The Supreme Court on Wednesday said India has myriad “regulators, bodies and authorities” engaged in protecting ecology, forests and wildlife, but their scrutiny has been felt to be “insufficient”.
Many a time, despite these environmental bodies, the apex court was left to battle alone to create a “critical mass of environmental jurisprudence” over the years.
“The scrutiny by regulators was felt to be insufficient. Their judgment, review, and consideration did not inspire confidence and therefore, then the court took up the issue and would decide the case,” a three-judge Bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai noted in a judgment.
The court said a need for “institutionalisation” had come with the emergence of more and more regulators, bodies and authorities for environmental governance. Their effectiveness had a direct bearing on the protection and restoration of ecological balance, Justice P.S. Narasimha, who authored the judgment, noted.
The court directed that bodies, authorities, regulators, and executive offices entrusted with environmental duties “must” function with certain “institutional features”. These included clear demarcation of their mandate, role and authority; public notification of their rules and regulations; framing of a clear procedure for application, consideration and grant of permissions, consent; norms for public hearing, appeals; accountability; and regular audits.
“Institutionalisation means that these bodies must work in compliance with institutional norms of efficiency, integrity, and certainty… these bodies constitute the backbone of environmental governance in our country. They need to function with efficiency, integrity, and independence. As duty-bearers, they are also subject to accountability,” the judgment said.
The verdict upheld a government notification of September 5, 2023 constituting a permanent Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to replace the 20-year-old ad hoc panel formed by the Supreme Court. The notification was issued after the apex court found that the old panel had members who were over 75 years of age and living abroad. Besides, new environmental laws and regulatory bodies had come into existence since the constitution of the ad hoc CEC by the court.
“Much water had flown under the bridge,” Justice Narasimha noted.
The court listed the multitude of statutory environmental regulators and bodies which have been constituted over the years, including Animal Welfare Board of India, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Central Pollution Control Board, State Pollution Control Boards, National Tiger Conservation Authority, Coastal Zone Management Authority, Central Groundwater Board, and National Biodiversity Authority, to name a few.
“As new bodies, authorities, and regulators for environmental governance emerge from time to time, their institutionalisation assumes extraordinary importance… Their effective functioning is imperative for the protection, restitution, and development of the ecology… The rule of law regime is one that has effective, accountable, and transparent institutions; responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision making and public access to information,” the Supreme Court emphasised.
