a national park or
sanctuary under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, the State must ensure strict
compliance with statutory procedures, including the prohibition of commercial
exploitation, unless specifically exempted under the Act.
The Court emphasized the mandatory nature
of the legal framework under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. It held that
once an area is declared a national park or sanctuary, it attains a special
legal status that prohibits any non-forest activity such as tendu leaf
collection, unless permitted through a rigorous legal process, including proper
notification and compliance with Sections 26A and 35 of the Act. These sections
outline the procedures for final notification and demarcation of protected
areas, ensuring that their boundaries and restrictions are not arbitrarily
altered. The Court rejected the State’s contention that customary or
traditional rights of forest-dwelling communities could override the statutory
mandate in protected areas. It clarified that such rights cannot be exercised
in contravention of conservation laws, especially where they jeopardize
biodiversity and ecosystem integrity.
The Court further anchored its reasoning in
the broader constitutional framework, particularly Articles 21 (right to life),
48A (State’s duty to protect the environment), and 51A(g) (Fundamental duty of
citizens to protect the environment). It observed that environmental protection
is not merely a statutory requirement but a constitutional imperative.
Recognizing the rapid degradation of forest cover in Madhya Pradesh and the
threats posed by unrestricted commercial activity in ecologically fragile zones,
the Court underscored the principle of intergenerational equity and the need to
preserve biodiversity. It concluded that allowing collection of forest produce
without legal sanction violated both the spirit and letter of environmental
law, thereby endangering not only wildlife but also the ecological rights of
future generations.
info@adhwaitha.com