Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Indian Council For Enviroment-Legal Action vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

Country/Territory
India
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Apr 18, 1996
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
Supreme Court of India
Judge
Singh, K.
Ahmed, S.
Kirpal., B.
Reference number
1996 IIIAD SC 641, JT 1996 (4) SC 263, 1996 (3) SCALE 579
Language
English
Subject
Environment gen., Sea
Keyword
Land-use planning Coastal zone management
Abstract
Concern for the protection of ecology and for preventing irreversible ecological damage of the coastal areas of the country has led to the filing of the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as a public interest litigation.. The Central Government, through Ministry of Environment and Forests (`MOEF', for short), issued Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated February 19, 1991 in exercise of powers under Rule 5(d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. As per the said notification, the area upto 100 meters from the High Tide Line was earmarked as `No Development Zone' and no construction was permitted within this zone except for repairs etc. However, the Central Government issued another notification on August 16, 1994 amending notification dated February 19, 1991 and relaxing the `No Development Zone' to 50 meters from 100 meters. The main grievance in this petition is that the Notification dated 19.2.1991 declaring coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zones has not been implemented or enforced. This has led to continued degradation of ecology in the said coastal areas. There is also a challenge to the validity of the Notification dated 18.8.1994 whereby the first Notification dated 19.2.1991 has been amended, resulting in further relaxations of the provisions of 1991 Notification and such relation, it is alleged, will help in defeating the intent of the main Notification itself. The primary effort of the Court, while dealing with the environmental related issues, is to see that the enforcement agencies, whether it be the State or any other authority, take effective steps for the enforcement of the laws. As such the Court has to pass orders and give directions for the protection of the fundamental rights of the people. Passing of appropriate orders requiring the implementation of the law cannot be regarded as the Court having usurped the functions of the Legislature or the Executive. The Supreme Court held that the amendment reducing the width of the zone from 100 m to 50 m in respect of rivers, creeks and backwaters was contrary to the object of the EPA and may lead to serious ecological damage. Also the amendment did not contain any guidelines as to when the discretion was to be exercised and gave unbridled power. The court struck down the amendment as being violative of Article 21. The Supreme Court observed that authorities under whose jurisdiction the implementation of the CRZ Notification has fallen were overworked and had limited control. It directed that Coastal Zone Management Authorities (CZMAs) be set up, in order to supervise the implementation of the CRZ Notification and also provide advice to the MoEF and the GoI on issues of coastal regulation.. Considering the fact that the Pollution Control Boards are not only overworked but simultaneously have a limited role to play in so far as it relates to controlling of pollution for the purpose of ensuring effective implementation of the Notifications of 1991 and 1994, as also of the Management Plans, the Central Government should consider setting up under Section 3 of the Act. State Coastal Management Authorities in each State or zone and also a National Coastal Management Authority. Consequently, by Government order dated November 26, 1998, the National Coastal Zone Management Authority (NCZMA) and the various State Coastal Zone Management Authorities (SCZMAs) came into existence.
Full text
COU-156237.pdf
Website
www.indiankanoon.org