The Supreme Court asked the Centre on Wednesday to consider whether mining activities could be prohibited in areas that have been declared conservation reserves and community reserves.
A bench headed by Justice B R Gavai observed that the basic idea of providing community reserves and conservation reserves was to provide a corridor for free movement of wildlife from one national park or wildlife sanctuary to another.
The bench, also comprising Justices P K Mishra and K V Viswanathan, said if conservation reserves and community reserves are to act as corridors, then mining activities in those areas may be detrimental to the movement of wildlife.
”However, since the basic idea of providing community reserves and conservation reserves is to provide a corridor for the free movement of wildlife from one national park/wildlife sanctuary … we request the Union to consider whether at least in the areas which are declared as conservation reserves and community reserves, the mining could be prohibited or not,” the bench said.
The court was hearing a matter related to mining activities within a one-kilometre radius of conservation reserves and community reserves.
The apex court had, in a verdict delivered on April 26 last year, directed that mining within a national park and wildlife sanctuary and within a one-kilometre area of from their boundaries shall not be permissible.
During the hearing on Wednesday, the bench said the government should promote eco-tourism.
The court noted that in February, it had asked the Centre to hold discussions with various stakeholders, including the states and Union territories, and recommend suggestions in this regard.
It said an affidavit has been filed before it by the Centre after taking into consideration the views expressed by various states at a meeting convened by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in March.
According to the affidavit, the states appear to be unanimous that imposing any further restrictions in conservation reserves and community reserves could be detrimental to the increase in their numbers, the bench noted.
It also noted the submissions of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared in the matter on behalf of the Centre, that national parks and wildlife sanctuaries cannot be equated with community reserves and conservation reserves.
Bhati referred to section 36A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, which deals with declaration and management of a conservation reserve and says that a state government may, after consultations with local communities, declare any area owned by it, particularly those adjacent to national parks and sanctuaries and those that link one protected area with another, as a conservation reserve for protecting landscapes, seascapes, flora and fauna and their habitat.
The bench posted the matter for further hearing in October.
While hearing the matter in February, the court had observed, ”Prima facie, we are of the view that the conservation parks, reserves and community reserves are for the purpose of providing corridors which connect one sanctuary, national park to another.”
Comments
0 comment