The Delhi High Court judgment asking the Union ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) to comply with a order of the Central Information Commissioner (CIC) over the publication of a crucial ecological report has pushed the ministry to the wall. A recalcitrant MoEF, which had been smarting ever since the CIC asked it to published a high-profile report by the Western Ghats Ecological Expert Panel (WGEEP) it had held back, had moved the court against the CIC directive of April 9. The court had reserved its judgment on May 4, but passed an unflattering one on May 17.
The single judge bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi found “no merit” in the ministry’s plea, and went along with the CIC order which had asked the MoEF to “disclose” the ecological report of the WGEEP in a months’ time. The ministry, in a brazen counter-move, had obtained a temporary stay on the CIC’s directions on May 4.
Initially, the official line that was thrown around was that the “scientific or economic interests of the State” would be affected by the “disclosure” (of the report). This was the ministry’s response to a RTI application filed by a Kerala-based activist, G Krishnan.
CIC Shailesh Gandhi refused to accept the MoEF’s explanation.
He remarked, “Mere apprehension of proposals being put forth by citizens and civil society who are furthering the cause of environment protection cannot be said to prejudicially affect the scientific and economic interests of the country.”
While moving the high court, the ministry argued that the report was not final. Justice Sanghi rubbished this, “It is not the petitioners contention that the WGEEP report is not the final document prepared by the panel headed by Prof Madhav Gadgil in relation to the Western Ghats ecology and Athirappilly HEP, Kerala. So far as the panel is concerned, they have tendered their report to the MoEF. Now, it is for the MOEF, in consultation with the affected states, to act on the said report.”
The court went on to remark, “What is not final is the governmental policy decision on the aspects to which the WGEEP report relates.”
With the MoEF letting the file gather dust since August 31, 2011, when the 14-member WGEEP submitted its report, conservationist circles had been biting their nails. Most believed that since the panel had warned against throwing the Ghats open to developmental and industrial activities, the six states affected by the report were pleading with the Centre to dilute the recommendations.
The government was in a fix. On one hand, while it was true that it would not have been binding on the ministry to accept the recommendations of the panel, discarding the report outright would have been an embarrassment since the mandate for the panel had been one to find the ways for preserving the ecology of the Western Ghats, a treasure trove of minerals and a hydel powerhouse.
The court remarked, “If there are shortcomings or deficiencies in the report for the reason that it is based on incomplete or deficient data, the said factor would go into the decision-making process of the MoEF and the states concerned. The report is one of the ingredients, which they would take into consideration while formulating policy in relation to the Ghats ecology.”
And finally, the court virtually agreed with the conservationist apprehension that the government probably had been trying to scuttle the report all this while. Justice Sanghi asserted, “The endeavour of the petitioner appears to be to withhold the WGEEP report, so as to curb participation of the civil society and the interested environmental groups as also the common man, who is likely to be affected by the policy as eventually framed, in the debate that should take place before the policy is formulated.”
The court went with the CIC’s observations by insisting, “The scientific, strategic and economic interests of the State cannot be at cross purposes with the requirement to protect the environment in accordance with the Environment Protection Act, which is a legislation framed to protect the larger public interest and for promotion of public good.”
The MoEF, described by detractors as an “environmental clearing house” ever since Jayanthi Natrajan took over as the minister in charge from Jairam Ramesh last year, will now have to prove that it understands the “public good” as the court wants it to.
