New Delhi: The union environment ministry this week issued a notification to constitute a permanent authority — a ‘Central Empowered Committee’ (CEC) — for “monitoring and ensuring” compliance of the Supreme Court’s orders on environment, forest and wildlife, and to make suggestions on related issues.
The Supreme Court had ordered the formation of the CEC in 2002, to monitor the implementation of its environment-related orders and to bring non-compliance to court’s notice. The order came as a part of the 1995 T.N. Godavarman case, which was initially filed to address timber felling in the Nilgiri range of Tamil Nadu. But since then, the scope of the petition has been expanded manyfold, and the petition still remains pending in the Supreme Court.
A notification on forming the CEC for a period of five years was first issued on 17 September, 2002, by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In 2007, when the CEC’s term expired, the Supreme Court reconstituted the CEC as a court-appointed committee.
Since then, according to the SC orders seen by ThePrint, the CEC has brought to the court’s notice the steps taken for removal of encroachment, implementation of working plans, compensatory afforestation and plantation, and has assisted the court in a range of environmental matters — from surveying the Bellary reserve forests in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, to giving recommendations on use of forestland in Sanjay Gandhi National Park for a water supply project.
The new notification, issued Tuesday of which ThePrint has a copy, provides for the qualification of the members of the committee, along with their tenure, powers and responsibilities. It provides for the appointment of a chairman, a member secretary, and three expert members — all to be appointed by the central government. The notice also says the CEC will now report any non-compliance of Supreme Court orders to the state and Central government, instead of to the apex court.
A lawyer associated with the CEC over the past years told ThePrint that with this move, the CEC “won’t remain an independent body”.
Meanwhile, environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta raised doubts about the necessity of having a CEC at all.
“I am of the firm belief that there is no need for a CEC at all…Once the National Green Tribunal was created in 2010 to adjudicate on the Forest Conservation Act, there is no need for a separate body at all,” Dutta told ThePrint.
Calling it a “waste of public money”, he further said, “The body that has now been created is of no use at all, other than being a waste of public money, because it says that the role of the CEC is actually to give reports to the government on the implementation of the Supreme Court’s orders…As per the Constitutional scheme, every institution in India is to ensure implementation of Supreme Court’s orders.”
He pointed out that the government has to ensure implementation of Supreme Court orders in any case, and in case of non-implementation, there is the remedy of contempt proceedings.
ThePrint has reached Mattu J. P. Singh, head of the Press Information Bureau for MOEF for comment on email. The article will be updated once a response is received.
ThePrint compares the 2002 CEC notification and the new one to note the differences.
Also read: Why tiger reserves see ‘less deforestation, carbon emission from forest loss’ than protected areas
2002 versus 2023
The notification issued in 2002 specifically said that the committee “shall submit quarterly reports to the Hon’ble Supreme Court”. The new notification has no such clause, and the CEC will now suggest measures exclusively to the state as well as central governments. It has asked the committee to submit these quarterly reports to the central government instead.
The 2002 notification said that the committee will function “under the administrative control” of the central government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests, but subject to the Supreme Court’s orders. The new notification asserts that the committee will function “under the administrative control” of the central government in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, but does not talk about it being subject to the apex court’s orders.
The lawyer associated with the CEC cited above explained, “It is a government body now…The CEC has always reported to the Supreme Court, in the form of recommendations…Now it is only a report to be given to the central government or to the state government. The government may accept it, or may not accept it.”
The lawyer further said that except for two or three times, the reports submitted by the CEC have always been accepted by the Supreme Court. The new notification makes a provision to allow the central government to not accept the CEC’s suggestion.
Clause 3 of the notification says, “In case any suggestion or recommendation of the Central Empowered Committee, not acceptable to the state or central government, the government shall give reasons in writing for not accepting the same and such decision of the central government shall be final.”
‘In interest of all stakeholders’
In May this year, the Supreme Court had suggested that instead of the CEC being an ad-hoc body, it would be in “larger interest” that CEC should be established as a permanent statutory body. At the time, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta accepted the suggestion. He said that the central government would publish a draft notification under the provisions of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 providing for the constitution of the CEC, and that the draft shall be submitted to the court.
Last month, a Supreme Court order noted that Mehta had handed over to the court a draft notification to be issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) regarding the constitution of a CEC. It then permitted the central government to go ahead with notifying the CEC as a permanent body.
“We find that rather than CEC functioning as an ad-hoc body, it functioning as a permanent body would be in the interest of all the stakeholders,” it observed.
Also read: Mahindra, Godrej, Jindal—Meet India’s growing climate philanthropists
The members
The 2002 notification had appointed the then secretary to the government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, P.V. Jayakrishnan, as the chairman of the CEC. It also appointed three members — N.K. Joshi, the then ADG of Forests, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Valmik Thapar of the Ranthambhore Foundation and Supreme Court lawyer Mahendra Vyas. It appointed then IG of forests, M.K. Jiwrajka as the member secretary of CEC.
The notification dated 5 September says the committee will be chaired by someone with an experience of 25 years in the field of environment, forests and wildlife or proven administrative experience of not less than 25 years in the central or state governments. The chairman will be nominated by the central government for a tenure of three years, which can be extended for a maximum of one more tenure. The age limit for the chairman is 66 years.
The member secretary of the new CEC will be a full-time serving officer of the government not below the rank of deputy inspector general of forests or director in the Government of India, according to the notice. This person is required to have experience of at least 12 years in the field of environment, forests or wildlife. The member secretary will also be appointed by the Centre.
The committee will also have the three expert members — one each from the fields of environment, forests and wildlife with experience of at least 20 years. They will also be nominated by the Centre for a tenure of three years.
‘How is it different from any govt department?’
Commenting on this new ‘permanent body’, Dutta asserted that the phrase ‘permanent body’ is a misnomer. He explained, “The so-called ad-hoc committee was actually functioning for 21 years, with the same chairperson. This is unprecedented in India…So let’s be very clear that this name, ‘permanent body’ is a misnomer. This permanent body is for three years, and that temporary body has functioned for the last 21 years.”
He was referring to the fact that the CEC has had the same chairman, P.V. Jayakrishnan for the entirety of its 21 years of existence. One of its members, Mahendra Vyas, has also been a constant in the committee, he added.
However, Dutta firmly believes that the CEC has “outlived its utility”. He asserted, “It may have served some purpose at some point of time, but over more than a decade or so, after the NGT came in, there is no need to continue with a CEC.”
“Whenever there is a Supreme Court order, it has to be implemented. And there is an entire ministry of environment, state forest department, pollution control boards — they are all there to implement orders of the Supreme Court. So why do you need a body to implement Supreme Court orders?” he asked.
Referring to the powers and functions of the newly notified committee, Dutta added , “It is only a recommendatory, advisory body. And the officer will also be mostly serving officers…So how will it even function? Even otherwise, how is it that the functioning of the CEC as envisaged presently, is going to be different from any government department? So why do you need to waste public money on something like this now?”
“Doing away with the CEC is good, but having this (new) body is as good as not having a body at all,” he added.
(Edited by Smriti Sinha)
Also read: CEEW to iFOREST, Modi govt listens when think tanks talk. They are growing in clout & cash