SC tells forest expert panel not to act as ‘appellate’ authority over its orders
The comments of the Court against the committee comes in the matter where the UT of Jammu & Kashmir had come to Court seeking nod for construction of a convention centre at Patnitop in Jammu
The Supreme Court on Friday warned the central empowered committee (CEC) - an expert body formed by the Court to assist in matters of forest and wildlife – not to act as an appellate authority by sitting in judgment over orders passed by the top court.
A bench of justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath said, “Once an order is passed by this Court, it is not appropriate for the authority constituted by this Court (on May 9, 2002) to give a report which questions the order of this Court. An authority constituted under our order cannot be an appellate authority over this Court.”
Also Read: Supreme Court to hear pleas seeking to criminalise marital rape on May 9
The comments of the Court against the committee comes in the matter where the UT of Jammu and Kashmir had come to Court seeking permission for construction of a convention centre at Patnitop in Jammu.
On February 24, the top court had allowed construction of the new convention centre in place of the existing dilapidated Club Building of Jammu & Kashmir Tourism Development Corporation. While doing so, the Court said, “The application is allowed, subject to obtaining clearances from the statutory authorities concerned.”
On March 13, the five-member CEC gave a fresh report to the Court indicating that the forest area around Patnitop is the only surviving forest in the area and it was not in favour of allowing the construction of the Convention Centre at the proposed site. It further suggested that the Patnitop development authority should be asked to look for an alternate site outside the forest area.
The bench said, “This is an authority constituted under orders of this Court. Can it overlook our orders. Once we have passed an order considering everything where is the need for CEC to give a report. We need to have a relook at these extra-constitutional bodies created by us.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for J&K administration informed the Court that the March 13 report of CEC was not endorsed by all members and their dissent was not brought on record.
The statement by SG was supported by one of the CEC members – Mahendra Vyas who was in Court. Senior advocate ADN Rao representing the committee clarified that the committee never tried to overlook Court’s orders and, in the past, views of dissenting members were shared with Court.
The bench said, “Hereafter, we direct that if there is a dissenting or separate view by any member, that may too be brought on record.” Advocate K Parameshwar assisting the Court as an amicus curiae informed the Court that out of 5 members, only 2-3 are active as some have crossed the age of 75 years and one member is situated abroad.
The solicitor general supported the view stating that they are overburdened and this composition has been in place for past two decades.
The Court said, “There is no doubt the CEC has rendered a yeoman service in matters concerning protection of forest and environment.”
However, in the interest of its effective functioning, the bench felt it appropriate to have relatively young experts who can contribute in a more “energetic” manner.
The Court sought the suggestions by April 19.
