Sushree Mohanty
The Supreme Court has issued notification on a public interest litigation (PIL) recorded with respect to non-working of National Board for Wildlife comprised under Wildlife Protection Act.
The top court has directed to assemble the first meeting of the Board post its reconstitution in the year 2014.
The Bench, presided by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde stated that by not conducting a single meeting since its reconstitution, the National Board for Wildlife has failed to follow the order and provisions of Wildlife Protection Act and in maintaining the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) under Article 48A of the Constitution of India.
The petition documented by Advocates Mayuri Raghuvanshi and Sanjay Upadhyay on behalf of Advocate Mr Chandrabhal Singh contended that the reconstitution of the Board was done after bearings were given passed by the apex Court through its order dated 25th August 2014.
The order was passed on account of the case between Chandrabhal Singh versus Union of India.
As per the petition, the National Board for Wildlife has not conducted a single meeting once while the parent enactment Wildlife Protection Act mandates the to conduct a single meeting in a time frame of one year.
The act mandates to conduct a board meeting to be led to n order to issue direction regarding the laws and arrangements identifying with wildlife preservation including prevention of unlawful exchange or trade.
The plea further asserted that due to such failure of the board to assemble a meeting, the task of policy making has been illicitly conferred upon the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife with no prior delegation according to Section 5B(1) of the Wildlife Protection Act.
“By reasons of such ad hoc and discretionary process being carried out, the most noteworthy legal body in the country for wildlife protection has been decreased to a clearance giving body and the whole National Board for Wildlife has been weakened and sabotaged. In this way there is a vast lacuna in protection and safeguarding of wildlife and fighting against illicit exchange of natural life and poaching among different concerns, for example, checking of the Protected Area Network, etc in interest of environment and natural life.”, the petition further contended.
The Court likewise stated that the concerned Board has infringed the fundamental rights established under Article 21 in addition to Art.48 A of Directive Principles of State Policy.
The Court further stated that the two said articles must be read out together to understand the scope and objective of the fundamental rights ensured by the Constitution, as indicated by previous precedents.
Read more: DTE impact: Orissa High Court forms panel to study Olive Ridley conservation