CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-I V. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, SUPREME COURT, I.A. NO. 100 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 337 OF 1995

CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-I V. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, SUPREME COURT, I.A. NO. 100 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 337 OF 1995, DECIDED ON 15 APRIL 2013

 

FACTS

The Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-I Vs. Union of India and Others was a public interest petition,filed in 1995 by World Wide Fund for Nature-India, a premier wildlife conservation institution. The writ petition brought to the notice of the Supreme Court of India the rapid degradation taking place in protected areas, assigning the non-implementation of the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as the primary cause for this degradation. The Petitioners sought a direction to the Respondents, i.e. the Union government,State governments and their respective Collectors, to discharge the duty entrusted to them under Sections 19 to 25 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The said provisions of law lay down the procedure for the settlement of rights in protected areas i.e., Wild Life Sanctuaries and National Parks. This Act provides for the protection of the country’s wild animals, birds and plant species, in order to ensure environmental and ecological security. Among other things, the Act lays down restrictions on hunting many animal species. TheAct was last amended in the year 2006.

 

CASE HISTORY

This case was filed in 1995 as a writ petition under Article 32 by the Centre for Environmental Law, a unit of the World Wide Fund for Nature India, this petition right from the start projected itself as a 'public interest litigation' or PIL. At the time of filing, the 1991 amendments to the WPA had already come into force. Apart from invoking several provisions of the Constitution of India in support of their submission that fundamental rights were being violated, the Petitioners made several submissions in their petition based on an analysis of the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

Rapid decline of India’s wild animals and birds was brought into the attention of the court along with the inadequacy of the Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912 (8 of 1912) and other existing State laws, the Indian Parliament enacted the Wild Life  (Protection) Act, 1972. A total of 526  National  Parks and Sanctuaries were notified under Section 18/  35  of  the Act. The Act lays down the entire procedure as contained in   Section  19 to Section 25,  for declaring and creating National Parks and Sanctuaries. The provisions of the Act make it mandatory after the issuance of notification under Section 18 of the Act, for the Collector to inquire into and determine the rights of any person over the said land. However, the respondent State governments, after issuing the notification under Section 18, have omitted and neglected to conclude the declaration proceedings as contemplated from Section 19 onwards of the said Act.

Reliance on Article 48A of the Constitution of India makes it obligatory on the state to protect wild life and forests was placed. Further, the petition argued "that wildlife and forest forms part and parcel of Article 21.In other words, Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to life and all that goes along with it. Also, relying on the concept of intergenerational equity, the petitioner argued that "the omission to act, on the part of the respondent, raises a very fundamental question of intergenerational equity, in terms of the rights of the child of the present generation and those of the future, to inherit the environment. It was further urged thatArticles 39(a), (b) and (f) read along with Articles 21 and 14 clearly establishes a constitutional mandate for intergenerational equity.

The Petitioner relied upon the following international conventions to which India is a party:

1. Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989.
2. Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, 1971.
3. Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972.
4. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 1973.
5. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 1979.
6. Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992.

 

JUDGEMENT

Protection from infectious disease: The Supreme Court called for programmes of immunization of   animals   living   near   or   around   sanctuaries   and national parks, in order to protect them from infectious disease, the court directed the veterinary centers to undertake  these programmes in the neighborhood  of  the protected area. 

Menace of poaching: Besides, the  need was  felt to control effectively the growing menace of poaching  in  the  sanctuaries/national parks.

Modern Arms and Communication facilities: The  Court  issued further direction to the central government as well as the state governments/UT administrations to equip the forest guards with modern arms, communication facilities, viz, wireless sets, and other necessary equipment within six months The rational for such an exercise was that likely contact between the wild animals and other living creatures in the neighborhood of a sanctuary may result in wild animals contracting diseases from the latter.

This writ petition was treated as a continuing mandamus by the Supreme Court. These orders have impacted not only the management  of  national parks and sanctuaries in   the  country,  but   have  also left their  mark  on   the development of wildlife conservation policy. Like a variety of other PILs relating to environmental and human rights issues which have been pursued as continuing mandamus, this case too come up for hearing at regular intervals.

One of the early orders passed by the Court directed that "Even though notifications in respect of sanctuaries/national parks have been issued under section 18/35 in all States/ Union Territories, further proceedings   as   required   under   the  Act   i.e.   issue   of   proclamation   under   section   21   and   other   steps   as contemplated by the Act have not been taken. The concerned State Governments/ Union Territories are directed to issue the proclamation under section 21 in respect of the sanctuaries/national parks within two months   and   complete   the   process   of   determination   of   rights   and   acquisition   of   lands   or   rights   as contemplated by the Act within a period of one year."

Formation of Advisory Board: The Court also directed to:

1. Constitute WildLife Advisory Boards at the State level within 2 months;
2. Appoint Honorary WildLife Wardens at the District level within 2 months;
3. Proposals for de-notification of any area which is included in a sanctuary/ national park shall be referred to the Indian Board for Wild Life for its opinion, and only thereafter shall the proposal be placed for consideration before the Legislative Assembly along with the opinion of the Indian Board for WildLife; in order to effectively control the growing increase of poaching