SC must prioritise environmental concerns over ‘corporate waste of money’, say ex-bureaucrats

Three orders passed by the Supreme Court in November on environmental matters harm citizens’ interests and impede nature conservation in the country, a group of 79 retired civil servants and diplomats said on Sunday in an open letter.

The former bureaucrats, who are part of the Constitutional Conduct Group, urged the Supreme Court to “prioritise the health of…citizens over the waste of money of…corporates”.

The signatories to the letter expressed “deep anguish” about the Supreme Court reversing an earlier ruling that had barred retrospective clearances for developmental projects, another order accepting a new definition for the Aravalli Hills and a third verdict barring the government from disbanding the present Central Empowered Committee without the Supreme Court’s permission.

The ex-bureaucrats said that the orders have led them to fear that “the last bastion meant to uphold the constitutional provisions to protect and conserve our natural world and the right to life of the people of India is crumbling before the onslaught of rich and powerful vested interests”.

Retrospective clearances

In May, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had restrained the Union government from granting ex post facto clearances in any form to regularise illegal constructions. However, on November 18, a three-judge bench through a 2:1 decision reversed the verdict, allowing the Centre to once again consider granting environment clearances to projects retrospectively.

The retired civil servants and bureaucrats said on Sunday that while they do not know when a larger bench of the court will hear the case, they hope that the larger bench upholds the verdict passed in May “sooner rather than later”.

“The extreme climate events that are sweeping across the country and the worst ever air pollution levels in Delhi-NCR and north India should surely cause sufficient concern in the Supreme Court to warrant an early hearing,” the former bureaucrats said.

Definition of Aravallis

The Supreme Court on November 20 accepted a new definition of the Aravallis which classified the hills as landforms rising 100 metres above local relief. Environmentalists have warned that defining the Aravallis solely by their height could leave many lower, scrub-covered but ecologically important hills vulnerable to mining and construction.

The signatories to the letter on Sunday noted that the Aravalli range acts as a natural barrier slowing the spread of the Thar desert, stabilising micro-climates and recharging aquifers.

“The new definition will potentially exclude from environmental protection over 90% of the Aravalli range, opening it up to mining and construction and practically removing its ability to be a dust barrier for the Delhi-NCR region,” the former bureaucrats said. “It will also actively allow the advance of desertification into Delhi-NCR.”

They further contended that the new definition would lead to habitat loss and would fragment wildlife corridors, thus harming leopards, hyenas and other animals.

The Supreme Court has, however, taken suo motu cognisance of concerns arising from the change in the definition. A vacation bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices J K Maheshwari and A G Masih is slated to hear the matter on Monday.

Also read: The slow destruction of Delhi’s forgotten spine

Composition of Central Empowered Committee

The third Supreme Court order flagged by the former civil servants is one in which the bench told the Union government not to disband the Central Empowered Committee – set up to flag non-compliance with environmental conservation orders – without the court’s approval.

The retired civil servants and bureaucrats said on Sunday that the current membership of the committee, set up by the Supreme Court in 2002, has resulted in the court “being advised to approve a number of anti-environmental actions and orders passed by the government”.

The committee has now come under the influence of the Union environment ministry, and entirely supports all government action, irrespective of how harmful it is to the environment.

“It is also to be noted that a CEC member was a member of the Expert Committee which defined the Aravallis as landforms higher than 100 meters above base level,” the letter noted.