'Why all cases concerning forests, lakes come directly to us': Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday wondered why all the matters concerning forests and lakes are coming to the apex court bypassing the high courts that too in the form of interim applications in a pending PIL of 1995.

“Why are all forest matters coming to this court,” a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi wondered at the outset. Referring to an application related to the Sukhna lake case, the CJI said apparently, it seemed a “friendly match” was going on at the behest of some private developers and others.

The observations of CJI Kant assume significance in view of the fact that many previous apex court benches, including the one led by former CJI B R Gavai, have been passing a slew of directions, orders and judgements on interim applications (IAs) filed raising specific violations of forest and other relevant laws with regard to reserved forests, lakes, tiger reserves, etc. across India.

These IAs are mostly filed in the pending 1995 PIL titled ‘In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad’.

At the outset, the bench was told about a plea related to Sukhna lake at Chandigarh.

“We are talking about the Sukhna lake. It is 500 metres away from the Punjab and Haryana High Court...and we are taking away their power under Article 226 of the Constitution and listing it here.

“Tell us who the stakeholders are. We want to see if the catchment area is protected and remedial measures taken by the state. The state says we have taken a call and now the Union (of India) will decide,” the CJI said.

“We know as to how the catchment area of this Sukhna lake has been systematically clogged,” the CJI said, adding that the high courts do not act the moment it is intimated to them that the apex court is seized of the case.

The bench asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, and senior lawyer K Parmeswar, who has been assisting the court as an amicus curiae in the forest matter, to apprise it of local issues which can be dealt by the high courts themselves.

“Pan India issues, I can understand where this court has to pass some directions,” the CJI said.

Litigation around Chandigarh's Sukhna lake primarily involves the high court’s efforts to protect its catchment area from encroachment, ordering demolition of structures in the protected zone in 2020.

The bench also asked as to why all the specific issues are being raised in the 1995 PIL and said that they can be dealt with independently by filing separate petitions.

It said that a decision may be taken on sending cases to the high courts.

Former CJI Gavai-led benches passed a slew of orders and verdicts in forest matters.

Before demitting office, the Justice Gavai-led bench directed the Jharkhand government to notify 126 compartments in the Saranda forest area as a wildlife sanctuary within three months, and prohibited any mining activity within a one-km radius of its boundary.

He also asked the government to declare 31,468.25 hectares as Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary.

In his last judgment, aimed at safeguarding the world's oldest mountain systems, his bench accepted a uniform definition of the Aravali Hills and Ranges and banned the grant of fresh mining leases inside its areas spanning Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat.

The Justice Gavai-led bench had issued a slew of pan-India directions asking the state governments to notify eco-sensitive zones around all tiger reserves, including buffer and fringe areas, within one year, and enforced a complete ban on mining activities within one km of core or buffer zones.

It had also directed the Uttarakhand government to undertake comprehensive restoration measures, demolish unauthorised constructions and remedy the destruction caused by illegal tree felling inside the Jim Corbett Tiger Reserve.