NEW DELHI: Having been known for over 30 years for often denying clearances to development projects to protect the environment, the Supreme Court's green bench has now taken a more "pragmatic approach". In a series of orders last week, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath cleared 118 projects which had been delayed for over five years because of pending litigation.

"The contest between development and environmental concerns is ever ongoing. There is no doubt that ecology and environment need to be protected for future generations, at the same time, development projects cannot be stalled, which are necessary not only for development... but at times for safety of citizens as well," the bench said.

Among the 118 projects cleared last week by the Supreme Court's green bench, 15 had been in limbo for the past 10 years because of pending cases and had seen costs escalating manifold.

All 118 projects were disposed of by applying the "sustainable development" principle with meaningful assistance from amici curiae - advocate K Parameswar and senior advocate ADN Rao.

In one such case, the SC four years ago put a blanket ban on the diversion of forest land in Himachal Pradesh for any project. With the green bench not sitting regularly, given the pendency caseload, the SC had not been able to look into applications by the HP government seeking a nod for projects. The proceedings speeded up after the green bench was reconstituted with Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath.

The bench said, "The SC is flooded with applications after applications, seeking permission to construct primary schools, public health centers, anganwadi centres and other public utility buildings in remote areas... Himachal Pradesh is constrained to approach the SC even for seeking permission to connect villages in remote areas by roads. Needless to state, the citizens residing in the remote hill areas cannot be deprived of the developmental activities that are being undertaken in other parts of the country."

The bench said it was rather ridiculous that the states were required to rush to the SC "even for undertaking minimal developmental activities necessary for the citizens residing in rural/hilly areas" and allowed the HP government's applications. However, it clarified that no developmental project could be carried out in forest areas falling within national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.

Another five-year-old matter is related to the construction of five railway overbridges, part of the Setu Bharatam project, and requires the felling of 356 trees in West Bengal. The Calcutta HC order allowing the felling of trees was challenged in the SC in 2018 and had been stayed since then.

The SC-appointed expert committee had favoured the construction of the overbridges for traffic decongestion. The petitioner's counsel Prashant Bhushan said the project should not be permitted as it required the felling of so many trees, many of heritage value.

For West Bengal, senior advocate A M Singhvi promised that the state would plant more than 1,500 trees in the vicinity of the trees to be felled and said that because of congestion, more than 600 persons have lost their lives in accidents.

Dismissing the appeal and allowing the construction of the overbridges, Justices Gavai, and Nath said, "No doubt that the protection of environment and ecology are important. However, at the same time, it cannot be denied that human life is also equally important. On account of non-construction of rail overbridges, a number of accidents have taken place at railway crossings resulting in death of hundreds of human beings."

References:

lyrarc.com