GODAVARMAN V.

UOI 1995: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Subject- Environment Law

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Harshita Kushwaha Dr. Rana Navneet Roy
Semester IV Associate Professor
Section C Environment Law
Roll No. 66, Id No. 21/2021/2512 HNLU, Raipur

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

RAIPUR, CHATTISGARH

Date of Submission: 14th February 2023

 TABLE OF CONTENT

“S.No Content Page Number

1. Introduction 2

2. Facts of the Case 3

3. Issues Raised 5

4. Judgement 5

5. Critical Analysis 6

Repercussions of the Judgement 7

6. Conclusion 9

7. Reference 10”

INTRODUCTION

1
 “We don’t have to sacrifice a strong economy for a healthy environment”-
Dennis Weaver

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad filed a writ petition with the Supreme Court in 1995 to
protect the Nilgiris woodlands land from destruction caused by illegal lumber operations. The
enormous significance of point made in relation to these matters, particularly in regards to
insurance and the preservation of woodland across the area. The court made the
determination that a thorough hearing was necessary to hear all of the viewpoints related to
the public timberland strategy on the question of backcountry security. Nevertheless, it
believed that a few key titles describing certain aspects of the country's woodlands legislation
were necessary.

In order to ensure the protection of public woods, the court provided particular, itemised
guidance for the practical exploitation of timberland and directed the observation and
execution framework throughout the nation at various state-level networks. To protect the
environment, the court even carefully examined every section of the National Forest Strategy
and the Woods Preservation Act.

The protection of the environment and its defence have been greatly aided by T.N.
Godavarman. He is frequently called ‘the Green Man.’ He is supported by several public
interest lawsuits that focus on promoting environmental conservation and harmony with
nature.

By ruling in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India1, the Supreme Court

disregarded the traditional role of a legal translator. The Forest Case in India is the common
name for this historic case. This is due to the fact that when the Supreme Court acquired
control over the inquiry into this matter, there was a legal breach of the established command.
The primary motivation behind this case was to preserve the environment. An extensive
gathering over the National Forest Policy followed it.

1
“T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, Writ Petition (civil) 202 of 1995”

2
 FACTS OF THE CASE

I. “T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. UOI & Ors [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995]
was submitted as a PIL under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution on behalf of the
residents of the Nilgiri Forest and the surrounding area in the Western Ghats.
II. The petitioner aimed to contest the legitimacy and legality of the State of Tamil Nadu, the
District Forest Officer of Gudalur and the Collector of Nilgiris District, as well as the
Timber Committee, which was represented by the Collector of Nilgiris, in destroying the
tropical rain forest in the Gudalur and Nilgiri areas in violation of the “Forest Act of
1927, the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980”2, and the “Tamil Nadu Hill Stations
Preservation of Trees Act”3 and the “Environment (Protection) Act, 1986” 4. The
petitioner claims that as a result, there are major ecological imbalances that have an effect
on people's way of life and means of sustenance in the State of Tamil Nadu. ”5
III. According to the petitioner, the respondents conspired with some entrenched interests to
permit trespassers to enter and infringe on the forest area in order to cut down trees and
turn it into plantations. Ayni trees, Rosewood trees, and Teak trees—all of which are
incredibly precious and only found in the aforementioned forest—have been
indiscriminately chopped down and removed by those who have encroached on the forest
area, it was noted.
IV. The petitioner contended that the destruction of rain forests will have an adverse effect on
the ecology, the eco-system, and the native flora and animals. Such devastation would
come from this, which would ultimately have a profound impact on the ecosystem and the
standard of living of those who live in and around woods.
V. The petitioner not only called attention to the provisions of the aforementioned Act, but
also raised concerns about how those residing in the aforementioned areas are being
denied their fundamental rights, which are protected by Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution, to a healthy, pollution-free environment.
VI. The main objective of the legal action was to preserve and safeguard the Nilgiris
woodland region, which was being destroyed by illicit wood activities. This case’s

2
“The Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, Acts of Parliament, 1980 (India)
3
Tamil Nadu Hill Stations Preservation of Trees Act, 1955 (Act No XVII of 1955)
4
Environment (Protection) Act of 1986, No. 29, Act of Parliament, 1986 (India)
5
T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS, INDIAN KANOON,
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1725193/. (Last visited on Feb. 8, 2023)”

3
primary selling point was that it was intended to protect the forest. The National Forest
Policy hearing that followed it lasted the entire time.

