How independent is a panel headed by officer who reports to govt, ask greens & petitioners

Gurgaon: The composition of the high-powered committee (HPC) to which Supreme Court has given the task of defining Aravali Hills and Ranges was met with caution by environmentalists, two of whom are also petitioners in the case.They wondered how a committee led by a bureaucrat who reports to the central govt could be considered impartial or independent, and fulfil the court’s objective of a “fair, impartial and independent” expert assessment of measures needed to protect the hill ranges that run from Gujarat to Delhi and have been severely degraded by mining.The HPC will be headed by the director general of Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE). Its other members include former Forest Survey of India director general Subhash Ashutosh, former Geological Survey of India director Rajendra Kumar Sharma, former Union environment ministry joint secretary Brij Mohan Singh Rathore and former Delhi University botany professor Ashok K Bhatnagar. Prof Jagdish Krishnaswamy of Indian Institute for Human Settlements and Prof Laxmikant Sharma of Central University of Haryana are special invitees in the panel.The need for an HPC was felt after an earlier committee finalised a definition of Aravalis – recognising any hill as so if it had an elevation of 100 metres or more – which triggered widespread protests in Rajasthan.ICFRE, environmentalists pointed out, functions under the Union ministry of environment, forests and climate change, whose secretary chaired the earlier committee. Since the same secretary continues in office, they asked how a subordinate institution would be in a position to reassess those findings.RP Balwan, forest conservator of forest, south Haryana, and a petitioner in this case, said, “By and large, this committee looks more like the view of govt than an independent one.” A retired Haryana IFS officer said, “A retired judge or an independent expert working on Aravali issues could have headed the committee. The current HPC looks like a sub-committee of the environment ministry.”Environmentalist SS Oberoi, another petitioner in the case, echoed similar concerns. “When a definition decided by govt itself is under scrutiny, it cannot be asked to sit in judgment over its own mistakes. The earlier committee was headed by the forest secretary and now a junior officer from an institution under the same ministry has been asked to review it. How will this be an independent review?” Oberoi asked.Supreme Court in its order justified the constitution of the panel by emphasising the need for multidisciplinary expertise. The court observed that decisions with far-reaching environmental consequences should not be taken without expert evaluation and that the committee would assess issues relating to geology, biodiversity, flora and fauna, mineral resources and scientific geo-mapping of the Aravali landscape.The committee has been tasked with examining several contentious questions, including whether restricting the definition of the Aravali range to areas lying within 500 metres between two or more hills could narrow the extent of protected land and increase areas available for mining and other activities. It will also assess concerns that the proposed 100-metre elevation criterion could leave thousands of smaller hills and hillocks outside environmental protection.Recognising the wide-ranging implications of the issue, the court has directed the committee to invite representations from state govts, environmentalists, conservationists, mining lease holders, project proponents, villagers, farmers, mine workers and local communities before finalising its recommendations. The committee has been asked to submit its report by Aug 31, after which Supreme Court will take up the matter again on Sept 7.