5 days ago
60 Former Civil Servants Write to CJI Citing Conflicts of Interest in Central Empowered Committee
New Delhi: A group of 60 retired civil servants have written to Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, raising concerns about the impartiality of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) which now comes under the aegis of the union environment ministry.
The CEC was first created in 2002 under the insistence of the Supreme Court, to keep track of the judgments of the apex court pertaining to forests, wildlife and conservation and look into cases of non-compliance by various parties in these matters. The CEC also contained two independent members, apart from retired government officials.
However, the new CEC – reconstituted in December 2023 – comprises only retired officials who have held high posts in the union environment ministry.
The retired bureaucrats' letter to the CJI, dated June 30, notes their 'great concern' about the 'conflict of interest, and transgression of the principles of natural justice, which promises to take the diminution of India's forests even further down the road'.
Signatories to the letter include Prakriti Srivastava, a former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Kerala, Meena Gupta, former Secretary to the union environment ministry, Anup Mukerji (former Chief Secretary of Bihar), N.C. Saxena (former Secretary to the Planning Commission) and Julio Ribeiro (former Director General of Police, Punjab).
The CEC and its current members
The Supreme Court constituted the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in 2002. Its role was to keep track of the judgments of the apex court pertaining to forests, wildlife and conservation, and look into cases of non-compliance by various parties in these matters. Currently, the CEC has five members: a chairperson, three members and a member secretary.
The current Chairperson of the CEC is Siddhanta Das. Das, who retired as the Director General of Forests and the Special Secretary in the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, is a former Indian Forest Service officer of the 1982 batch of the Odisha cadre.
The other members of the CEC are C.P. Goyal, Sunil Limaye and J.R. Bhatt.
Goyal is also a retired IFS officer and former Director General of Forests and Special Secretary of the union environment ministry, and a former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in the Uttar Pradesh forest department. Limaye retired as a Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Chief Wildlife Warden in the Maharashtra forest department. Bhatt, a retired scientist, has served as the lead negotiator for India at the Paris Agreement and several subsequent Conferences of Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change till COP 27, and was a director in the union environment ministry from April 2005 to September 2012. He was also an advisor to the ministry from September 2012 to March 2023.
The Member Secretary of the CEC is Banumathi G., an IFS officer of the 2009 batch. She is currently the Assistant Inspector General of Forests at the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) which comes directly under the union environment ministry. The NTCA not only oversees Project Tiger, but also India's ambitious Project Cheetah in Madhya Pradesh.
Conflicts of interest
The letter by 60 former civil service officers to the Chief Justice of India dated June 30 points out their 'grave concerns' regarding several conflicts of interest.
'Two of the members of the CEC have held the topmost forest and wildlife posts under the government of India, that of Director General and Special Secretary and have retired recently,' the letter noted.
'A CEC which is comprised of officers who had held the highest positions in the MoEFCC, and were closely involved in policy making, can hardly be expected to give independent advice to the Supreme Court, advice that is different from what they gave while they were in the government,' it read.
The letter said that it was a member of the CEC – who was then 'at the helm' in the union environment ministry – who prepared the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill 2023 and defended it before the Joint Parliamentary Committee that was instructed to look into the Bill and the various concerns that the public, including scientists and other experts, had raised.
Several petitions submitted in the Supreme Court have challenged the Forest Conservation Amendment Act 2023. The cases are still being heard by the apex court, and its final decision on the matter is pending. The CEC and its members perform an advisory role to the Supreme Court, and will be advising the Court on this case as well.
Another concern the letter raises is the lack of independent members in the current CEC.
Experts had raised concerns about the new CEC
In 2002 when the Supreme Court directed that the CEC be constituted, the CEC comprised three former officers of the union environment ministry, and two other members who were not linked to the union government in any way but had experience in the fields of wildlife, forests and conservation.
'In short, the Committee had not only expert members from the government, but also independent members who had not served in high positions in the government of India, nor had been involved in decisions of forest policy, thus ensuring impartiality and preventing conflict of interest,' the letter to the CJI dated June 30 read.
However, in September 2023, the union environment ministry issued a new order specifying that the CEC would now report to the ministry and not the Supreme Court as it used to earlier. This order also announced that the union ministry would now choose the members of the CEC. The Indian Express reported that the environment ministry issued this order after the Supreme Court permitted this 'in the interest of all the stakeholders'. The new CEC, the ministry said, would also not have the two non-government members anymore.
Experts had raised concerns at this move immediately.
'The underlying issue pertains to the primary motivation behind this action,' environmental policy researcher Debadityo Sinha, commented on X (formerly Twitter), five days after the ministry pronounced the order. 'It's widely understood that prioritising the 'ease of doing business' will inevitably overshadow all other considerations, leaving the government and CEC with limited leeway or alternative choices beyond adhering to political objectives.'
Most of the environmental violation cases involve government actions, Sinha, said on X. 'The pertinent question arises: How can one anticipate the CEC to function independently or issue impartial judgments when its composition solely consists of civil servants appointed by the government?'
Sinha also added that when considered alongside the recent revisions to the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, it was 'evident' that the union government had 'gained an unprecedented level of control over forests and a substantial influence over the State's jurisdiction concerning forests, which fall within the concurrent list of subjects'.
'This shift in authority has significant implications for the management and governance of our forests,' he said.
'It's already happening'
The biased and partial advice given by the current CEC to the Supreme Court is already evident, the retired bureaucrats' letter said. The letter cited the example of the recent order by the Supreme Court on zudpi forests in Maharashtra.
Zudpi forests are scrublands and grasslands, often designated as 'wastelands' because they do not typically contain lush tree cover. These lands, however, support a huge diversity of wildlife including critically endangered species such as the Great Indian bustard, a grassland-dwelling bird whose numbers have dwindled to less than 200 across India. This essentially makes the bird far rarer than a tiger in the wild.
As per the former civil servants' letter, the Supreme Court on May 22 this year 'recommended the untrammelled use of such forests for 'compensatory afforestation' considering 'zudpi' forests as ecologically inferior forests as they cannot support thick stands of forest trees'.
The Court had based this order on the CEC's recommendations, the letter said. It also added that diverting zudpi forests for non-forestry purposes is violative of the Supreme Court's Godavarman order of 1996 (which made it clear that any land that satisfied the dictionary meaning of a forest be considered a forest legally), and other recent orders pertaining to cases surrounding petitions against the amendments made to the Forest Conservation Act of 1980.
'As the Maharashtra zudpi forest case judgement clearly reveals, a CEC which is composed of only retired government officials merely reiterates the position of the government in its advice to the Supreme Court, a clear conflict of interest,' the letter noted.
It urged the CJI to ensure that such a CEC not be allowed to advise the Court in the FCAA 2023 cases before it, 'or be part of other such important cases in the interest of the country's forests, wildlife and ecological security'.
