The Supreme Court on Thursday underscored the need to protect forests and natural ecosystems across the country, observing that states such as Jharkhand possess rich ecological resources that must be preserved.
Hearing a plea filed by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB), a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana highlighted the importance of safeguarding forested regions from environmental degradation.
"There are few states where we can really protect our natural ecosystem and you (Jharkhand) are one of them," the CJI told the counsel appearing for the JSPCB.
The bench noted that several states are home to natural paradises such as forests and stressed that these areas require protection.
The matter arose from a petition challenging an order of the Jharkhand High Court concerning the grant of consent for stone mining and the establishment of stone crushers near forest areas.
In January, the high court directed that no consent be granted for stone mining or stone crushers within one kilometre of the demarcated boundaries of protected forests in the state. The order came while hearing a petition against a JSPCB notification that reduced the minimum distance for setting up stone mines and crushers around forests from the previously prescribed 400-500 metres to 250 metres.
Subsequently, in April, the high court ruled that restrictions on granting consent would apply within 500 metres of forest boundaries for stone mining operations and within 400 metres for stone crushers.
During Thursday's hearing, the Supreme Court observed that the distance norms had been reduced abruptly. Counsel for the JSPCB argued that the high court's observations had brought activities to a standstill.
However, the apex court noted that the matter was already pending before the high court and listed for final hearing.
"Let the high court pass a final order," the bench said.
When the counsel referred to the high court's observations, the bench remarked, "We cannot demoralise our high courts. We are not headmasters to advise the high courts what to do and what not to do. The high courts are constitutional courts".
After the Supreme Court indicated its unwillingness to interfere with the high court's order, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea.
The bench allowed the withdrawal and clarified that the petitioner would be free to raise all issues before the high court during the final hearing.