Supreme Court Upholds Tamil Nadu’s Elephant Corridor Notification: Protecting Wildlife and Habitats (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 October 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 764

Judges: S. A. Bobde, CJI, S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J. (authored by S. Abdul Nazeer, J.)

Can a state government legally notify an elephant corridor and order the eviction of private landowners to protect wildlife? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the Sigur Plateau in Tamil Nadu. The court examined the balance between environmental protection and private property rights, ultimately upholding the state’s notification.

The core issue was the validity of the Tamil Nadu Government’s notification, which designated an ‘Elephant Corridor’ in the Sigur Plateau of the Nilgiris District. This notification required resort owners and private landowners to vacate their properties within the corridor. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the state government had the authority to issue such a notification and whether the process followed was legally sound.

The judgment was authored by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, with Chief Justice S. A. Bobde and Justice Sanjiv Khanna concurring.

Case Background

The case arose from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the High Court of Judicature at Madras, seeking to protect elephant corridors from encroachment and disturbances. The Hospitality Association of Mudumalai, along with other resort owners and landowners in the Nilgiris forest area, were affected by the High Court’s orders and the subsequent government notification.

The core of the issue is the protection of elephant corridors, which are vital for the movement and survival of elephants. These corridors are increasingly threatened by human activities like agriculture, construction, and commercial establishments. The Government of India launched ‘Project Elephant’ in 1993 to address these threats. The project aims to ensure the long-term survival of elephants by protecting their habitats and migration routes.

In Tamil Nadu, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) had highlighted the threat to elephant movement due to the use of private forest land for non-forestry purposes. The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India also noted 88 elephant corridors identified by the Wildlife Trust of India and requested action for their protection.

An Exploratory Committee was formed in 2007 to explore acquiring private lands for elephant corridors. The Madras High Court, in response to the PIL, directed the District Collector to file a status report on encroachments within the elephant corridor. This led to the involvement of the Hospitality Association of Mudumalai, which argued that they were not encroachers and had been living in the area for decades without human-animal conflict.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Entries 17A ‘Forest’ and 17B ‘Protection of wild animals and birds’ in the concurrent list of the Constitution of India, which empower both the central and state governments to legislate on these matters.
• The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, which allows the State Government to notify Sanctuaries, National Parks, Conservation Reserves, and Community Reserves.
• The Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, which prohibits cutting of trees in private forests.
• The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, which protects the rights of forest dwellers.
• Articles 21, 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India which mandate the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.

The Court also referred to the “Precautionary Principle,” which mandates that the State must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants, primarily resort owners and landowners, argued that their lands do not fall within a scientifically recognized elephant corridor.
• They contended that the Expert Committee’s report, which formed the basis of the government notification, was flawed and not based on scientific evidence.
• They claimed that the notified corridor was an “artificial corridor” that did not align with historical elephant movement patterns.
• They asserted that the government notification varied from both the Expert Committee’s report and the initial public notice regarding the corridor’s boundaries.
• The resort owners argued that their establishments were environmentally compatible and helped promote tourism while educating tourists about wildlife.
• Some appellants also argued that the District Collector had acted illegally by removing fences from establishments outside the notified corridor area.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents, including environmental organizations and the State Government, argued that the notification was necessary to protect the elephant population and their habitat.
• They emphasized the ecological importance of elephant corridors and the need to prevent fragmentation of habitats.
• They contended that the resorts and other establishments were obstructing elephant movement and contributing to human-animal conflict.
• They supported the Expert Committee’s report and the government’s decision to notify the elephant corridor.
• They highlighted that the appellants’ lands were notified as private forests and that they had violated the law by constructing resorts without proper permissions.

Amicus Curiae’s Arguments:

