Supreme Court Questions Forest and Lake Cases Centralization

The Supreme Court questions why matters involving forests and lakes are centralized in the apex court, bypassing high courts. Notably, cases like the Sukhna lake highlight concerns about jurisdiction and the preservation of ecosystems, as historical PILs continue to shape environmental law enforcement across India.

The Supreme Court, on Monday, expressed concern regarding the centralization of forest and lake-related matters at the apex level, bypassing high courts. Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned why issues such as the Sukhna lake case, previously addressed by local courts, are being filed as interim applications in ongoing PILs since 1995.

The Chief Justice indicated that some matters seem orchestrated by private developers, citing the Sukhna lake case as an example. The bench highlighted the need for high courts to utilize their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, rather than passing issues directly to the Supreme Court.

Past benches, including one led by former CJI B R Gavai, have frequently addressed violations related to reserved forests and ecological zones across India. These efforts included directing state governments to expand wildlife sanctuaries and curb mining activities. As the case concerning Sukhna lake demonstrates, the question of jurisdiction remains critical in safeguarding India's natural resources.

(With inputs from agencies.)