India Supreme Court Case: State of Telangana v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim

Summary

On April 18, 2024, the Indian Supreme Court issued a ruling in favor of a protected forest in the case of The State of Telangana v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim – considering ecocentrism, rights of nature, and climate change and their nexus with the economy in the judgment. In a section of the judgment titled ‘Need for Change: From Anthropocentric to Ecocentric’, the Court discusses the rights of nature, stating “The time has come for mankind to live sustainably and respect the rights of rivers, lakes, beaches, estuaries, ridges, trees, mountains, seas and air. It is imperative to do so as there is always a constant threat to forests due to the ever increasing population. Man is bound by nature’s law. Therefore, the need of the hour is to transform from an anthropocentric approach to ecocentric approach which will encompass a wider perspective in the interest of the environment.” (pg. 32). The judgment was authored by Justice (J. M.M. Sundresh) who has a longstanding commitment to the environment.

Background:
In 1960, the State surveyed a piece of land (located in Kompally, in present day Telangana state) and declared it a reserved forest. The plaintiff claimed title over the piece of land the State declared as a reserved forest and sought a declaration from the court that he is the owner of the lands and a permanent injunction to restrain the State “from interfering with his possession”. In 2018, the High Court found that the plaintiff failed to show his title to the property and that the concerned piece of land was indeed a forest and dismissed the suit. Subsequently, in 2019, the State, which had until then found this piece of land to be a protected forest, reversed its stance, citing an improperly conducted survey back in 1959. Based on this “new” information, the plaintiff invoked the High Court’s “review” jurisdiction—a power only to be rarely invoked in cases where there has been an apparent error at the time of passing judgment. In 2021, the High Court reversed its earlier findings regarding the nature of the land based on the improperly conducted survey.

The Supreme Court took up the case. The Supreme Court found that the officers of the State as well as the High Court had acted without jurisdiction and against established common law doctrine by effectively allowing the reversal of existing protections granted to a forest area. The Supreme Court’s ruling states “It is a classic case where the officials of the State who are expected to protect and preserve the forests in discharge of their public duties clearly abdicated their role.” (pg. 57). The Supreme Court based its reasoning on obligations of the Indian state towards its forests, citing the economic value of forests, rights of nature, environmental and climate justice, and ecocentrism in its justifications. The Supreme Court found that on the earlier occasion, the High Court had given a clear finding that these lands were not private lands, and “it is indeed very strange that the High Court which is expected to act within the statutory limitation went beyond and graciously gifted the forest land to a private person who could not prove his title.” (58). The Supreme Court went on to set aside the 2021 judgment and restore the earlier judgment passed by the High Court in 2018.