• The Amicus Curiae supported the submissions of the contesting respondents and the reports submitted by the District Collector, Nilgiris.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the State Government has the power to notify an elephant corridor.
2. Whether the identification of the elephant corridor in the impugned notification was based on sound scientific principles.
3. Whether there was any arbitrariness in the acreage of the elephant corridor as notified by the impugned G.O.
4. Whether the actions taken by the District Collector, Nilgiris, in pursuance of the notification were legal and proper.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan [1988 (4) SCC 655]*: The Court used this case to support the importance of wildlife laws and the need to restore ecological balance.
• T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India [1997 (2) SCC 267]*: The Court referred to this case to highlight the prohibition on felling trees in all forests, including private forests, in Tamil Nadu.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. [1997 (3) SCC 715]*: The Court cited this case to emphasize the “Precautionary Principle” as a part of Indian law, mandating the State to prevent environmental degradation.
• Entries 17A ‘Forest’ and 17B ‘Protection of wild animals and birds’ in the concurrent list of the Constitution of India: The Court relied on these entries to establish the State Government’s power to legislate on forest and wildlife protection.
• The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: The Court used this Act to support the State Government’s authority to notify protected areas like Sanctuaries and National Parks.
• The Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949: The Court noted that the appellants’ lands were notified as private forests under this Act, restricting tree cutting.
• The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006: The Court acknowledged the protection given to forest dwellers under this Act.
• Articles 21, 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India: The Court cited these articles to support the State’s duty to protect and improve the environment and safeguard wildlife.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to protect the elephant population and their habitats. The Court emphasized the ecological importance of elephant corridors and the need to prevent fragmentation of habitats. The Court also took into account the fact that the appellants’ lands were notified as private forests and that they had violated the law by constructing resorts without proper permissions. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the “Precautionary Principle,” which mandates that the State must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following steps:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them in favor of environmental protection. The Court emphasized the need to protect the elephant population and their habitats.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The State Government has the power to notify an elephant corridor under Entries 17A and 17B of the concurrent list and the Wildlife Act.
• The Expert Committee’s report was a valid basis for the notification.
• The “Precautionary Principle” mandates that the State must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation.
• The appellants’ lands were notified as private forests and they had violated the law by constructing resorts without proper permissions.

The Court did not have a minority opinion.

The Court’s reasoning involved a combination of legal interpretation, factual analysis, and application of environmental principles.

The decision has significant implications for future cases involving environmental protection and private property rights. It establishes a precedent for the State’s power to protect wildlife and their habitats, even if it means restricting commercial activities on private lands.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines but reinforced the existing legal principles related to environmental protection and the State’s duty to safeguard wildlife.

The Court upheld the State’s power to notify elephant corridors, emphasizing the ecological importance of these corridors and the need to prevent habitat fragmentation.

“The preservation of the fauna and flora some species of which are getting extinct at an alarming rate, has been a great and urgent necessity for the survival of humanity and these laws reflect a last-ditch battle for the restoration, in part at least, a grave situation emerging from a long history of callous insensitiveness to the enormity of the risks to mankind that go with the deterioration of environment.”

“The more forest habitat is fragmented, the farther an elephant herd has to roam in search of food and water. Increasingly, elephants have to move farther and farther afield, even from one forest area to another, often through small patches of forests called corridors.”

“The Precautionary Principle makes it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.”

Key Takeaways

• State governments have the power to notify elephant corridors and take measures to protect wildlife, even if it means restricting private land use.
• The “Precautionary Principle” is a key consideration in environmental cases, requiring the State to act proactively to prevent environmental degradation.
• Private landowners must adhere to environmental laws and regulations, and cannot carry out commercial activities that harm wildlife habitats.
• The Supreme Court has upheld the importance of protecting elephant corridors for the survival of the species and the maintenance of ecological balance.
• The appointment of the Inquiry Committee indicates that the Court is willing to investigate factual objections and ensure that actions taken by authorities are legal and proper.

This judgment may lead to stricter enforcement of environmental laws and regulations, as well as greater scrutiny of commercial activities in ecologically sensitive areas. It may also encourage other states to take similar measures to protect wildlife corridors.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• A 3-member Inquiry Committee was appointed to decide the individual objections of the appellants and any other persons claiming to be aggrieved by the actions of the District Collector, Nilgiris.
• The State Government was directed to consult the Chairman of the Inquiry Committee and pay remuneration to him and the other Members of the Inquiry Committee.
• The State Government was directed to provide appropriate secretarial assistance and logistical support to the Inquiry Committee.
• The Inquiry Committee was authorized to appoint requisite staff on a temporary basis.
• The State Government and the district-level authorities were directed to provide their full cooperation and produce any and all files/documents required by the Inquiry Committee.
• The appellants and other aggrieved persons were permitted to file objections before the Inquiry Committee within four months.
• The Inquiry Committee was directed to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders after granting the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State Government has the power to notify elephant corridors and take measures to protect wildlife, even if it means restricting private land use, and that such measures are necessary for the preservation of the environment.

There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment reinforces the existing legal principles related to environmental protection and the State’s duty to safeguard wildlife.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the Tamil Nadu government’s notification of an elephant corridor in the Sigur Plateau, emphasizing the importance of protecting wildlife and their habitats. While the Court acknowledged factual objections regarding the acreage and actions taken by the District Collector, it appointed an Inquiry Committee to address these concerns. The judgment reinforces the State’s power to take measures for environmental protection and sets a precedent for future cases involving wildlife conservation and private property rights.