T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPADversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

                   [2012] 1 S.C.R. 923


           T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD                        A
                             v.
               UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
I. A. Nos. 1287, 1570-1571, 1624-1625, 1978, 2395, 2795-
                          2796
                             ~                                B
            (Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995)

                   FEBRUARY 13, 2012

  [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
                      PRASAD, JJ.]                            C

    WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972:

    Object of its enactment - Discussed.

      s.2(27) - Whether sandalwood (Santa/um album Linn) D
stated to be an endangered species, be declared as a
"specified plant" within the meaning of s.2(27), and be
included in the Schedule VI of the Act - Held: Indian
sandalwood (Santa/um album Linn) is not included in the
species listed in Appendix-II of CITES, however red E
sandalwood (Pterocarpus Santalinus) is seen included in
Appendix-I/ - At the ~ame time International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has included Santa/um album
Linn in its Red List of threatened species as "vulnerable" and
red sandalwood (Pterocarpus Santalinus) in the Red List as F
"endangered" - Red sandalwood is a species of Pterocarpus
native of India found nowhere in the world and possesses
medicinal properties - Following the ecocentric principle, the
Central Government is directed to take appropriate steps to
include Red Sanders in Schedule-VI of the Act - Sandalwood G
as sucn finds no place in CITES but it is included in the Red
List of /UCN as "vulnerable" and, therefore, calls for serious
attention by the Central Government, considering the fact that
all the sandalwood growing States have stated that it faces
                               923                             H
    924      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 1 S.C.R.

A   extinction - Central Government is, therefore, directed to
    examine the issue at length in consultation with NBWL and
    take a decision as to whether Sandalwood is to be notified as
    a specific plant and be included in Schedule VI of the Act -
    Central Government is also directed to formulate a policy for
B   conservation of sandalwood including provisions for financial
    reserves for such conservation and scientific research for
    sustainable use of biological diversity in sandalwood - Central
    Government should also formulate rules and regulations for
    effective monitoring, control and regulation of sandalwood
C   industries - States are directed to immediately close down all
    un-licensed sandalwood oil factories, if functioning and take
    effective measures for proper supervision and control of the
    existing licensed sandalwood oil factories in States -
    Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 51 A(g), 48A -
    Environmental Protection Act, 1986.
0
         Sandalwood - Legislative measures taken by some of
    the States - Discussed Kera/a Forest (Amendment) Act, 2010
    - ss.47A, 47C - Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 - s.40G - Tamil
    Nadu Sandalwood Possession Rules, 1970 - Tamil Nadu
E   Sandalwood Transit Rules, 1967 - Karnataka Forest Act, 1963
    - s.83 - A.P. Forest Act, 1967 - A.P. Sandalwood Possession
    Rules, 1969 - A. P. Sandalwood and Red Sanderswood Transit
    Rules, 1969 - Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964 -
    Bombay Forest Rules 1942 - Madhya Pradesh Revenue
F   Code - Convention on International Trade in Endangered
    Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 1973 (CITES), the
    Convention of Biological Diversity 1992 (CBD).

          BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ACT, 2002:

G         Object of its enactment - Discussed.

          DOCTRINES/PRINCIPLES:

       Public trust doctrine - Held: Is meant to ensure that all
H   humans have equitable access to natural resources treating
 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. UNION OF                    925
               INDIA & ORS.
all natural resources as properly and not life - The principle A
also has its roots in anthropocentric principle - Precautionary
principle and polluter-pays principles are also based on
anthropocentric principle since they also depend on harm to
humans as a pre-requisite for invoking those principles - The
principle of sustainable development and inter-generational B
equity too pre-supposes the higher needs of humans and Jays
down that exploitation of natural resources must be equitably
distributed between the present and future generations.

      Anthropocentrism vis-a-vis ecocentric approach - Held:         C
Anthropocentrism considers humans to be the most imporlant
factor and value in the universe and states that humans have
greater intrinsic value than other species - Resultantly, any
species that are of potential use to humans can be a reserve
to be exploited which leads to the point of extinction of
biological reserves - Furlher, that principle highlights human       D
obligations towards environment arising out of instrumental,
educational, scientific, cultural, recreational and aesthetic
values that forests has to offer to humans - Under this
approach, environment is only protected as a consequence
of and to the extent needed to protect human well being - On         E
the other hand, ecocentric approach to environment stress the
moral imperatives to respect intrinsic value, inter dependence
and integrity of all forms of life - Ecocentrism supporls the
protection of all life forms, not just those which are of value to
 humans or their needs and underlines the fact that humans           F
 are just one among the various life forms on earlh - The
 intrinsic value of the environment also finds a place in various
 international conventions like, Convention for Conservation
 of Antarctic Living Res0urces 1980, the Protocol to Antarctic
 Treaty on Environmental Protection 1998, the Bern                   G
 Convention on Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural
 Habitats 1982, CITES, and CBD.

