Environmentalists in Gurugram vow to continue protests till PLPA Bill is rescinded

Gurugram and Faridabad residents have organised at least four protests against the PLPA amendment since last Sunday.

Environmentalists in Gurugram and Faridabad — which comprise 26,000 acres of Punjab Land Preservation-notified land in Aravallis — expressed relief at the Supreme Court’s strongly worded response to the PLPA amendment bill on Friday. However, given Haryana’s poor track record in complying with Supreme Court orders on forests, they said they will continue to protest until the Bill is rescinded.

Environmentalists in Gurugram and Faridabad — which comprise 26,000 acres of Punjab Land Preservation-notified land in Aravallis — expressed relief at the Supreme Court’s strongly worded response to the PLPA amendment bill on Friday. (Photo by Manoj Kumar/ Hindustan Times)(HT Photo)

Gurugram and Faridabad residents have organised at least four protests against the PLPA amendment since last Sunday. Chetan Agwarwal, an environment analyst and campaigner, also called for “re-notifying PLPA protections that have lapsed in 36 of 28 villages in Gurugram, and eight villages in Faridabad”.

Agarwal was one of the 70 people who met with forest minister Rao Narbir Singh to appeal against the PLPA amendment bill earlier this month. HT did not receive a response from the office of the forest minister, who had tabled the draft on February 20, despite many requests.

Environmentalists and lawyers have warned that enacting the PLPA amendment into law amounts to a breach of parliamentary privilege by the Haryana assembly, which, according to Sections 21 and 22 of the PLPA, does not have the power to amend the Act.

City-based activist Sarvadaman Oberoi said, “This Act was formulated in 1900 by the ‘Crown’ (the colonial British administration). Then, in 1950, this word was eventually replaced with the word ‘government’, in reference to the government of India, and not the state government.” The PLPA is, and has always been, a central Act, he clarified.

Moreover, according to Supreme Court directives, the PLPA attracts protection under the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which states that “no state government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the central government, any order directing that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose.”

In its remarks Friday, in response to a hearing in the Kant Enclave matter, the apex court said Haryana’s actions were in “sheer contempt of court”.