State seeks to overturn landmark HC judgement on mangrove destruction

The Supreme Court on Monday will hear a special leave petition (SLP), seeking to permit construction within 50 metres of mangroves (buffer zones), filed by the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB). Details about the petition (SLP Diary No.13791 of 2020) were not previously known to the public

Mumbai: The state government has sought to overturn a 2018 landmark Bombay high court judgement calling for a “total freeze” on the destruction of mangroves in the state.

Mumbai, India - September 22, 2019 : The construction of the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Railway (MAHSR)project will not only lead to the loss of more than 30,000 mangrove trees, but will destroy an entire ecosystem, according to a report by the Mangrove Society of India (MSI). Eleven types of mangroves trees, 177 species of resident and migratory birds, among other animals, will be affected. The habitat of Varanus Salvator, commonly known as monitor lizard and mangroves in Palghar (in pic) are at the risk of being destroyed owing to the project. HT Photo (Hindustan Times)

The Supreme Court on Monday will hear a special leave petition (SLP), seeking to permit construction within 50 metres of mangroves (buffer zones), filed by the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB). Details about the petition (SLP Diary No.13791 of 2020) were not previously known to the public.

The state environment and climate change department—which plays a key role in implementing the HC’s orders on mangrove protection along with the forest department—was not consulted by the MMB before the petition’s filing. Despite this, the State of Maharashtra was shown as Petitioner No. 1 in the matter on behalf of the secretary, environment department. Objections were then raised by the environment department in a December 2021 letter to Sachin Patil, advocate-on-record in the SC, a copy of which is with Hindustan Times.

“Your kind attention is requested in the matter of SLP challenging impugned order dated September 17, 2018, passed by the HC with respect to mangrove protection...It is noted that State of Maharashtra through secretary, environment department, is the Petitioner No. 1 in the matter... The environment and climate change department has not initiated the filling of the above SLP. It came to know that on directions of the MMB through the law and judiciary department, the said SLP is filed before the SC. It is quite surprising and irrational that the environment and climate change department was not even consulted before filing the said SLP,” Narendra Toke, who was then director of the environment department, wrote in the letter.

“In light of above, it is kindly requested to remove the name of the State of Maharashtra through secretary, environment department, as Petitioner in the matter and accordingly inform the environment and climate change department,” Toke’s letter stated. Toke did not respond to HT’s requests for comment.

Construction within 50 m of mangroves was banned by the HC first in 2005 on a petition by the Bombay Environment Action Group (BEAG). In 2018, the court passed a judgement, which read: “Destruction of mangroves offended the fundamental rights of the citizens and hence it was a mandatory duty of the state and its agencies to protect and preserve the mangroves. All mangroves in the state are to be declared as protected or reserved forests, including land belonging to government agencies.”

Though officials in the maritime board did not share a copy of the SLP with HT, Vaishali Mulik, law officer, MMB, confirmed that the petition will be heard by the SC for the first time on Monday. “It has been filed to challenge the 2018 HC order and seeks to allow construction in the buffer zone around mangroves. The Maritime Board has been authorised to file the SLP by the ports department. The Petitioner No. 1 will remain the State of Maharashtra. I have informed the government pleader to mention the port department, as they have authorised us to file the SLP.”

A former senior environment department official, who is privy to the details of the SLP, said, “The MMB’s petition came as a surprise to us, which is why we took a stand against it when we found out in late 2021. If the MMB wants to challenge the order, it is free to do so. But the environment department has a mandate to conserve the environment. How could the environment department have agreed to become a party to a petition which is clearly destructive for the state’s mangroves? It is their job to uphold the HC’s September 2018 judgement.”

Debi Goenka, who was the Petitioner No. 2 in the PIL by the BEAG, said that both the court and the government need to initiate an enquiry on how the PIL was filed by the MMB ostensibly on behalf of the state without obtaining the approval of the environment department or forest department. “The role of the then MMB CEO needs to be investigated,” Goenka said.