     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1986:

                                                                     H
                                                                         '




    926      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 1 S.C.R.

A         Object of its enactment - Discussed.

          INTERNATIONAL TREATIES:

          Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and
     Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
B    Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) - Object of - Held: CBD
     mandates the contracting parties to develop and maintain
    necessary legislation for protection and regulation of
     threatened species and also regulate trade therein - CITES
    classifies species into different appendices in the order of their
C   endangerment, and prescribes different modes of regulation
    in that regard - Parties to the CITES are entitled to take (a)
    stricter domestic measures regarding conditions of trade,
    taking possession or transport of specimens of species
    included in Appendix-/, II and Ill, or the complete prohibition
D   thereof or; (b) domestic measures restricting or prohibiting
    trade, taking possession or transport of species not included
    in Appendix I, II or Ill - Species listed in Appendix-/1 shall
    include all species which although not necessarily now
    threatened with extinction may become so unless trade in
E   specimens of such species is subject to strict regulation in
    order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival and
    other species which must be subject to regulation in order that
    trade in specimens of certain species referred to earlier may
    be brought under effective control - Environmental Protection
F   Act, 1986 - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

         Incorporation of provisions of treaties in domestic Jaw -
    Held: The provisions of the Treaties/Conventions which are
    not contrary to Municipal laws would be deemed to have been
    incorporated in the domestic Jaw.
G
         The question which arose for consideration in the
    instant applications was whether sandalwood (Santalum
    album Linn) stated to be an endangered species, be
    declared as a "specified plant" within the meaning of
H
  T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. UNION OF              927
                INDIA & ORS.

Section 2(27), and be included in the Schedule VI of the       A
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

    Disposing of the applications, the Court

    HELD: 1. Sandalwood is an evergreen tree which
generally grows in the dry, deciduous forests of the           8
Deccan Plateau. Sandalwood is also mentioned in one of
the oldest epics, the Ramayana. Descriptions are also
made by Kalidasa of its use in his literary works as well.
In short, it is part of Indian culture and heritage and its
fragrance has spread not only in India but also abroad         C
and its rich oil content led to its large scale exploitation
as well. Exploitation of this rare endangered species went
on unabatedly, especially in the southern States of India
and on intervention of this Court, the State of Kerala has
closed down 24 unlicensed sandalwood· oil factories.           D
Similar steps were being taken by other states as well.
[Para 11] [944-E·F]

   2. SOME OF THE LEGISLATIVE MEASURES TAKEN
BY SOME OF THE STATES ARE AS UNDER:                            E
2.1. State of Kerala:

     In State of Kerala, best quality sandalwood trees are
grown in the forest of Marayoor, spread over 93 Sq.Km
which generate the best quality sandalwood oil in the          F
world. Recently, the Kerala Forest (Amendment) Act, 2010
introduced a new chapter, Chapter 6A entitled
"Provisions relating to sandalwood" which regulates
cutting and possession of sandalwood. Section 47A
provides that no individual shall cut, uproot, remove or       G
sell any sandalwood tree without previous permission in
writing from the forest officer. There is also absolute
prohibition on transport and possession of sandalwood
or sandalwood oil in excess of one Kilogram or 100 ml
 respectively without a license from the forest officer        H
..   928     SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A under Section 47C of the Act. Under Section 47C(3) only
  the government or the public sector undertakings (PSU)
  owned by the government shall manufacture or distil,
  refine or sell sandalwood oil. Section 47F imposes
  restrictions on purchase and sale of sandalwood from
B any person other than government or authorised officer.
  Provision is also there for seizure of sandalwood and its
  oil under Section 47H and penalty for offences can be
  imposed. Act also provides for imprisonment for three
  years, extendable upto seven years and fine not less than
c Rs.10,000/- extendable upto Rs.25,000/-. [Para 12] [945-H;
  945-A-D]

