E-Paper
Zoos, safaris will help protect forests, govt tells SC
The Indian government has assured the Supreme Court that amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act will not affect the definition of forests or dilute conservation efforts. The response came after petitions challenged the amendments, which include provisions for zoos and safaris in forests. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change stated that these activities would be located in degraded forest areas and would raise awareness of conservation and provide livelihood opportunities for local communities. The court will hear the matter on 19 February.
Zoos and safari activities in forests will sensitise people about conserving forests and wildlife, said an affidavit filed by the Centre before the Supreme Court, which is considering petitions challenging the amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act where concerns have been raised over the changes potentially affecting the delicate ecological balance of these spaces.
In a response filed last week, the ministry of environment, forests climate change (MoEFCC) assured the court that the amended Act does not dilute the wider meaning of forests defined by the Supreme Court in a celebrated judgment of December 12, 1996 in the TN Godavarman matter. This decision held that forest land as defined in Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 would include not only forests as understood in the dictionary sense but any area recorded as a forest in government records.
The affidavit said, “All forests, including unclassed forests, recorded in record of government, forest department, local bodies, or authorities will also attract provisions of the Act...It is emphasised that the provisions of the Amended Act, in no way, will dilute the directions contained in the order of December 12, 1996 passed by Supreme Court. On the contrary, it will consolidate and codify the law relating to forests in the country.”
The Centre was responding to a petition filed by 13 retired public servants led by former Indian Forest Service officer Ashok Kumar Sharma and other petitions filed by NGO Vanashakti among other individuals questioning the inclusion of zoos and safaris under non-forestry activities and other exemptions such as setting up of security infrastructure and projects of strategic importance near border areas.
Senior advocates Prashanto Chandra Sen and Gopal Sankaranarayanan representing the petitioners sought an urgent hearing of the matter claiming that the Centre has notified guidelines and rules under the amended Act and the same are being published despite the court on November 29 last year recording an undertaking from the Centre that no “precipitative steps” will be taken with regard to implementing the Act. In this regard, they mentioned interim applications filed by them seeking a stay of the Act.
The bench headed by chief justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra agreed to list the applications on February 19. Additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Centre and informed the court that the concern expressed by the petitioners is not correct and the affidavit takes care of the apprehensions raised by the court.
The MoEFCC said, “Activities like zoos and safaris will be owned by the government and government authorities and will be set up on the degraded forest area located outside the areas protected under provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.” This will require approval of the central zoo authority.
It further stated, “Such zoos and safaris are generally created in the proximity of habitation to ensure minimum disturbance to the pristine forest ecosystem. Such activities will not only sensitise and generate awareness about the importance of protection and conservation of forest land and wildlife, but will also add to the livelihood sources of the local community, thereby providing them opportunities to connect with mainstream of development.”
The Centre defended exemptions under the Act for setting up security infrastructure by pointing out that security-related infrastructure, linear strategic projects along border and left-wing extremist districts are not “blanket exemptions” and will include specific projects of strategic importance or national security as “identified by the central government”.
