“In hearings in this case so far, the Supreme Court has given four landmark orders, upholding the definition of forests as per the Godavarman order of 1996 and directing that such forests be identified and georeferenced as per the SC orders of 1996 and 2011 (Lafarge case). The case is pending for a final hearing and decision in the Supreme Court,” said Prakruti Srivatava, a former bureaucrat and one of the signees of the letter.However, the letter pointed out that the CEC has one member who was then at the helm of the MoEFCC, engaged in the preparation of the FCA bill, and also defended the bill in front of the Joint Parliamentary Committee.“We fear that the outcome of this case, as well as those of others filed against the FCAA 2023, may be compromised considering the conflict of interest of the CEC, and the likelihood that the Supreme Court may give weight to the advice of the CEC before taking a final decision in the matter,” states the letter.The letter further noted that some members of the CEC, when they were at the helm in the MoEFCC, had notified the use of forest land for controversial compensatory afforestation in exchange for forest land.Additionally, the letter highlighted a recent Supreme Court order on the ‘zudupi’ forest, a scrub forest supporting wildlife, which was diverted for compensatory afforestation on the advice of the CEC, as a possible manifestation of this concern.
Source link
