E-Paper
SC asks Centre to frame new scheme for functioning of expert forest panel
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the Court that the Centre will work on the suggestion and prepare a draft for approval of the Court
The Centre has agreed to come out with a draft law replacing the central empowered committee (CEC), the expert panel assisting the top court in matters of forest and environment issues after the top court on Wednesday gave the Centre the go ahead to come out with a legislative framework to institutionalise the CEC.
A bench headed by justice BR Gavai, currently handling the batch of forest bench cases under a 1995 petition titled TN Godavarman Thirumalpad v Union of India, was keen to hear from the Government on bringing a legal enactment to replace the CEC, formed by the Court in May 2002. It was primarily formed to implement Court’s orders. In September 2002, the Government issued a notification giving the CEC te status of a statutory body under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
“This Committee has been continuing for the past 20 years with persons whoever Court wanted to appoint,” said the bench, also comprising justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol. “Why does the Government not frame a scheme and institutionalise it (CEC) by fixing a tenure of the committee for three to five years,” the bench added.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the Court that the Centre will work on the suggestion by the Court and prepare a draft enactment for approval of the Court.
“It is best that you (Centre) frame an enactment, taking support from experts,” the bench told Mehta while posting the matter for further consideration on May 17. “If the draft meets the Court’s approval we can institutionalise it,” the law officer added.
Also Read: SC tells forest expert panel not to act as ‘appellate’ authority over its orders
The draft enactment to be shared by Centre could be on the lines of what the Government did by replacing the Environment Pollution Control Authority (EPCA) another expert panel assisting the Supreme Court on matters of pollution relating to Delhi and national capital region. In 2020, the Centre replaced EPCA with the Commission for Air Quality Management in NCR and Adjoining areas, with the objective of monitoring, tackling and eliminating causes of air pollution in and around the Capital. EPCA used to assist the Supreme Court in the batch of cases titled MC Mehta v Union of India, pending in Court since 1985.
The top court had on March 24 expressed a desire to replace the members of CEC and had asked the Government as well as advocate K Parmeshwar assisting the Court as amicus curiae to suggest names having expertise in the field of environment and ecology. The recent suggestion of the Court went a step further as the bench said, “Our action (of selecting members) should not be seen as arbitrary to pick and choose someone. Let the government come with a mechanism.”
The working of CEC had attracted the ire of the Court in the recent past when the amicus curiae pointed out that some members have crossed the age of 75 years while one stays outside the country due to which meetings have to be held virtually. Even SG informed the Court that the view of CEC as projected before the Court is not shared by every member of the panel as dissenting views are often not presented to the Court.
In its March 24 order, the Court had said, “No doubt, the Committee has rendered yeomen services to the cause of environment. However, we are of the view that for effective functioning of the CEC, it is appropriate that some experts in the relevant fields who are relatively younger to the present incumbents, can contribute in a more energetic and efficient manner.” It even directed that henceforth, any separate or dissenting opinion by a member of CEC should also be placed before the Court with the report.
The order was passed in an application where the Court was considering a report of CEC filed in March which objected to an order passed by the top court on February 24 permitting the new building in place of the existing dilapidated Club Building of Jammu & Kashmir Tourism Development Corporation.
The Court passed a stinging order saying that CEC cannot be an “appellate authority” over the Supreme Court. It said, “Once an order is passed by this Court, it is not appropriate for the authority constituted by this Court to give a report which questions the order of this Court.”
