The Supreme Court observed that the purpose of declaring eco-sensitive zones is not to hinder the day-to-day activities of the citizens. , photo credit: AFP
The Supreme Court on Wednesday modified its verdict on mandatory eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) of minimum one kilometer around protected forests, national parks and wildlife sanctuaries across the country.
A bench led by Justice BR Gavai argued that the ESZ cannot be uniform across the country and should be “protected area-specific”.
on June 3, 2022 The apex court had ordered a buffer zone of 1 km for protected areas To act as a “shock absorber”.
However, the Center and several states, including Kerala, had moved the apex court seeking modification of the June 2022 judgement, stating that the judicial direction affected hundreds of villages in the periphery of the forests.
Agreeing, the court said, “The purpose of declaring ESZs is not to hinder the day-to-day activities of the citizens. If the direction issued is upheld, it will definitely affect the day-to-day life of citizens living in ESZs.” -will cause hindrance in day-to-day activities. Thus, we find that the direction needs to be revised”.
Read also: Saseendran welcomes SC verdict on ESZ
The court said that strict implementation of the June 2022 judgment would do more harm than good. For one, human-animal conflict will only increase rather than decrease.
“A villager who is willing to rebuild his house will not be allowed… if the government does not want to build schools, dispensaries, anganwadis, village stores, water tanks and other infrastructure to improve the lives of the villagers. This will not be allowed if the state decides to do so. State or central government will be prevented from building roads. It will be impossible for forest departments to conduct eco-development activities around national parks and sanctuaries… Centrally Sponsored Scheme-Wildlife Integrated development of housing, which includes support for eco-development activities, will come to a standstill… This will also affect certain projects of national and strategic importance such as construction of national highways, railways, defense related infrastructure, etc.,” the court said. Saw it.
However, the court made it clear that “mining shall not be permitted within the National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary and within an area of one kilometer from the boundary of such National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary”.