     2.2. State of Tamil Nadu

        The Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 - Section 40G of the
 D Act provides that teak, blackwood, ebony, sandalwood
   and also ivory and teeth of elephants, either grown or
   found on government land or private property are
   royalties and no trade shall be carried on in them unless
   they have been duly obtained from the government.
.E Section 40G(2) places restrictions on felling of trees by
   any person without the permission of the Chief
   Conservator of Forest or any other person authorised by
   him. The State of Tamil Nadu has also enacted the Tamil
   Nadu Sandalwood Possession Rules, 1970 and also
F Tamil Nadu Sandalwood Transit Rules, 1967, and the Act
   also provides for imposing penalties and imprisonment.
   [para 13] [945-E-H]
     2.3. State of Karnataka

G     The Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the Rules made
  thereunder have removed the restrictions on growing
  sandalwood trees in private lands. Section 83 of the Act
  provides that where a person is an owner of sandalwood
  trees before the commencement of 2001 Amendment
H Act, he shall not fell or sell such sandalwood tree or
  T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. UNION OF               929
                INDIA & ORS.
convert or dress sandalwood obtained from such tree or         A
possess or store or transport or sell the sandalwood
except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The
Act also provides for imposition of penalty and
imprisonment. [para 14] [946-A-C]
                                                               B
2.4. State of Andhra Pradesh

     The A.P. Forest Act, 1967, A.P. Sandalwood
Possession Rules, 1969, A.P. Sandalwood and Red
Sanderswood Transit Rules, 1969 generally deal with the
possession, control and transit of sandalwood and Red          C
Sanders etc., but there is no restriction as such on the
felling of sandalwood trees. The Act also provides for
punishment for contravention of the provisions of the Act
or the rules made thereunder. [para 15] [946-D]
                                                               D
     2.5. State of Maharashtra has also enacted the Felling
of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964, The Bombay Forest Rules
1942, which deal with sandalwood as well.

    2.6. State of Madhya Pradesh has also enacted
Madhya Pradesh Revenue Code. States like Gujarat,              E
Orissa have framed special provisions for dealing with
sandalwood. [para 16] [946-F]

     3. Article 48A of the Constitution introduced by the
Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act 1976 states that the         F
State shall endeavour to protect and improve the
environment and safeguard the forest and wild life of the
country. Article 51 A(g) states that it shall be the duty of
every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife      G
and to have compassion for living creatures. By the same
constitutional amendment Entry 17A "forest" and 17B
"protection of wild animals and birds" were included in
List Ill - Concurrent List so that the Parliament as well as
the States can enact laws to give effect to the Directive      H
    930    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 1 S.C.R.

A Principles of State Policy as well as various international
  obligations. Earlier, by virtue of Entry 20 of the State List
  VII Schedule to the Constitution, namely protection of wild
  animals and birds, only the State had the power to
  legislate and Parliament had no power to make law in this
B regard applicable to the State unless the legislatures of
  two or more states passed a resolution in pursuance of
  Article 252 of the Constitution empowering the Parliament
  to pass necessary legislations on the subject. However,
  by virtue of (42nd Amendment) Act 1976 of the
c Constitution, the Parliament has got the power to legislate
  for the whole country. Consequently, the Wildlife
  (Protection Act) 1972 was enacted by the Parliament to
  provide for the protection to wild animals, birds and
  plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary
  or incidental thereto with a view to ensure the ecological
0
  and environmental security of the country. The Act was
  later amended and Chapter-lllA was inserted by Act 44 of
  1991 enacting provisions for the protection of "specified
  plants". [para 17] [946-G-H; 947-A-E]

E      4. Biological Diversity Act, 2002 was also enacted by
  the Parliament with the object of conserving biological
  diversity, sustainable use of its components and for fair
  and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of
  utilization of genetic resources. Biological diversity
F includes all the organisms found on our planet viz., the
  plants, animals and micro organisms. Environmental
  Protection Act, 1986 enacted by the Parliament empowers
  the Central Government under Section 3 to take such
  measures for the purpose of protecting and improving
G the quality of environment. The examination of all these
  legislations in the light of the constitutional provisions
  and various international conventions like Convention on
  International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
  and Flora 1973 (CITES), the Convention of Biological
H Diversity 1992 (CBD) evidently shows that there is a shift
  T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. UNION OF             931
                INDIA & ORS.

