1996 (4) TMI 534 - SC - Indian Laws

Landmark Ruling on Coastal Management & Environmental Protection

The Court emphasized the importance of effective enforcement of environmental laws and directed the Central Government to consider establishing State ... - Issues Involved:1. Non-implementation of the main Notification dated 19.2.1991.2. Validity of the Notification dated 18.8.1994.Detailed Analysis:Non-Implementation of the Main Notification1. Petitioner's Grievance:- The petitioner, a registered voluntary organization, contended that the Notification dated 19.2.1991, which declared coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zones (CRZ) and regulated activities therein, had not been implemented or enforced, leading to continued ecological degradation.2. Background:- India has a 6000 km coastline with sensitive and complex ecosystems. The stresses of high population growth, unrestrained development, and lack of infrastructure were cited as factors responsible for the environmental decline in these areas. Unplanned urbanization and industrialization were causing the disappearance of fertile agricultural lands and pollution of coastal waters.3. Government's Efforts:- The Ministry of Environment and Forests issued the Notification on 19.2.1991, imposing restrictions on activities within 500 meters from the High Tide Line (HTL) and between Low Tide Line (LTL) and HTL. The Notification prohibited various activities like setting up new industries, handling hazardous substances, and discharging untreated wastes.4. Court's Interim Orders:- Notices were issued to coastal States and Union Territories to file counter-affidavits. On 12.12.1994, the Court directed that no new industries or construction should be permitted within 500 meters from the sea water at maximum high tide. This order was modified on 9.3.1995 to ensure meticulous compliance with the main Notification's restrictions.5. Non-Compliance:- The Union of India filed a status report showing non-compliance by most States and Union Territories. Some States had not submitted their Coastal Zone Management Plans (Management Plans) as required, and those submitted were not approved by the Central Government. The Court directed these States to resubmit their plans and the Central Government to approve them within a specified time.6. Court's Observations:- The Court noted that mere enactment of laws was insufficient without effective enforcement. It emphasized that tolerating infringement of laws was worse than not enacting them. The Court highlighted the failure of enforcement by both the Central and State Governments, leading to the filing of the present petition.7. Directions:- The Court directed that any questions regarding the enforcement or infringement of the main Notification should be raised before the respective High Courts. Specific allegations regarding Dahanu Taluka in Maharashtra and other areas were to be dealt with by the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court, respectively. The States were directed to file their Management Plans by 30.6.1996, and the Central Government was to finalize and approve them within three months. Pending finalization, the interim orders would continue to operate.Validity of the Notification of 19941. Background:- The Notification dated 18.8.1994 made six amendments to the main Notification, following the recommendations of a Committee headed by Mr. B.B. Vohra. The amendments were challenged by environmental groups, claiming they would lead to ecological destruction.2. Court's Examination:- The Court examined each amendment separately:(i) Reduction of No Development Zone (NDZ) from 200 meters:- The main Notification had a 200 meters NDZ from HTL. The 1994 Notification allowed the Central Government to permit construction within this zone. The Court found this amendment arbitrary and ultra vires, as it gave unbridled power to the Central Government without guidelines, potentially leading to ecological damage.(ii) Reduction of NDZ for rivers, creeks, and backwaters from 100 meters to 50 meters:- The Court found this reduction arbitrary and without valid reason, noting that the Vohra Committee had not recommended such a change. The amendment was held illegal.(iii) Installation of goal posts and lamp posts:- The Court found no illegality in allowing goal posts and lamp posts, as they would not flatten sand dunes or have other undesirable effects.(iv) Inclusion of NDZ in Floor Space Index (FSI) calculations:- The Court agreed with the principle of compensating private owners whose land falls in NDZ but modified the amendment to allow only half of such land for FSI calculations to prevent haphazard construction.(v) Construction of basements:- The Court found no adverse effect on the ecological balance if basements were allowed subject to no-objection certificates from concerned authorities.(vi) Allowing green and barbed wire fencing:- The Court allowed green and barbed wire fencing to protect private properties but directed that public access to beaches should not be hampered.General Conclusion:- The Court emphasized the need for effective enforcement of environmental laws and the role of the judiciary in ensuring compliance. It directed the Central Government to consider setting up State Coastal Management Authorities and a National Coastal Management Authority. The Court also directed States to submit their Management Plans and the Central Government to finalize them promptly. The High Courts were tasked with handling allegations of infringement of the Notifications to ensure better local enforcement and protection of the environment.