Assam: Garbhanga Wildlife Sanctuary preliminary notification revoked without following mandatory procedures?

Guwahati: Wildlife activists in Assam are alleging that the state Environment and Forest Department at the behest of the controversial IFS officer M.K. Yadava, cancelled the Preliminary Notification issued for Garbhanga Wildlife Sanctuary, without following the procedures mandated under the wildlife laws of the country.

An examination of the website of the Assam Environment and Forest department reveals that the Government, on March 28, 2022, issued a Preliminary Notification under Section 18 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, designating 117 square kilometres of Rani and Garbhanga Reserve Forests as ‘Garbhanga Wildlife Sanctuary.”

The Preliminary Notification was also published in the Assam Gazette dated 7^th April 2022.  The Preliminary Notification, besides containing the boundary details of the Garbhanga Wildlife Sanctuary, listed several species of mammals, birds, reptiles and butterflies, categorized as Schedule-I species under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, as residing in the area. Wildlife lovers in Assam note that the area also forms part of the famous Garbhanga-Rani-Deepar Beel elephant landscape.

Surprisingly, the Assam Environment and Forest Department backtracked from its decision to constitute the Garbhanga Wildlife Sanctuary after elapse of eighteen months from the date of Preliminary Notification. 

On September 26, 2023, it issued another notification, a one liner, ECF No.197492/44, cancelling the earlier Preliminary Notification.  No reasons have been cited for the cancellation, but for a fleeting reference to a Cabinet Meeting Decision dated 25^th August 2023.

Activists involved in environmental advocacy point out to multiple orders of the apex court which lay down that once a Section 18 notification is issued under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the area attains the status of a Protected Area, and any decision to reverse the status either through a denotification or a cancellation can be taken only after an approval of the National Board of Wildlife and that of the Supreme Court. 

They also point out that Cabinet decisions do not confer immunity from judicial scrutiny, and that the notification cancelling the earlier Preliminary Notification is bound to be legally challenged in the apex court.  They highlight that the Supreme Court has consistently insisted upon having Eco Sensitive Zones demarcated even in case of Section-18 notified Protected Areas.

Wildlife activists pointed out that the apex court had earlier come down heavily on Assam government , regarding a Cabinet decision that favoured denotification of the Pobitora Wildlife Sanctuary in Assam without following the mandatory procedures.

In the same vein, Gauhati High Court, in a separate order, had been critical of Assam government in connection with a Cabinet decision favouring denotification of the Deepor Beel Wildlife Sanctuary, and stayed the same.  The Kolkata Bench of the National Green Tribunal was very critical of the illegal diversions in the Sonai-Rupai Wildlife Sanctuary of Assam and directed the Chief Secretary of Assam to submit an affidavit in this regard.  In all these instances, the name of M.K. Yadava has cropped up again and again.

Sources alleged that the cancellation of the Preliminary Notification of the Garbhanga Wildlife Sanctuary was aimed at facilitating mining activities in the Rani Reserve Forest by one particular miner who is said to be close to M.K. Yadava.

In December 2023, while still serving as PCCF, Yadava issued three Expressions of Interest (EOI) notices for 20-year mining in the the pristine Rani Reserve Forest and two other Assam reserves respectively.

Investigations revealed that a father-son duo, R.S. Gandhi and C.S. Gandhi, were allegedly involved in manipulating the EOI selection criteria. The Gandhis, who reportedly face charges by the CBI in a separate forestry scam, operate quarries and stone crushers in several Assam districts.

The EOI criteria itself was criticized for being overly restrictive and gave rise to the allegations of favouritism towards specific companies.

Bypassing of Divisional Forest Officers (DFOs) who typically handle tenders, and issuing of EOIs directly by the PCCF office further raised suspicions. The proposed mining leases were seen as legally unsound as well.

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 mandates central government’s prior approval for diverting forest land for non-forestry activities like mining. On the other hand, no such approvals were reportedly sought or acquired in this case.

Amidst mounting public scrutiny, Yadava placed the three EOI notices in abeyance in January 2024.  But environmentalists now allege that decks are being cleared to set the EOIs in motion again.