T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India & Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) 202 of 1995, decided on 10/04/2006

Godavarman also referred to as “the Green Man,” has contributed significantly to the preservation and protection of the environment. Because he worked to preserve concepts and the development of harmony with nature, he has taken the lead in countless legal conflicts in public interest litigation. With the assistance of numerous NGOs and private groups, it has been proven to be a region of national importance. By issuing several landmark decisions that began with absolute responsibility and have since evolved to include the polluter-pays principle, sustainable development, and the precautionary principle, the Supreme Court has catalyzed protecting environmental concerns. [1]

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad filed a writ suit with the Supreme Court in 1995 to stop unlawful timber activities from destroying the Nilgiris forest. Due to the importance of the issue at hand. The court concluded that a thorough hearing was necessary to examine all the factors that pertain to national forest policy. [2]
• However, it was thought that certain parts of forest law across the country just needed a few essential guidelines. To protect national forests, the court issued specific, detailed instructions for the responsible use of forests. These instructions also regulate the monitoring and implementation system across the country at various state-level communities. To conserve the forest, the court even thoroughly reviews all facets of the National Forest Policy[3] and the Forest Conservation Act.

FACTS OF THE CASE

• In the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India case, also known as the Forest Case, the Supreme Court of India went beyond its conventional role of interpreting laws and took on the responsibilities of an administrator, legislator, and policymaker. The case pertained to the protection and conservation of India’s forests, and the Court issued orders to regulate forest activities, such as appointing a committee to monitor and regulate forest activities, suspending logging and mining operations, and establishing guidelines for forest conservation and management.
• In 1995, T.N. Godavarman initiated a writ petition in the Indian Supreme Court to protect the Nilgiris forest area from illegal logging activities that were causing significant damage. The main objective of this lawsuit was to conserve and safeguard the forest. Subsequently, a comprehensive hearing was conducted to address the National Forest Policy, which was considered crucial for dealing with related issues. [4]

• The purpose of this action was to oversee the adherence to forest laws and regulations in the Indian subcontinent. The Supreme Court issued directives to ensure the sustainable utilization of the forest’s resources and suggested the implementation of a self-monitoring system. The court also ordered the establishment of a state and regional-level enforcement mechanism to regulate the transportation of timber.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Does the revised interpretation of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act [5] violate the law of forest land?
2. Is it acceptable to use timber for business purposes?
3. Regardless of who owns the property, areas that fall under the category of “FOREST” should be designated, and any regulation should define such forests.
4. The vast amount of forest area was being removed and used for non-forest activities including illegal wood mining, which resulted in deforestation

ARGUMENTS

PETITIONER

• According to the petitioner T.N. Godavarman, the central government did not give its previous consent or sanction for the development of the timberlands before the illegal deforestation of the Nilgiri lands was carried out.
• To stop these unlawful actions on the Nilgiri lands, the petitioner filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court. The entire action violated the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, which makes it clear that any activity involving forestation must receive prior consent from the central government and the Department of the Forest; otherwise, the government will cease the premises. [6]

DEFENDANT

• The accusation that the activities taking place on Nilgiri’s property violated law and order was denied by the defendant. He claimed that he owns the land in his defense. The land on which he was clearing the forest belonged to him, as did the labor he was conducting on it. Additionally, under the Land and Property Act, a person is completely free to do whatever they want on their land as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others or disrupt their peace.
• Therefore, he indicates that he owns the land and is free to do anything he pleases. Also, the activity served as a means of development because the timber plant will have a favorable effect on the environment.

JUDGEMENT

• On December 12, 1996, Chief Justice J.S. Verma issued an interim order directing the cessation of tree-cutting and non-forest service development activities in forested areas across the country.
• The court has noted that the land belongs to the defendant and he has full rights over his property or premises, although the activity that was occurring there was illegal. According to the Forest (Conservation), Act, of 1980, deforestation of plantations without the prior permission of the central government or the forest department of the concerned district or area was considered to be illegal whether the property belongs to the government or a private individual.
• In addition to the aforementioned ruling, the court also noted that to protect biodiversity and retain the right ecological balance, there should be a complete prohibition on all tree-cutting without permission. No matter whether it is necessary for the railways, roads, or rivers, everyone must follow the rules for tree cutting and falling. The state government is allowed to cut down trees, provided that appropriate precautions are taken to maintain the proper ecological balance. No other private person was permitted to remove the trees.

