The Supreme Court on Monday raised sharp questions over why environmental disputes concerning forests, lakes, reserved areas, and tiger habitats are landing directly before the apex court in the form of interim applications in a decades-old public interest litigation (PIL), bypassing the jurisdiction of high courts.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, sitting with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, expressed concern that all such matters were being tagged to the 1995 PIL — In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad — instead of being taken up independently or adjudicated by the respective high courts.
“Why are all forest matters coming to this court,” the CJI asked at the outset, when the bench was informed of yet another application — this time related to the Sukhna Lake in Chandigarh.
Referring to the Sukhna Lake litigation, the Chief Justice remarked that “apparently, it seemed a friendly match was going on at the behest of some private developers and others.”
The bench questioned why the matter was placed before the Supreme Court when the Punjab and Haryana High Court is “500 metres away,” asking whether the apex court was unintentionally stripping high courts of their constitutional powers under Article 226.
“We know how the catchment area of this Sukhna lake has been systematically clogged,” the CJI observed, while noting that high courts sometimes refrain from acting once they are told the Supreme Court is seized of the issue.
The bench asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, and senior advocate K. Parmeswar, assisting the court as amicus curiae, to identify which matters should be left to high courts.
“Pan India issues, I can understand where this court has to pass some directions,” the Chief Justice said, hinting that region-specific concerns should be dealt with locally.
The court expressed disapproval that specific issues from across India were repeatedly being filed as interim applications in the 1995 Godavarman PIL rather than through separate petitions.
It said a decision may soon be taken on sending appropriate cases back to the high courts for adjudication.
The ongoing litigation around Sukhna Lake centres on the protection of its catchment area, where demolition of structures was ordered in 2020 to prevent encroachment.
The observations come against the backdrop of wide-ranging orders passed in recent years by benches headed by former Chief Justice B.R. Gavai on forests, wildlife protection, and destructive development.
Justice Gavai’s bench:
- Directed Jharkhand to declare 126 compartments in the Saranda forest as a wildlife sanctuary and ban mining within a one-km radius
- Ordered that 31,468.25 hectares be declared under Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary
- Accepted a uniform definition of the Aravali Hills and imposed a ban on grant of fresh mining leases in parts of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat
- Asked all states to notify eco-sensitive zones around tiger reserves and to enforce mining bans within one kilometre of core or buffer areas
- Directed demolition and restoration works to address illegal felling and unauthorised construction inside Jim Corbett Tiger Reserve
These expansive directions have shaped environmental governance nationwide, prompting the present bench to consider whether issues of local consequence should continue to reach the apex court.
The bench indicated that it would examine whether cases involving region-specific environmental violations should be remitted to high courts, as it weighs the structure of future proceedings under the long-running Godavarman PIL.
