Environment ministry sets up new panel replacing SC's Central Empowered Committee
New Delhi (PTI): The Union Environment Ministry has set up a new Central Empowered Committee (CEC), replacing an ad hoc expert panel with the same name which assisted the Supreme Court in matters of forest and environment issues.
The CEC, initially established by the apex court in 2002, served as a watchdog for issues pertaining to environmental conservation and compliance.
Over the years, the committee has played a pivotal role in shaping India's environmental policy and governance landscape.
While its restructuring aims to make it more efficient, questions remain about its independence under the government's complete control.
This development comes shortly after the passage of the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill, 2023, which critics argue weakens existing safeguards in Indian forest law, potentially facilitating construction projects in ecologically sensitive regions.
The Union government will nominate and appoint members to the new CEC, according to a September 5 notification.
Under the revamped structure, the CEC will comprise a chairperson, a member secretary and three expert members, all selected by the Union government.
The chairperson, with a minimum of 25 years of experience in environmental, forestry, or wildlife fields or substantial administrative expertise in government, will serve a maximum term of three years.
The member secretary must hold a rank not lower than deputy inspector general or director in the government and possess at least 12 years of experience in environmental, forestry, or wildlife matters. The three expert members, one each from the environment, forest, and wildlife sectors, should have a minimum of 20 years of expertise.
Critics have voiced concerns that this change concentrates excessive power within the government. Previously, the CEC comprised members nominated by the environment ministry and two NGOs selected in consultation with the amicus curiae, offering a more balanced approach.
"The CEC was constituted in the famous T N Godavarman case by the Supreme Court to monitor its orders in forest and wildlife cases since 2002. The GoI has full control over the constitution of the CEC from now onwards.
"Compared to the previous composition of the CEC as constituted by the Supreme Court, which included a member nominated by the ministry & 2 NGOs selected in consultation with the Amicus Curiae, the current notification introduces a significant transformation," ecologist Debadityo Sinha expressed on X, formerly Twitter
"The notification completely removes non-governmental members from the committee. In the revised structure, the chairman, member secretary, & all 3 expert members will now be civil servants appointed by the MoEFCC," he said.
Sinha further said, "Most of the environmental violation cases involve government actions. 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?"
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
P&H High Court denies anticipatory bail to man accused of replacing national flag with saffron flag
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Vikas Tomar, who is accused of removing the national flag from a mosque in Gurugram’s Uton village and replacing it with a saffron flag.
Justice Manisha Batra, presiding over the case Vikas Tomar @ Vikash Tomar v. State of Haryana, observed that the allegations against the petitioner were not vague but specific, and supported by conversations between him and other co-accused.
“The gravity of the offence and its potential impact on public order and communal peace cannot be overlooked at this stage,” the Court noted. It further stated that no exceptional circumstances had been presented that would justify granting pre-arrest bail, especially given the “serious communal and constitutional implications” of the alleged conduct.
According to the prosecution, a complaint was filed on July 7 in Bilaspur, Gurugram, reporting that anti-social elements had replaced the national flag atop a mosque with a saffron flag. Audio and video evidence were submitted along with the complaint. Two other accused were initially arrested under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971, but were granted bail the same day.
The Sessions Court had earlier denied anticipatory bail to Tomar on July 15, with Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Chauhan observing that such acts threaten the social fabric in a diverse country like India. He remarked, “Any person of ordinary prudence and slightest of patriotism in his heart would not have dared to commit such a crime.”
Tomar's counsel argued before the High Court that he was not named in the FIR and had no role in the alleged incident. However, opposing counsel representing the State and the complainant contended that Tomar aimed to provoke communal unrest in the region.
Justice Batra, after considering the arguments, concluded that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary. “No ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out,” the Court held.
Advocate Abhimanyu Singh appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Apoorv Garg represented the State of Haryana. Advocate Rosi appeared for the complainant.
The bail plea was dismissed.