ANALYSIS

1. With the rapid rise of industrialization, people’s migration from rural to urban areas, the need for more land increased for housing, agriculture, and other uses due to overpopulation, etc., the problem of the environment deteriorating and, particularly, the damage to the forests that are rich in natural resources began to emerge. Large areas of forestland were being destroyed and put to other uses, such as mining and illegal timber harvesting which led to deforestation.
2. The sustainability of a nation and its citizens depends on its forests since they provide us with important natural resources, but despite this, they were being exploited to a great level without the implementation of any corrective measures. As a result, there is little to no room for replenishing these resources, which is a risky action because, in the absence of these resources, the country would be doomed to a future of instability and scarcity of basic commodities.
3. The new interpretation of Section 2 of the Act states that protected forests cannot be de-reserved for commercial activities without the consent of the Central Government. Therefore, any forest-related activity, such as running a sawmill, mine, or plywood plant, requires the Central Government’s approval. [7]
4. The transfer of cut trees and lumber from any location in India’s seven northeastern states is entirely prohibited. There shouldn’t be any transportation of wood from these areas via rail, road, or waterways. To protect and make sure there are no violations, the Indian Railways and the state authorities have implemented stringent measures. The accused were also challenged to come up with alternatives to wood. A high-powered committee was established to investigate how the court’s ruling and directions were being carried out. The committee compiles an inventory of the timber and related products that the forest uses to move the local depots and mills.

• RULE OF LAW

Cutting down trees in forests or clearing forest land for construction projects must adhere strictly to the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 and other relevant legislation. Additionally, only the State Forest Corporation is authorized to remove and dispose of trees, and no private organization should be involved in any way. This order is valid and must be followed by all parties involved without interfering with any other orders issued by the Central or State Government, High Court, Tribunal, or any other authority.

1. IMPLICATION MADE

This case is the best illustration of both judicial empowerment and action. Also, it draws attention to several unfavorable features of arbitrary judicial dominance and its shortcomings. In distributing justice, this case established the function of the Supreme Court and other important agencies. Continuous mandamus refers to a situation in which the case is still pending after a court delayed rendering a ruling for up to 20 years. New orders are given at each hearing. Moreover, the court went beyond the concept of separation of powers. It acted arbitrarily and unreasonably.

As a result, this instance highlights both benefits, namely environmental protection. Also, there are drawbacks to going beyond its authority and interfering with other authorities.

• NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE JUDGEMENT
• As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, a largely illegal timber market was created. This made it simpler for illegal activities to be carried out on forest land, such as deforestation so the land is exploited for uses other than forestry. The court interfered significantly in the Ministry of Environment and Forest’s operations. [8] As a result, the court and its officials always had the final say, and the Ministry of Environment and Forest was never allowed to voice their opinions. [9] This lawsuit led to the Central Government’s monopolization of all authority. At this time, only India’s Central Government had the authority to decide on environmental regulations.
• The adverse aspects of the verdict, however, are those indicated above. But there are many benefits to defending forest property from the timber mafia. It highlighted the role that the judiciary and courts performed in utilizing their right to get involved in a variety of environmental issues. It was clear how important environmental authorities, judges, and other essential parties were in this case.

CONCLUSION

The T.N. Godavarman v. Thirumulpad case highlighted the significance of preserving and enhancing forest productivity to facilitate biodiversity conservation. It also considered environmental conditions and safety measures. The ruling resulted in the closure of many timber industries and raised awareness among Indians about the environment. It strictly prohibited deforestation and served as a significant driver for environmental protection and preservation. The case’s major contribution to environmental conservation was the efficient implementation of several regulations.

[1] (Kapoor 2022)

[2] (S.YK n.d.)

[3] (national forest policy 1988 n.d.)

[4] (Johnson 2020)

[5] (Forest conservation act 1980 n.d.)

[6] (Das 2021)

[7] (proposal to redefine forests 2021)

[8] (Ministry of Environment and Forests n.d.)

[9] (law express 2021)

This article is written by, Unnati Trivedi, Pravin Gandhi College Of Law, Mumbai, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Admin