Taking serious note of environmental degradation in Tamil Nadu’s Agasthyamalai landscape, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to carry out a comprehensive survey of the region. The investigation will examine violations under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, while also assessing the impact of non-forestry activities in core forest areas.
“Forests form the lungs of the ecosystem, and any depletion or destruction directly affects the environment. The world is facing the disastrous effects of climate change, primarily due to diminishing forest cover caused by urbanization, industrialization, and encroachments,” the Court remarked.
According to the India State of Forest Report 2023, India has forest coverage of approximately 7,15,343 sq. km, which is only 21.76% of its total land. In comparison, Nepal has 44.74%, Bhutan 72%, and Sri Lanka 29%. The Court emphasized that India’s forest cover is inadequate and must be expanded.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Rules 18-Month D.El.Ed. from NIOS Valid for In-Service Teachers as on Aug 10, 2017
It also noted that around 13,000 sq. km of forest land is currently under encroachment, as per a report submitted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to the National Green Tribunal. The apex court reaffirmed that it had repeatedly issued directions to clear such encroachments to protect forest resources.
Background of the Case:
The bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, was hearing a case involving a conflict between forest conservation and the rehabilitation of displaced tea estate workers in the Agasthyamalai landscape.
Historically, in 1929, the Singampatti forests, covering 3,388.78 hectares, were leased to Bombay Burma Trading Corporation Limited (BBTCL) for tea and coffee plantations. Over decades, these plantations provided employment to thousands of estate workers.
Between 2007 and 2018, the leased land was gradually declared a Core Critical Tiger Habitat, a Wildlife Sanctuary, and a Reserved Forest. Consequently, the tea estate operations were halted, and workers were evicted in the process of forest reclamation. The displaced workers sought rehabilitation, employment, and compensation.
While the Madras High Court had considered the rights of these workers and directed rehabilitation, it did not address the issue of restoring the damaged forest areas.
To ensure proper restoration, the Supreme Court sought help from Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae in the matter.
“Only after scientifically identifying and demarcating forest areas can we begin restoring them. These forests have suffered nearly a century of systematic encroachment by plantations. Without proper mapping and protection of these boundaries, the goal of conserving tiger reserves and wildlife habitats cannot be achieved,” he argued.
He suggested that a scientific survey should include the use of Satellite Imagery, Remote Sensing, and Geo-Mapping to clearly mark the forest boundaries and highlight encroachments.
“As an interim measure, to initiate the restoration of pristine forest areas and protect tiger habitats, wildlife reserves, and sanctuaries in the Agasthyamalai landscape, we direct the CEC to conduct an extensive survey,” the Court ordered.
Read Also:- High Court Slams Haryana Govt for Arbitrary Land Acquisition, Awards Rs 5 Lakh Compensation
The Court instructed the CEC to survey the following key forest areas:
- Periyar Tiger Reserve
- Srivilliputhur Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary
- Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary
- Tirunelveli Wildlife Sanctuary
The CEC is tasked with identifying all non-forestry activities in these areas that violate laws, and it must recommend specific restoration measures for:
- Reserved Forests
- Tiger Habitats
- Elephant Corridors
- Other Wildlife Sanctuaries
“The CEC may use scientific tools like Remote Sensing and Satellite Imagery to speed up the survey process,” the Court added.
The case will next be heard on July 15, 2025, to review the findings and decide on further directions.
Case Title: A. JOHN KENNEDY ETC. VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS ETC.
