E-Paper
Will form draft law to replace Supreme Court’s expert green panel: Govt
The Union government on Wednesday agreed to formulate a draft law to replace the existing central empowered committee (CEC) — the expert panel assisting the Supreme Court in matters of forest and environment issues — after the top court gave the go ahead for the same
New Delhi: The Union government on Wednesday agreed to formulate a draft law to replace the existing central empowered committee (CEC) — the expert panel assisting the Supreme Court in matters of forest and environment issues — after the top court gave the go ahead for the same.
It came after the Supreme Court, which formed the CEC over 20 years ago, asked the Centre to come up with a legislative framework to institutionalise the panel, some members of which are over 75 years of age while one lives outside the country.
“This Committee has been continuing for the past 20 years with persons whoever court wanted to appoint,” said the bench, headed by justice BR Gavai. “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, also comprising justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, is currently handling the batch of forest bench cases under a 1995 petition titled TN Godavarman Thirumalpad v Union of India. It was keen to hear from the government on bringing a legal enactment to replace the CEC, formed in May 2002 primarily to implement the court’s orders. In September 2002, the government issued a notification giving the CEC the status of a statutory body under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the government, submitted that the Centre will work on the suggestion by the court and prepare a draft enactment for approval of the court.
“If the draft meets the court’s approval, we can institutionalise it,” he added.
“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.
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 court in the batch of cases titled MC Mehta v Union of India, pending since 1985.
The top court had on March 24 expressed a desire to replace the members of CEC and 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 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 the Jammu & Kashmir Tourism Development Corporation.
The court passed a stinging order saying that the CEC cannot be an “appellate authority” over the Supreme Court. “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,” it had said.
