In a significant development in the realm of environmental governance, the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), originally established by the Supreme Court two decades ago to address instances of official non-compliance with conservation directives, is undergoing a transformative shift. The Supreme Court has now granted authority to the Environment Ministry to oversee and nominate members to this committee, marking a departure from its previous independent status. This decision, made on September 5, is ostensibly driven by the “interest of all stakeholders.”
Since its inception in 2002, and subsequent reconstitution in 2008, the CEC has played an instrumental role in shaping environmental policies by furnishing countless reports in response to the apex court’s directives. These reports have addressed pivotal issues such as compensatory afforestation, forest net present value, and significant mining disputes like Kudremukh and Bellary.
However, a recent series of developments has altered the committee’s dynamics:
In March, the CEC raised concerns about reconstructing a convention center in Patnitop, Jammu and Kashmir, even though the Supreme Court had previously sanctioned the project. The Supreme Court, in a notable departure from the norm, deemed the CEC’s intervention “inappropriate” and asserted that the committee should not question its decisions. The Court suggested introducing “young” individuals to replace some of the committee’s older members.
In May, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta announced the government’s intention to establish the CEC as a permanent statutory body under the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986, subject to Supreme Court approval.
On August 18, the Supreme Court greenlit the Ministry’s efforts to transform the CEC into a permanent entity, asserting that this change would be beneficial to all stakeholders. Subsequently, on September 5, the Ministry issued a notification outlining the modifications.
This notification represents a departure from the CEC’s former autonomy in several key respects:
– The committee will now report to the Ministry, no longer directly to the Supreme Court.
– The Ministry will handpick all committee members, eliminating the Supreme Court’s involvement in the selection process.
– Financial support for the committee will come from the Ministry, not the Court.
– The provision allowing two non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to participate in the committee has been discarded. Instead, individuals deemed “experts” can now be included.
The notification explicitly states that “the Committee shall function under the administrative control of the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment.” Furthermore, if the State or Central Government disagrees with any of the CEC’s suggestions or recommendations, they must provide written reasons for their disagreement, and their decision will be considered final.
The current CEC is chaired by retired IAS officer PV Jayakrishnan and includes retired Forest service officers Amarnatha Shetty, Dr. Maharaj K Muthoo, SK Patnaik, and lawyer and naturalist Mahendra Vyas. While the government has yet to announce the new committee members, three current members declined to comment on the changes.
Critics argue that while reform of the CEC may have been necessary, they are dismayed that the new committee will be answerable to the Ministry. They view this as a significant shift, given the recent amendments to the Forest Conservation Act, which they believe undermine the Supreme Court’s Godavarman case judgment. This development may result in a reduced role for the Court and an increase in the government’s influence over environmental decision-making. Conservationist Valmik Thapar, a former CEC member, lamented that “this marks the end of an era.”
In summary, the recent transformation of the Central Empowered Committee, from an independent body reporting directly to the Supreme Court to one accountable to the Ministry of Environment, has sparked controversy and concerns among environmental advocates. While the move is positioned as a measure in the “interest of all stakeholders,” it raises questions about the potential shift in environmental governance dynamics in India.
