An era of green changes: CEC will now report to environment ministry

The Union environment ministry taking over from the Supreme Court the task of monitoring the activities of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) marks the end of a more than two-decade-long chapter in the career of the panel.
 
The ministry will now nominate the members of the committee, established under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and have the final say on the merits of its recommendations.
 
The court has allowed the move and the ministry notified the new order on September 5.
 

The CEC was entrusted with reporting primarily on matters such as encroachment removals, compensatory afforestation, plantations, and other conservation issues. It performed the dual task of administering and implementing the court’s orders.

 
It all started with the T N Godavarman v Union of India case, which started as a writ petition for protecting the forest land of the Nilgiris from illegal logging and led to an entire piece of jurisprudence on forest conservation. As the scope of the case expanded, the CEC was formed in 2002 to monitor the implementation of the court’s orders.
 
In 1969, Kudremukh Iron Ore Co Ltd (KIOCL) got permission to mine in Kudremukh with a 30-year lease. Even after the expiry of the lease in July 1999, the company said it had obtained temporary working permission from the government. Since Kudremukh is a National Park situated in the Western Ghats, NGO Wildlife First moved the Supreme Court, saying the company was not only damaging the region but also the Bhadra River and the adjoining agricultural lands.

 
The apex court said since the Kudremukh National Park came within the purview of the “National Park”, defined under the relevant legislation, it was advisable to refer the matter to the CEC. The CEC said KIOCL should wind up its operations within five years.
 
The court held “there was no reason for the court to take a different stand from the majority view of the Committee” and observed that mining should be allowed only till the end of 2005.
 
In 2007, the functions of the CEC were slightly altered by the court. It was observed the CEC would cover the subject matter of forests, wildlife, and incidental issues arising out of the orders of the court.

 
The CEC had in 2002 recommended demolishing encroaching constructions in Faridabad and Gurugram (then Gurgaon), Haryana, to protect the ecologically sensitive Aravalli region. The committee gave a time-bound plan for demolishing encroachments near the ranges in the two regions. Having considered the report of the CEC (dated December 14, 2002), the court said in 2009 that no mining would be permitted within the areas of Gurugram district where mining was regulated.
 
A report by the CEC in 2018 found 25 per cent of the Aravalli range had been lost due to illegal mining in Rajasthan since 1968.
 

In 2011, the court asked the CEC to look into illegal mining in Bellary, Karnataka. The committee’s report said G Janardhana Reddy and his brother Karunakara Reddy had been mining in areas demarcated as forest areas since 2004 and they had extracted more minerals than they were permitted to. With this report, the court suspended all mining activities in Bellary. The ban was lifted after 18 months for 16 mines.
 
The committee on October 21, 2021, had written to the Assam government to take action against illegal constructions along the animal corridors in the Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve. This was after the court had in 2019 banned mining and construction along the Kaziranga National Park and catchment area of the rivers originating in the Karbi Anglong Hills in Assam.

 
Last year, the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court had pulled up the Goa government for delaying the filing of an affidavit regarding compliance with the Supreme Court’s judgment of 2014 against those engaged in illegal mining. The Goa Foundation had requested an independent inquiry into the illegal transfer of mining leases in Goa. According to the organisation, the CEC had said there were more parties involved in illegal mining but the state had found just six.
 
Other cases in which the CEC had helped the apex court were the ecologically sensitive zone order and the wildlife conservation matter.

 
Now that the Supreme Court has handed over the charge of the CEC to the ministry, the committee will now be governed under the aegis of the executive wing.
 
“The CEC is likely to witness a sea change in its manner of functioning and decision-making whilst being under the aegis of the ministry. First, there will be an inherent dilution in the CEC’s autonomous status; secondly, the CEC will now report to the ministry, which will alter the pace at which the cases of non-compliance will be reported; thirdly, the ministry will reconstitute the CEC, which could impact the transparency of the selection process; and lastly, the burden of funding the CEC will be borne by the ministry now,” said Suvigya Awasthy, partner, PSL Advocates & Solicitors.

 
Compared to the previous composition of the CEC as constituted by the Supreme Court, which included a member nominated by the ministry and two non-government organisations selected in consultation with the Amicus Curiae, the current notification introduces a significant transformation, said Debadityo Sinha, lead of Climate and Ecosystem at Vidhi India.
 
“The notification removes non-governmental members from the committee. In the revised structure, the chairman, member secretary, and all three expert members will be civil servants appointed by the ministry,” he said.
 
Instead of creating a mechanism for addressing grievances in cases where the state or central government may disagree with the recommendations of the CEC, the Centre retains the ultimate decision-making authority.

 
“Most of the violation of environmental laws involves the government. The pertinent question arises: How can one expect the CEC to function independently or issue impartial judgments when it comprises solely civil servants,” he asked.