from environmental rights to ecological rights, though        A
gradual but substantial. Earlier, the Rio Declaration on
Earth Summit asserted the claim "human beings are the
centre of concern". U.N. Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED-1992), was also based on
anthropocentric ethics, same was the situation in respect     B
of many such international conventions, that followed.
[para 18] [947-F-H; 948-A-B]

     5. The public trust doctrine developed in *M.C. Mehta
vs. Kamalnath is also meant to ensure that all humans C
have equitable access to natural resources treating all
natural resources as property and not life. That principle
also has its roots in anthropocentric principle.
Precautionary principle and polluter-pays principles in
••vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India are
also based on anthropocentric principle since they also D
depend on harm to humans as a pre-requisite for
invoking those principles. The principle of sustainable
development and inter-generational equity too pre-
supposes the higher needs of humans and lays down
that exploitation of natural resources must be equitably E
distributed between the present and future generations.
Environmental ethics behind those principles were
human need and exploitation, but such principles have
no role to play while deciding the fate of an endangered
species or the need to protect the same irrespective of F
its instrumental value. [para 19) [948-C-F]

     *M.C. Mehta v. Kama/nath 1997 (1) SCC 388: 1996 (10)
Suppl. SCR 12; **Ve/lore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union
of India and others 1996 (5) SCC 647 : 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR    G
241 - relied on.

 • 6. Anthropocentrism considers humans to be the
most important factor and value in the universe and
states that humans have greater intrinsic value than other
species. Resultantly, any species that are of potential use   H
    932     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2012] 1 S.C.R.

A to humans can be a reserve to be exploited which leads
   to the point of extinction of biological reserves. Further,
   that principle highlights human obligations towards
   environment arising out of instrumental, educational,
   scientific, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values that
B forests has to offer to humans. Under this approach,
   environment is only protected as a consequence of and
   to the extent needed to protect human well being. On the
   other hand ecocentric approach to environment stress
  the moral imperatives to respect intrinsic value, inter
c dependence and integrity of all forms of life. Ecocentrism
  supports the protection of all life forms, not just those
  which are of value to humans or their needs and
   underlines the fact that humans are just one among the
  various life forms on earth. This principle had its roots in
  India, much before it was thought of in the Western world.
0
   Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi has also taught the
  same principle and all those concepts find their place in
  Article 51A(g) as well. The intrinsic value of the
  environment also finds a place in various international
  conventions like, Convention for Conservation of
E Antarctic Living Resources 1980, the Protocol to Antarctic
  Treaty on Environmental Protection 1998, the Bern
  Convention on Conservation of European Wildlife and
  Natural Habitats 1982, CITES, and CBD etc. India is a
  signatory to CBD, which also mandates the contracting
F parties to develop and maintain necessary legislation for
  protection and regulation of threatened species and also
  regulate trade therein. CITES in its preamble also
  indicates that Fauna and Flora are irreplaceable part of
  the natural environment of the earth and international
G cooperation is essential for the protection of certain
  species against over exploitation and international trade.
  CITES, to which India is a signatory, classifies species
  into different appendices in the order of their
  endangerment, and prescribes different modes of
H regulation in that regard. Parties to the CITES are also
  T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. UNION OF               933
                INDIA & ORS.

entitled to take (a) stricter domestic measures regarding      A
conditions of trade, taking possession or transport of
specimens of species included in Appendix-I, II and Ill, or
the complete prohibition thereof or; (b) domestic
measures restricting or prohibiting trade, taking
possession or transport of species not included in             B
Appendix I, II or Ill. Species listed in Appendix - II shall
include all species which although not necessarily now
threatened with extinction may become so unless trade
in specimens of such species is subject to strict
regulation in order to avoid utilization incompatible with     c
their survival and other species which must be subject
to regulation in order that trade in specimens of certain
species referred to earlier may be brought under effective
control. CITES and CBD highlight the principles:- The
State is bound to initiate measures to identify threatened
                                                               0
species. The State is obliged to initiate measures to
conserve and protect such threatened species. The State
is also required to formulate policies, legislation and
appropriate laws to curb those practices (including trade)
that result in extinction of species. The State is obliged
to undertake in-situ conservation of biological diversity      E
as it is not sufficient that a species is cultivated
elsewhere. It, ought to be protected in its natural habitat.
Indian sandalwood (Santalum album Linn) is not seen
included in the species listed in Appendix-II of CITES,
however red sandalwood (Pterocarpus Santalinus) is             F
seen included in Appendix-II. At the same time
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
which is an international organization dedicated to finding
pragmatic solutions of our most pressing environment
and development challenges has included Santalum               G
album Linn in its Red List of threatened species as
"vulnerable" and red sandalwood (Pterocarpus
Santalinus) in the Red List as "endangered". Therefore
both in CITES and in the IUCN Red List of threatened
 species red sandalwood is described as "threatened with       H
   934     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 1 S.C.R.

