Will notify Southern Ridge for full protection without ground verification: Delhi govt tells NGT
The change in stance comes a week after the department had said that it will carry out the verification across 12 south Delhi villages in the next six months.
The timeline for the notification will be shared with NGT, the department added in the affidavit dated July 31.
The issue has been a long-pending one. During a hearing on July 25, the amicus curiae in the case argued that it has been four years since the NGT sought notification of the southern Ridge. On a plea filed by activist Sonya Ghosh, the NGT, in January 2021 directed the Delhi government to ensure that the notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927is issued within three months. Ghosh in 2024 filed an executive application, seeking compliance with the 2021 order.
Delhi's Ridge areas have already been notified under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act. However, the final notification under Section 20 is yet to be completed, which grants complete protection and defines the boundaries.
On July 23, the forest department had said it plans to carry out on-ground verification of 3,287 hectares of land across 12 villages in south Delhi by January next year before the issuance of the final notification.
On Thursday, a bench headed by NGT chairperson took on-record the changed stance of the forest department during a hearing.
'Learned Counsel appearing for Delhi government and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) has now submitted that a decision has been taken that no ground verification will be done for issuing the final notification under Section 20 in respect of Phase-1,' the bench said, stating the Delhi government had sought time to submit a fresh timeline for issuing the final notification. The matter will now be heard on August 7.
Delhi has four prominent Ridge areas, with the total area under the Ridge as reserved forests totalling around 7,784 hectares. The largest – the southern Ridge is spread over an area of 6,200 hectares.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
41 minutes ago
- News18
NGT steps in over toxic waste crisis at Chandigarhs Dadumajra Dump
New Delhi [India], August 5 (ANI): The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has initiated suo motu proceedings following media reports of a growing environmental and public health crisis at the Dadumajra dumping ground in Chandigarh. It stated that a news article published on July 23 revealed that leachate–polluted liquid runoff from the accumulated waste–has started contaminating nearby fields and water bodies, including the Patiala Ki Rao Choe. Heavy monsoon rains have worsened the situation, prompting serious concern among local have reported an alarming surge in respiratory illnesses, skin infections, and even serious diseases like tuberculosis and cancer due to toxic waste mixing with rainwater and seeping into residential zones. The unbearable stench from decomposing waste and chemical runoff has further degraded everyday living conditions in the surrounding Tribunal noted several environmental laws had been violated, including the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The bench, led by Justice Prakash Shrivastava and supported by Dr A Senthil Vel and Dr Afroz Ahmad, attributed the unfolding crisis to ongoing mismanagement and delayed action by scheduled to be cleared by May 31, the dumping site remained unaddressed. On the deadline itself, a massive fire erupted, requiring more than 1.25 lakh litres of water to extinguish. Despite a revised cleanup target set for July, the waste still remains uncleared, heightening response, the Tribunal issued notices to the Municipal Corporation Chandigarh, Chandigarh Pollution Control Committee, the Deputy Commissioner of Chandigarh, and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). These entities have been instructed to file their affidavits with responses at least one week prior to the next hearing, which is slated for November 3, Tribunal reinforced its authority to act in environmental emergencies, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha & Ors., which upheld the NGT's right to intervene without formal petitions. (ANI)
Hindustan Times
7 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Forest official asked to give report on action against self
The office of the principal chief conservator of forests and head of forest force has sought a status report from special chief secretary, forests, Assam on action taken against him for violating provisions of the forest conservation act. The construction was on-going in full swing with around 500 workers. (Representative file photo) MK Yadava –– special chief secretary, forests, and former principal chief conservator of forests –– had allegedly approved the construction of police battalions in Hailakandi and Geleky forest reserves involving diversion of 11.5 ha and 28 ha, respectively. Information provided to environmentalist Rohit Choudhury on July 31 reveals that Sandeep Kumar, PCCF, Assam had written to Yadava on July 16 who sought action against Yadava purportedly by Yadava's office. The PCCF's letter in reference to diversion of forests for the Hailakandi police battalion states: 'Reference is invited to the subject and letters cited above. In this regard, I would like to inform you that another letter has been sought from the government of Assam. In this context, it is requested that necessary information as desired by the Regional office, Shillong, MoEFCC, may be furnished at the earliest.' In another letter dated July 8, the PCCF wrote to Yadava, stating: 'I would like to inform you that a communication has been received from the Deputy Inspector General of Forests (Central), Regional Office, MoEFCC. The content of the letter is self-explanatory.' 'Your kind attention is also drawn to the letter from the Secretary, Environment and Forest department (Assam), wherein it is mentioned that there is no question of taking action against the then PCCF, MK Yadava, IFS who had given permission for construction of commando battalion, as the said officer had acted in a bonafide manner in the interest of the state and for the protection and conservation of forests in the state,' it said. The PCCF's letters to Yadava were in response to action taken reports sought from MoEFCC's regional office in Shillong, dated May 29 and July 14, on what action had been taken by the environment and forest department of Assam against Yadava. Yadava, in response, said 'The PCCF has informed the government about the matter. The issue must be under process somewhere. The government will act on the information.' Speaking of the Hailakandi division, the letter dated May 29, said, 'The construction was on-going in full swing with around 500 workers and construction vehicles and construction is in large scale and of permanent concrete structures... Moreover, the officials of Assam Police Housing Corporation Ltd present on the day of site inspection have also shown the Master Plan map of the site and as per the Master Plan some of the building structures were about 50% completed.' 'Shri MK Yadava, the then PCCF & HoFF, Govt of Assam had no authority to grant permission for clearing the forest land for non forest activity without the prior permission of Central Govt as per Rule 11.8, Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam and Rules, Guidelines and Notifications,' the letter added. 'I was asked by the regional office, MoEFCC about action taken and hence it is my duty to share the information with the government. This is a matter of hierarchy and I have to bring this information to the notice of seniors. Hence I had to send the letters to the Special Chief Secretary, Forests,' said Sandeep Kumar. It is not for the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Assam to take a decision on whether the construction of a police battalion meant for 800 personnel with arms, ammunition and sophisticated weapons would impact forest conservation or not, the National Green Tribunal held last August.
