A two-judge panel of the Indian Supreme Court reversed a frivolous ruling that unilaterally gave a long-protected piece of forest land in the state of Telangana to a plaintiff who never held title over that land. In a blistering decision, the Court cited a misapplication of the proper standard of review, a finding that “new evidence” was based on improper title inquiries, and a storied history of India’s affirmative, constitutional obligation to conserve forested areas.
Plaintiff Mohd. Abdul Qasim filed a claim for title over a piece of forest land in Kompally, a suburb of Hyderabad in the State of Telangana, citing an error in the initial 1950’s survey of the land. The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana dismissed the plaintiff’s case in 2018 for failure to prove he had actual possession of the land. The court confirmed that the land, measuring 106.34 acres and worth approximately ₹380 crore (45 million USD), was designated as protected under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act (A.P. Forest Act). The High Court, exerting review jurisdiction, then reversed its own ruling in 2021 at the insistence of the plaintiff citing “new evidence,” granting title to the plaintiff.
The Indian Supreme Court, on appeal, reversed the High Court’s 2021 ruling, and reinstated the previous 2018 dismissal. Prior to arriving at this decision, Justice M. M. Sundresh discusses, in obiter, the constitutional, statutory, and advocative histories that impose an affirmative duty upon the Indian government to minimize damage to the environment as is pragmatic and practical.
The Constitution of India, 1950, details several Directive Principles that the Indian government must consider while effectuating policy. This includes the imposition of an affirmative duty upon the State (Article 48A) and its citizens (Article 51A(g)) to “protect and improve the natural environment…,” including ensuring the continuous protection and existence of forests. The Indian court system considers these Directive Principles in light of constitutionally protected Fundamental Rights, specifically Article 21, which provides that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
The A.P. Forest Act arose from Articles 48A and 51A, aiming to conserve and extend government-protected forest coverage. It gave the government the ability to identify private rights in prospective protected forest areas, and to take title to those lands, so long as there is proper notice and just compensation. The forest land at hand here falls under the scope of the A.P. Forest Act.
Justice Sundresh also discusses environmental justice as a framing device. Sundresh states that forests are “the spirit… that moves the Earth,” and that humanity has an obligation to “act as a trustee” to the planet. Advocating for a shift in our perspective toward “biocentrism,” Sundresh views the prioritization of sustainability as integral to the future economic viability of India, and to the life and well-being of its citizens. This extends to the preservation of India’s existing forests.
The Indian Supreme Court ultimately deemed the High Court’s decision as a gross abdication of its role to protect and preserve forested areas. When considering environmental litigation, the Indian Court system has the obligation to balance the economic benefits, environmental benefits, and the property rights of the adverse party. The actor alleged to contribute to environmental degradation has the onus of proof to show otherwise. The High Court reneged on that obligation, misapplying the law in giving title to a private person who could not meet their burden of proof to show ownership.
Moreover, the Supreme Court held that India’s High Court abused its review jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction exists only when there is mistake or error “apparent on the face of the record” — something that would be noticeable upon first glance — or for “any other sufficient reason.” This catch-all provision is extremely narrow, but includes the discovery of new evidence that was undiscoverable at the time of the original decision. However, the “new evidence” presented as to title was based on an improperly conducted inquiry from 2019, and did not meet the standard for review, let alone reversal.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court improperly exerted their review jurisdiction by failing to adequately apply the exceptionally high standard to warrant reversal, and set aside their decision. This restored the previous judgment against the plaintiff. As that 2018 decision from the Telangana High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove title to the land in the first place, the forest remains protected land under Section 15 of the A.P. Forest Act.
The forest area in question here is located just outside of the large Indian city of Hyderabad, soon to be the location of the largest Google office outside of its headquarters in California — this decision will likely have some impact there.
Some corporate actors in India avoid laws protecting against deforestation by felling trees anyway, then compensating for those actions by afforesting elsewhere. Soon after the decision, Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy launched an investigation into these kinds of cases — where private actors encroach upon protected forest land. The probe specifically aims toward the “improper inquiry” mentioned in this case. Allegations include possible collusion between encroachers in Kompally and local officials, political interference, report manipulation, and submission of a false affidavit to the Indian Supreme Court.
Since 2014, India has seen consistent attempts to weaken environmental or conservation laws, where executive bodies of power undergo hasty, nonreflective, and unreasoned decision-making to effectuate deregulation. This occurs through passing amendments to India’s key environmental protection laws, creating legal exceptions to the scope of those laws, or emphasizing compensation for environmental violations in place of preventing the harm in the first place.
This decision from the Indian Supreme Court comes from a long line of recent climate litigation cases combating those lapses in the State’s affirmative duty to protect the environment. Justice Sundresh penned many of these decisions, demonstrating a consistent and fervent dedication toward environmental protection and producing an unusually wide breadth of arguments in his decisions. India’s environmental jurisprudence connects the need to mitigate climate change with the “right to life” protected in the Indian Constitution. Justice Sundresh, in stark terms, directly criticizes the Telangana High Court and other executive authorities for willfully ignoring their duties to protect that right to life. He attacks the process of utilizing executive orders that arbitrarily change policies surrounding natural resources and aim to frustrate and delay integral legislation on environmental protection. The decision also strikes at the heart of those encroachment practices now subject to ministerial investigation.
More specifically to this case, the forested area in Kompally was saved by the strict standards by which courts must abide when exerting review jurisdiction. Any reversal on such jurisdiction requires evidence of “unimpeachable quality” — the improper (and allegedly corrupt) inquiry here was not, in fact, unimpeachable. That high standard of proof indicates that future public interest litigation in India will require a focus on establishing strong findings of fact at the lower court.
For their contributions, special thanks to ESCR-Net member: the Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy (PHRGE) at Northeastern University
