Trees in Corbett fell prey to nexus of greed, says SC
Court ‘amazed at audacity’ of former Minister and officials involved in felling of 6,000 trees Bench approves CBI probe initiated into the case and directs agency to submit report in 3 months Court wants panel to study if tiger safaris should be allowe
The Supreme Court on Wednesday condemned the illegal felling of over 6,000 trees to construct buildings, ostensibly for “ecotourism” at the Jim Corbett National Park in Uttarakhand, as a “classic case” of nexus between politicians and officials working to ransack the environment for shortterm commercial ends.
“The present case depicts a sorry state of affairs of human greed devastating one of the most celebrated abodes of tigers i.e. the Corbett Tiger Reserve,” a threejudge Bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai observed.
The court also directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change to form a specialised committee to study and recommend whether tiger safaris should be permitted in the buffer areas of a tiger reserve.
‘Laws ignored’
On the “huge devastation” caused by the illegal felling, the court said it was “amazed at the audacity” of former Uttarakhand Forest Minister and Congress leader Harak Singh Rawat and former Divisional Forest Officer Kishan Chand for giving forest and wildlife conservation laws a complete goby and throwing the public trust doctrine “into the dustbin”.
The judgment approved the Central Bureau of Investigation probe initiated into the case and directed the agency to submit a report in three months.
The Bench said Uttarakhand could not “run away” from its responsibility to restore the forest to the last tree. Justice Gavai said the tigers needed the forest as much as the forest depended on the tigers.
“The presence of tigers in the forests is an indicator of the wellbeing of the ecosystem. Unless steps are taken for the protection of tigers, the ecosystem which revolves around tigers cannot be protected… Events like illegal construction and illicit felling of trees like the one in Corbett cannot be ignored,” he said.
The court said the proposed specialised committee of the Ministry would comprise representatives of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), Wildlife Institute of India, Central Empowered Committee and a Joint Secretary from the Ministry.
Assessing damage
The panel would assess the extent of damage done to the Corbett reserve’s green cover, quantify the cost of restoration and identify the “delinquent” persons and officials responsible for the damage.
The court said the cost of restoration would be recovered from these errant individuals and officials.
The money would be used exclusively for forest restoration.
The Bench said in case the committee’s recommendations were in favour of having tiger safaris in peripheral areas of tiger reserves, it should recommend guidelines for their operation. The guidelines would be applied on a pan-India basis.
The committee has to file its report in three months.
The court said safaris already existing like the one in Pakhro zone at Corbett, need not be disturbed. It, however, directed the Uttarakhand government to establish an animal rescue centre in the vicinity of the safari.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday flagged the “mushrooming” of resorts around tiger reserves and their use as choice wedding destinations.
“Music is played at a very loud volume which causes disturbance to the habitat of the forests,” Justice B.R. Gavai condemned the trend in a judgment on the illegal felling of trees in the protected Jim Corbett National Park, one of the first of its kind in the country. The court said unbridled growth of resorts near protected forests for sheer commercial gains destroyed the delicate ecological balance of the area.
Expert committee
The court directed an expert committee to be constituted by the Environment Ministry to make recommendations on the number and type of resorts that should be permitted within the close proximity of the protected areas.
The committee, in its report to be submitted to the top court in three months, should also suggest “as to how much area from the boundary of the protected
The court said the government held forests in public trust.
forest there should have restriction on noise level and what should be those permissible noise levels”.
The court said the government held natural resources such as forests in public trust. “The executive acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resources and convert them into private ownership, or for commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon the resources,” it expounded.