Supreme Court Calls for Protection of Forests Across Country
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said there was a need to protect forests across India, stating that some states like Jharkhand have natural ecosystems that need to be protected.
The observations came from a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana, which was hearing a plea filed by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB).
“There are very few states where we can truly protect our natural ecosystem and you (Jharkhand) are one of them,” the CJI told the lawyer appearing for JSPCB.
The bench observed that some states have natural havens such as forests and these need to be protected.
The top court was hearing a petition challenging the Jharkhand High Court order.
The Supreme Court had given instructions in April to allow stone mining from forest or forest land borders or to establish stone crushing facilities.
In January, the high court had directed that no stone mining or stone crushers should be allowed within one kilometer of the designated boundaries of protected forests in the state.
The apex court had passed the order in January while hearing a petition challenging a notification issued by the JSPCB, which reduced the minimum distance required for setting up stone mines and stone crushers around forest or forest land to 250 meters from the 400-500 meters notified earlier.
In its decision in April, the Supreme Court stated that the restriction on granting permission would be valid for the region 500 meters away from the forest or forest land borders in the case of stone mining, and for the region 400 meters away in the case of stone crushers.
During the hearing on Thursday, the high court observed that the authority had suddenly reduced the distance.
The lawyer appearing on behalf of JSPCB referred to the high court’s observations and said everything has stopped.
The matter has been taken over by the high court and listed there for final hearing, the bench said.
“Let the high court make its final decision,” the court panel said.
When the lawyer referred to the views of the high court, the bench said, “We cannot demoralize our high courts. We are not school principals to advise the high courts on what they should and should not do. High courts are constitutional courts.”
After the bench showed its reluctance to interfere with the high court’s order, the lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner said that they would withdraw the plea.
The bench allowed the lawyer to withdraw the petition and said the petitioner would have the right to appeal all matters to the high court.
