Supreme Court Institutionalizes Central Empowered Committee for Environmental Protection: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (2024) INSC 78 (31 January 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 31 January 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 78
Judges: B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

How can environmental governance be made more effective and accountable? The Supreme Court of India, in a significant step, has addressed the long-standing issue of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) functioning as an ad-hoc body. The Court has now formalized the CEC as a permanent statutory body, aiming to enhance its efficiency and transparency in monitoring environmental compliance. This decision marks a crucial development in India’s environmental jurisprudence, ensuring a more structured approach to environmental protection.

Case Background

The Supreme Court’s involvement in protecting India’s forests and regulating non-forest activities began in 1996. Initially, the Court formed various committees to oversee compliance with its orders. A key order on 12 December 1996 defined “forest” to include all statutorily recognized forests, regardless of their designation, and “forest land” to include any area recorded as forest in government records. This order also mandated prior approval from the Central Government for non-forest activities in forests.

In subsequent orders, the Court constituted a High-Powered Committee (HPC) on 4 March 1997 to oversee implementation in the North-Eastern region, and empowered it to supervise transportation of illegal timber and investigate illegal felling by an order dated 17 April 2000.

The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was initially constituted by the Supreme Court on 9 May 2002, to monitor the implementation of its orders related to encroachment removals, implementation of working plans, compensatory afforestation, and other conservation issues. The CEC was to function until the Central Government formed a statutory body under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

The CEC’s composition included a Chairman nominated by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), a nominee of the MoEF, two NGO representatives, and a Member Secretary. The CEC was empowered to call for documents, summon persons, receive evidence, and co-opt experts.

The Supreme Court, by its order dated 9 September 2002, finalized the composition of the CEC. The Central Government issued a notification on 17 September 2002, constituting the CEC as a statutory body under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for a period of five years.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The issue of reconstituting the CEC arose in the context of an application seeking permission to construct a Convention Centre at Patnitop. The Supreme Court, on 24 February 2023, allowed the application subject to statutory clearances. The CEC submitted its report on 13 March 2023.

On 24 March 2023, the Supreme Court noted several concerns regarding the CEC’s functioning, including instances where the CEC questioned the correctness of the Court’s orders. The Court directed that dissenting opinions of CEC members should be placed before the Court. It was also observed that some members were over 75 years of age or resided abroad.

On 18 May 2023, the Central Government agreed to constitute the CEC as a permanent statutory body. The Court directed the Union of India to publish a draft notification under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, within 15 days.

A draft notification was placed before the Court on 18 August 2023, and after incorporating suggestions from the Court and the amicus curiae, the Central Government was permitted to issue the final notification.

Legal Framework

The Central Government’s authority to constitute the CEC stems from Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which empowers the government to establish authorities for environmental protection.

The notification dated 5 September 2023, issued under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, formally established the CEC as a permanent body. The notification outlines the functions and powers of the CEC, which include:

• Monitoring the implementation of Supreme Court orders related to environment, forest, and wildlife.
• Addressing applications from aggrieved persons and reporting to the Central Government.
• Calling for documents, undertaking site inspections, and seeking assistance from relevant persons or officials.
• Suggesting measures for effective implementation of the Act and Supreme Court orders.
• Examining and advising on issues referred by the Central Government.

The notification also specifies that the states or Central Government must provide written reasons for not accepting CEC’s recommendations. The decision of the Central Government is final, but subject to the orders of the Supreme Court.

Arguments

The judgment does not explicitly detail arguments from different parties, as the primary focus is on the institutionalization of the CEC. However, the Court’s observations and directions indicate the following:

• The Court noted concerns about the CEC acting as an appellate authority over Supreme Court orders.
• The Court observed that the CEC members sometimes had differing opinions, which were not always presented to the Court.
• The Court recognized the need for younger experts in the CEC, as some members were of advanced age or resided abroad.
• The Central Government accepted the suggestion to make the CEC a permanent statutory body, indicating a consensus on the need for institutionalizing the committee.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the Court’s proactive approach to address the structural and functional issues of the CEC, transitioning it from an ad-hoc body to a permanent one.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in the traditional sense. Instead, the Court’s primary focus was on the institutionalization and reconstitution of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). The key concerns that the Court addressed were:

1. The need to transform the CEC from an ad-hoc body to a permanent statutory body.
2. Ensuring the CEC’s effective functioning, transparency, and accountability.
3. Addressing concerns about the age and availability of some CEC members.
4. Establishing clear guidelines for the CEC’s operations and decision-making processes.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court addressed the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to several cases, legal provisions, and reports to support its decision. These are categorized below:

Cases

Legal Provisions

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment primarily focuses on the institutionalization of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and establishing guidelines for its effective functioning. Here’s a breakdown of how the Court addressed the submissions and authorities:

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on previous judgments to establish the legal framework and the need for the CEC. It also referred to various environmental statutes to highlight the existing regulatory bodies and their functions.