Hindustan Times
10 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC: Pollution boards can impose damages
Pollution control boards are constitutionally empowered to impose and collect restitutionary or compensatory damages under the Water and Air Acts for actual or potential harm to the environment — not merely punitive penalties — the Supreme Court said in a landmark ruling that redefines the powers of environmental regulators. SC: Pollution boards can impose damages Delivering a judgment with far-reaching implications for environmental governance, a bench led by Justice PS Narasimha declared that such powers are not only legally valid under Sections 33A of the Water Act and 31A of the Air Act, but are also a 'necessary concomitant of the fundamental rights of citizens who suffer environmental wrongs and the duties of a statutory regulator.' While setting aside a 2012 ruling of the Delhi high court that stripped pollution control boards of their authority to seek environmental damages, the court underscored that remediation and prevention, not just punishment, must lie at the heart of environmental regulation in India. 'This order is a very good development. In fact, this was a concern with Air and Water acts because earlier they were excessively focused on punitive action which led to criminalisation. That was not a good tool to drive change. Civil penalties are very important tools to drive action but they were either imposed by NGT or by Supreme Court,' said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, Centre for Science and Environment. The bench, also comprising Justice Manoj Misra, drew a critical distinction between punitive penalties imposed after finding legal violations, and restitutionary damages, which may be imposed even ex-ante -- before actual environmental harm occurs. In doing so, the court reinforced the preventive role of regulatory authorities, aligning Indian law with global environmental principles such as 'polluter pays' and precautionary action. 'Environmental regulators can impose and collect restitutionary or compensatory damages in the form of fixed sums or require furnishing of bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure…These powers are incidental and ancillary to their statutory empowerment and are critical to preventing environmental degradation,' it held. Importantly, the court clarified that such damages are not punitive fines and therefore do not require the procedural rigour mandated for criminal prosecution. Instead, they serve as compensatory tools aimed at restoring degraded ecosystems or mitigating potential environmental harm. The judgment draws from the Indian constitutional framework, particularly Article 48A (State's duty to protect the environment) and Article 51A(g) (citizens' fundamental duty to safeguard natural resources). The bench reasoned that in the face of climate change and rising pollution, restoration of the environment is a core constitutional obligation and not just a statutory function. 'Our constitutionalism bears the hallmark of an expansive interpretation of fundamental rights…But such creative expansion is only a job half done if the depth of the remedies, consequent upon infringement, remain shallow,' it noted. The court called environmental protection 'perhaps the most significant duty' imposed under Article 51A, and asserted that regulators must be allowed to act with foresight and autonomy. It emphasised the importance of institutional integrity, independence from government and industrial control and domain expertise within the pollution control boards. The judgment further consolidated the 'polluter pays' principle into Indian jurisprudence, observing that it applies in three scenarios -- when regulatory thresholds are breached causing environmental damage; when no thresholds are breached, yet damage occurs; and when there is a likelihood or risk of environmental damage, even if no harm has occurred yet. In all three instances, the court held, pollution control boards are duty-bound to act, not merely after the fact, but proactively. 'Environmental regulators have a compelling duty to adopt and apply preventive measures irrespective of actual environmental damage. A restrictive interpretation of Sections 33A and 31A would encumber the boards' ability to discharge their duty.' 'This is very good because precautionary action gives you space to drive implementing agencies to enable implementation. More importantly, the polluter pays principle helps in mobilizing additional resources to meet the cost of implementation. For example in Delhi, trucks pay environmental compensation charge, big diesel cars also pay env compensation and there is a cess on diesel. These helped create dedicated funds meant for meeting pollution control measures,' Roychowdhury said. Stressing the importance of democratic participation in environmental governance, the court said future rules must include provisions enabling citizen complaints and community involvement in regulatory oversight. It added that pollution control boards, being the first line of defence, must be accessible, transparent, and accountable. While expanding the powers of regulators, the court emphasised that restitutionary powers be exercised with transparency, fairness, and procedural certainty, and be guided by subordinate legislation in the form of formal rules and regulations. These rules, the court said, must spell out methods for assessing environmental damage, criteria for calculating compensation, natural justice safeguards for affected parties, and mechanisms to ensure public participation in the complaint and enforcement process. The court took note of existing guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in December 2022, pursuant to National Green Tribunal directions, but insisted they must now be codified as binding rules to lend them legal legitimacy and enforceability. 'Boards can decide whether a polluting entity needs to be punished or whether the situation demands immediate restoration-- or both. What matters is that their decision is guided by principle, not arbitrariness,' it said.