4
 ISSUES RAISED

o Is it legal to utilise timber for commercial reasons and does the existing application of
Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act contradict the legislation on forest land?
o The issue is that as a result of industrialization, urbanisation, and the demand for more
land for homes, agriculture, and other uses, human needs are increasing. This has resulted
in significant harm to forests that were rich in natural resources.

JUDGEMENT

o A bench led by Chief Justice J.S. Verma passed a resolution on December 12th, 1996,
ordering the suspension of tree-felling and non-ranger service administration
development in forested areas across the nation.
o The request for way-breaking changed the definition of forestland and eased protection to
include any areas with regular woodlands, regardless of who owned them. It said that
‘timberlands’ would be interpreted according to its promise reference meaning and that
the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980’s provisions will apply to all densely vegetated
regions.
o States were created to set up ace chambers to identify and document reports from the
wilderness. Amicus Curie was given to Senior Counsel Harish Salve to assist the
Supreme Court.
o Several northern States were rocked, as uncontrolled sawmills operated openly and
backwoods were being attacked by mobs. There was a restriction on the growth of illegal
lumber. 94 rail line trucks carrying timber that was despatched in error were confiscated.
Even the Supreme Court at that time probably had no idea that the case would be kept
open for close to 20 years.
o Fortunately, it is mentioned as the Writ of continuation with mandamus in the setup
regulation. Since then, there have been more than 1,000 interlocutory applications that
address a variety of topics related to protecting the boondocks, including mining, tree-
felling, the management of Protected Areas, and forest encroachment.

5
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court issued orders requiring the sustainable use of the forest’s resources.
Furthermore, it was advised to include a self-monitoring system at the same time. The court
decided that a system for implementation at the regional and state levels should be formed.
This was done to control the movement of the lumber. Critics of Godavarman Thirumulpad
were numerous. It covers both the court’s involvement and everyone’s environmental rights.
Only intervention or court encroachments may be used, and only when necessary. Instances
where the state fails to carry out its obligations give rise to judicial interventions.

“The court’s most well-known actions include the ban on felling trees, management of the
logging sector, prohibition of mining in Kudremukh and the Aravallis, and regulation of
sawmills. The most notable decisions made in regards to the idea of forest governance are the
creation of the Compensatory Afforestation Fund, or CAMPA, the imposition of the Present
Value levy for the use of forest land for non-forestry purposes, and consequently the system
of requesting prior approval from the Supreme Court for any business activity.”6

“The National Forest Policy and the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 were reviewed and
evaluated by the court. This was done to cover the deforestation-related elements.
Additionally, it looked at the word ‘Forest’ in light of the updated meaning and as it relates to
Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Conservation Act. According to this clause, no state
government or other authority may utilise forest land for any non-forestry purposes
without the Central Government's prior approval.”7

“According to the current interpretation of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act,

protected forests cannot be de-reserved for commercial use without permission. This
indicates that the Central Government must approve of all forest-related endeavours. A
sawmill, mine, and plywood plant, for instance, can operate with the Central Government’s
consent.”8

Licenses for all wood-based companies were cancelled. A fresh action plan was put into
place by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. This was done to tighten up the
aggressive patrols and safety measures.

6
“SC SHASTRI, ENVIRONMENT LAW 577 (EBC 2022)
7
the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, Acts of Parliament, 1980 (India)
8
the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, Acts of Parliament, 1980 (India)”

6
The transfer of cut trees and wood from any location in India’s seven north-eastern states is
entirely prohibited. There shouldn't be any transportation of wood from these areas through
rail, road, or waterways. The state governments and the Indian Railways have implemented
stringent steps to protect and guarantee there are no violations.

