A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

In the judgment In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors. (2024), the Supreme Court addressed the institutionalization and reconstitution of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), a body initially set up by the Court in 2002 as an ad hoc institution to oversee compliance with its environmental orders. This body, vital to India’s environmental governance, functioned temporarily until the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC) issued a notification in 2023 to establish it as a permanent statutory entity. The Court’s decision underscores the significance of transparency, accountability, and efficiency in environmental regulatory bodies, emphasizing the Environmental Rule of Law as a guiding principle. The ruling aims to bridge implementation gaps in environmental law enforcement, ultimately impacting public health, sustainable development, and human rights.

Keywords: Environmental Rule of Law, Central Empowered Committee, Judicial Review, Transparency, Institutional Accountability

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors.

ii) Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995

iii) Judgement Date: January 31, 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: B.R. Gavai, J.; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.; Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

vi) Author: Justice B.R. Gavai

vii) Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1194 : 2024 INSC 78

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; Wildlife Protection Act, 1972

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None

x) Case is Related to: Environmental Law, Administrative Law, Public Law, Constitutional Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was first constituted by the Supreme Court in 2002 as an ad hoc body under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Committee was established to oversee the implementation of Court orders on environmental protection, particularly forest conservation. Over the years, the CEC faced structural and functional challenges, primarily due to its temporary status, which restricted its operational capacity. Recognizing these issues, the Supreme Court proposed that the CEC be institutionalized as a permanent statutory body, leading to a draft notification from the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change in 2023 to formalize the Committee’s status.

This judgment builds on the Court’s historical role in environmental governance, particularly in upholding the Environmental Rule of Law—a framework ensuring that environmental protection aligns with the tenets of the rule of law, transparency, and accountability. The Court observed a critical gap in enforcing environmental laws and sought to strengthen the CEC to address this deficit effectively.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Formation and Functioning of CEC: The CEC was created in 2002 by a Supreme Court order to address various environmental compliance issues, including forest conservation and wildlife protection. Initially ad hoc, the CEC operated for over two decades without statutory permanency, resulting in limitations on its powers and efficacy.

2. Environmental Challenges and Court’s Role: The Supreme Court noted numerous lapses in environmental law enforcement, which adversely impacted forest and wildlife conservation efforts. This necessitated judicial intervention through orders that reinforced environmental compliance by State and Central authorities.

3. 2023 Notification for Permanent CEC Status: The MoEFCC issued a notification in September 2023 establishing the CEC as a permanent statutory body with defined powers, functions, tenure, and provisions for appointment. This transformation aimed to provide CEC with a robust structure to oversee and ensure adherence to environmental laws across India.

4. Judicial Directives on CEC Structure and Operations: The Supreme Court directed that the CEC adopt measures to ensure institutional transparency, efficiency, and accountability. These directives included formulating operational guidelines, conducting public hearings, and establishing audit mechanisms for the CEC’s activities.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the CEC should be institutionalized as a permanent statutory body to improve environmental law enforcement.
• How the Environmental Rule of Law principles should influence CEC’s role and functioning.
• What measures are necessary to enhance the CEC’s transparency, accountability, and operational efficacy.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The petitioner, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, contended that:

1. The ad hoc status of the CEC hindered its effectiveness, as it lacked statutory authority and permanence, limiting its capacity to enforce compliance with environmental orders.

2. The Environmental Rule of Law mandates an accountable and transparent approach to environmental governance, which a permanent CEC structure would better fulfill.

3. Given India’s evolving environmental challenges and legal landscape, a structurally reinforced CEC would bridge the enforcement gap, ensuring that Court orders on environmental protection are rigorously implemented.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The respondents, Union of India and other State Authorities, argued that:

1. The MoEFCC recognized the Court’s concerns regarding the CEC’s functionality and had proactively initiated steps to make it a permanent statutory body to enhance its governance role.

2. The draft notification issued by MoEFCC in 2023 adequately addressed the Court’s concerns by establishing a clear mandate, structure, and operational procedures for the CEC, in line with statutory requirements.

3. The notification provided for accountability mechanisms, with provisions for audit, review, and the involvement of experts, thus ensuring the Committee’s decisions align with the principles of the Environmental Rule of Law.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3(3): Authorizes the Central Government to establish authorities for environmental protection.
• Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Restricts the use of forest land for non-forest purposes without prior approval.
• Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: Regulates air quality standards and pollution control measures.
• Wildlife Protection Act, 1972: Provides a legal framework for wildlife conservation and the establishment of wildlife sanctuaries and national parks.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court held that the institutionalization of the CEC as a permanent statutory body under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was necessary to ensure robust environmental governance. This permanency facilitates consistent monitoring, accountability, and efficient implementation of Court orders on environmental matters, thereby reducing enforcement gaps.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that Environmental Rule of Law requires adherence to the principles of transparency, public participation, and institutional integrity in environmental governance. The Court stressed the need for a structured approach to decision-making, including public access to information, timely audits, and a responsive, transparent operational framework for the CEC.

c. GUIDELINES

The Court directed the following guidelines to enhance the CEC’s functioning:

1. Formulation of Operational Guidelines: The CEC must establish clear procedures for conducting meetings, making decisions, and ensuring public accessibility to its operations.

2. Public Hearings and Stakeholder Engagement: The CEC should facilitate participatory decision-making by holding public meetings with accessible agendas and outcomes.

3. Audits and Monitoring: The CEC should submit quarterly reports to MoEFCC for a review of its functioning and compliance with statutory and judicial mandates.

4. Publication of Findings and Reports: All operational guidelines, meeting agendas, and other official communications must be accessible on the CEC’s website, ensuring transparency.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The institutionalization of the CEC marks a significant milestone in India’s environmental governance, embedding the principles of the Environmental Rule of Law into its structure and operations. This decision reinforces the Court’s commitment to sustainable environmental protection and judicial oversight in safeguarding public health and ecological integrity.

J) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

1. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2013) 8 SCC 198
2. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 312
4. Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India, (2019) 15 SCC 401
5. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 897

Important Statutes Referred

1. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
2. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
3. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
4. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
5. Wildlife Protection Act, 1972