• The Court relied on T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267* to define the terms ‘forest’ and ‘forest land’, establishing the scope of environmental protection.
• The Court referred to T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, (2013) 8 SCC 198* to highlight the original constitution of the CEC and the need for its institutionalization.
• The Court cited Vijay Rajmohan v. CBI, (2023) 1 SCC 329* to emphasize the principle of accountability in administrative law, which is crucial for the effective functioning of the CEC.
• The Court cited Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 897* to highlight the role and jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in environmental protection.
• The Court relied on S. Jagannath v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 87* and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 312* to illustrate how the Court has previously directed the constitution of environmental authorities under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to institutionalize the CEC was driven by several factors, primarily focused on enhancing the effectiveness and accountability of environmental governance. The Court emphasized the need for a permanent, well-structured body to oversee environmental protection, moving away from the ad-hoc nature of the previous arrangement.

The Court was concerned about the CEC’s functioning, especially instances where the committee appeared to question the correctness of the Supreme Court’s orders. The age and availability of some CEC members also weighed heavily on the Court’s decision, prompting the need for younger experts. The Court also noted the need for clear guidelines and transparency in the CEC’s operations.

The Court’s focus on the principles of environmental rule of law, as highlighted in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India, (2019) 15 SCC 401*, further underscored the importance of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions in environmental governance.

The Court’s decision was influenced by both factual considerations (the practical issues with the CEC’s functioning) and legal principles (the need for accountability and transparency).

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations and rejected the continuation of the CEC as an ad-hoc body due to the identified issues. The final decision was reached by emphasizing the need for a structured, permanent body to ensure effective environmental governance.

The Court’s decision is clear: the CEC must be a permanent body with well-defined roles and responsibilities, operating under clear guidelines and promoting transparency.

The majority opinion, authored by Gavai, J., with concurrence from Narasimha and Mishra, JJ., emphasized the need for institutionalizing the CEC for effective environmental governance. There were no dissenting opinions.

The implications of this decision are significant for future cases, as it sets a precedent for the institutionalization of environmental regulatory bodies. The decision also highlights the Court’s proactive role in ensuring that these bodies function effectively and transparently.

The judgment introduces the concept of “environmental rule of law,” emphasizing the need for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions in environmental governance. This doctrine is rooted in the principles of rule of law and seeks to bridge the gap between environmental laws and their effective implementation.

The Court’s decision is a step towards ensuring that environmental bodies function with efficiency, integrity, and independence, thereby enhancing the overall environmental governance in India.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The CEC was originally directed to be constituted by an order of this Court dated 09.05.2002.  Almost for a period of two decades, the CEC was functioning as an  ad hoc body.”

“We further found it necessary to have a relook at the CEC’s functioning. We, therefore, passed orders dated 24.03.2023 and 18.05.2023 in this regard.”

“Environmental rule of law refers to environmental governance that is undergirded by the fundamental tenets of rule of law.”

Key Takeaways

• The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) is now a permanent statutory body.
• The CEC must formulate guidelines for its operations, including internal meetings, public meetings, site visits, and report preparation.
• The CEC must ensure transparency and accountability in its functioning.
• The decision sets a precedent for the institutionalization of environmental regulatory bodies.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of “environmental rule of law” in governance.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to adopt the following measures to promote institutional transparency, efficiency, and accountability in its functioning:

• Formulate guidelines for the conduct of its functions and internal meetings, delineating the roles of its members and the Secretary.
• Formulate guidelines for public meetings, ensuring the publication of meeting agendas in advance on its website, maintaining minutes of meetings, and setting out rules regarding notice to parties.
• Formulate guidelines for site visits and, if necessary, hearing the public and affected parties therein.
• Formulate guidelines fixing time limits for site visits, preparation of reports, and the manner of preparation of reports.
• Ensure that these guidelines/regulations are accessible to anyone and posted on the official website of the CEC.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that environmental regulatory bodies must be institutionalized as permanent statutory bodies to ensure effective governance. This decision marks a significant change in the approach to environmental governance, moving from ad-hoc committees to permanent, structured bodies. The Court’s emphasis on transparency, accountability, and clear guidelines represents a development in the legal framework for environmental protection.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (2024 INSC 78) is a landmark decision that formalizes the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) as a permanent statutory body. This move aims to enhance the effectiveness, transparency, and accountability of environmental governance in India. The Court’s emphasis on the principles of environmental rule of law and the need for clear operational guidelines for environmental bodies sets a new standard for environmental protection. This decision is expected to have a lasting impact on how environmental regulatory bodies function in the country.