Vivek Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

The case centers on the validity of an exemption notification issued on September 24, 2015, which exempted 62 to 63 species of trees and plants from the regulatory provisions of the Transit Rules, 2000. The notification was challenged on the grounds that it was beyond the authority granted by the Forest Act of 1927 and violated Articles 14, 21, and 48-A of the Constitution of India. The State of Madhya Pradesh issued a notification that exempted several species of forest produce from regulatory control. This notification was later amended to include additional species. As a result, concerns arose about large-scale deforestation and the illegal trading of timber, which were intensified by these exemptions. The court reviewed internal correspondence and inquiry reports that highlighted the negative impact of these exemptions on climate change and biodiversity of Madhya Pradesh. The main issue was the validity and constitutionality of the exemption notification and its subsequent amendments. The court also examined the environmental impact of these exemptions, especially regarding climate change. It evaluated whether the exemptions were justified by compelling reasons, backed by data, research, and surveys. Furthermore, the court considered the necessity of periodic reviews and assessments of the exemptions to ensure they do not contribute to environmental degradation. In doing so, the court quashed the exemption notification dated 24.09.2015 and its subsequent amendments, declaring them ultra vires the provisions of Secs. ​ 41(1), (2) & (3) of the Forest Act, 1927, and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 48-A of the Constitution of India. ​ The court found that the notification was issued without any independent background research, surveys, or empirical studies to demonstrate the compelling circumstances for exempting such a large number of species. ​ The annulment of the impugned notification revived the applicability of Transit Pass Rules, 2000 to all the previously exempted species. ​ The court emphasized that the regulatory measures under Sec. ​ 41(2) of the Forest Act are a norm, and the power to exempt under Sec. ​ 41(3) is an exception that must be exercised sparingly and with compelling reasons. ​ The judgment addresses the existential threat posed by climate change and underscores the critical role that forests play in mitigating its harmful effects. It points out the connection between fundamental rights and environmental issues, asserting that the right to a healthy environment is inherent in the right to life as stated in Article 21. The court mandates that judicial reviews of legislative actions or subordinate legislation must prioritize environmental protection and sustainable development, in line with both national and international commitments to combat climate change. The ruling highlights the importance of implementing regulatory measures to safeguard forests and natural resources, ensuring that any exemptions do not contribute to further environmental degradation.