The Indian Constitution, which deals with the authority of the Central and State governments
with regard to conserving and protecting the natural resources from illegal acts, is a
significant aspect in this case.

Prior approval for mining activities in forests were strictly made essential. The court held:
“The felling of trees in all forests is to remain suspended except in accordance with the
working plans of the State Governments, as approved by the Central Government, in Rural
Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP 9 and Supreme Court Monitoring
Committee v. Mussorrie Dehradun Development Authority 10, which it cited with approval.
In a state where the permit system is in place, such as Arunachal Pradesh, felling under the
permits can only be carried out by the state government's forest department or the state forest
corporation in the absence of any operational plan.”11

“Article 48A states that the state will work to protect and improve the environment and that it
has a responsibility to preserve our country's forest and wildlife.” 12 All Indian residents are
required under Article 51A “to preserve and improve the natural environment, which
includes rivers, lakes, forests, and animals, as well as to have compassion for all living
things.”13

Repercussions of the Judgement

Due to the Supreme Court's ruling, a sizeable illegal market for wood was created. Due to
this, it was simpler for illegal activities to be carried out on forest land, such deforestation so
that it might be utilised for something other than forestry. “The court interfered significantly
in the Ministry of Environment and Forest’s operations. As a result, the Ministry of
Environment and Forest never had their own voice heard; instead, they were always

9
“Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP 1985 AIR 652
10
Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussorrie Dehradun Development Authority, Writ Petitions (C) No.
749 of 1995 with No. 469 of 1996
11
SC SHASTRI, ENVIRONMENT LAW 577 (EBC 2022)”
12
“INDIA CONST. art. 48, cl. A.”
13
“INDIA CONST. art. 51, cl. A.”

7
subordinated to the rulings of the court and its representatives.”14 The Central Government's
monopolisation of all powers was caused by this case. Now, only the Central Government of
India has the power to make decisions about environmental laws.

Although the aforementioned are the judgment's unfavourable features. But protecting forest
land from the ruthless wood mafia has a number of advantages. The importance of
environmental justice in the court is demonstrated by this case. Moreover, the function of
environmental agencies It emphasised the part that the court and judicial authorities played in
exercising their right to intervene on various environmental issues. The roles that
environmental agencies, courts, and other relevant stakeholders played in this case were
evident.

CONCLUSION
14
“T.N. GODAVARMAN V. THIRUMULPAD, IPLEADERS, https://blog.ipleaders.in/ (last visited Feb. 14, 2023)

8
With the rapid growth of industrialization, people's migration from rural to urban areas, the
need for more land for housing, agriculture, and other uses due to overpopulation, etc., the
problem of the environment deteriorating and, in particular, the damage to the forests that are
rich in natural resources began to emerge. For non-forest or commercial uses, such as mining
and illicit wood harvesting that aided in deforestation, large tracts of forestland were being
removed.

In this instance, it was important to remain vigilant and plan forward for timberland
usefulness. With the certainty of organic variety, it functions. Similar to this, acquiring and
securing biological conditions for the current situation were considered.

As a result of the “T.N. Godavarman v. Association of India and Ors case” 15, various wood
projects have decreased in size or been terminated. It also cultivated innate attentiveness
among the Indian population. It vehemently rejected deforestation. This lawsuit has likely led
to a tremendous improvement in environmental protection and insurance. The forceful and
fluid application of several rules in carrying out natural activities was the key factor in this
situation.

REFERENCE

15
T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. UOI & Ors [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995

9
 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS, INDIAN KANOON,
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1725193/. (Last visited on Feb. 8, 2023)

 SC SHASTRI, ENVIRONMENT LAW 577 (EBC 2022)

 The Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, Acts of Parliament, 1980 (India)

10