A extinction", "endangered". A tax on is critically
  endangered when the available evidence indicates that
  it meets with the criteria of extremely high risk of
  extinction. It is Endangered when it meets with the criteria
  of facing a very high risk of extinction. A taxon is
B vulnerable when it is considered to be facing a high risk
  of extinction. Near threatened, means a taxon is likely to
  qualify for a threatened category in the near future. [Paras
  20-23) [948-G-H; 949-A-B; 950-B-D; 951-A-H; 952-A-E]

       Environmental Ethics, Stanford Encyclopaedia of
C Philosophy 2002; Revised 2008 - referred to.

       7. Red sandalwood is a species of Pterocarpus
  native of India seen no where in the world. It is reported
  that the same is found only in South India, especially in
D Cuddapah and Chittoor in the States of Tamil Nadu and
  Andhra Pradesh border which is also known as Lal
  Chandan IRakta Chandan in Hindi which is an endemic
  and endangered species. Red sandalwood possesses
  medicinal properties viz., an anticoagulant, improves local
E circulation and used on traumatic wounds, aberrations
  and bruises. Since the trading is mostly in South India,
  especially in Andhra Pradesh (AP) it is stated that A.P.
  Forest Corporation has been appointed as an agent to
  Govt. of A.P. for disposal of red sandalwood available with
F Forest Department. Red Sanders is an endemic and
  endangered species found only in the State of A.P. A.P.
  Government has banned the sale of Red Sanders even
  by private parties, the wood is of huge demand in Japan,
  China and Western world and is very costly and it is
G included in the negative list of plant species for export
  purposes, implemented by the Directorate General of
  Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce, placing restrictions
  on international trade of Red Sanders. Large scale
  smuggling of Red Sanders is however reported from
  various quarters. In order to protect the species, a
H
  T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. UNION OF             935
                INDIA & ORS.

proposal was made by the State of A.P. to Government          A
of India for its inclusion in Schedule VI of the Act which
is justified. [Paras 24-25] [952-F-H; 953-A-C]

     8. CITES as well as IUCN has acknowledged that Red
Sandalwood is an endangered species. It is settled law 8
that the provisions of the Treaties/Conventions which are
not contrary to Municipal laws, be deemed to have been
incorporated in the domestic law. Following the
ecocentric principle, the Central Government is directed
to take appropriate steps under Section 61 of tile Act to C
include Red Sanders in Schedule-VI of the Act as
requested by the State of A.P., within a period of six
months from the date of this judgment. This direction is
given, since, it is reported that nowhere in the world, this
species is seen, except in India and it should be
safeguarded for posterity. Power is also vested with the D
Central Government to delete from the Schedule if the
situation improves, and a species is later found to be not
 endangered. [Para 26] [953-D-G]

     Jolly George v. Bank of Cochin (1980) 2 SCC 360 : 1980   E
(2) SCR 913; Gramaphone Company of India v. Birendra
Baldev Pandey (1984) 2 SCC 534 : 1984 (2) SCR 664 -
relied on.

      9. Sandalwood as such finds no place in CITES but
it is included in the Red List of IUCN as "vulnerable" and    F
hence call for serious attention by the Central
Government, considering the fact that all the sandalwood
growing states have stated that it faces extinction.
Section 61 of the Act empowers the Central Government
to add or delete any entry to or from any schedule if it is   G
known that it is expedient so to do. Section 5 deals with
the constitution of National Board for Wildlife (NBWL)
which is headed by the Prime Minister as Chairman.
Section SC deals with the functions of the NBWL which
states that it shall be the duty of the National Board to     H
    936     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 1 S.C.R.


 A promote the conservation and development of wildlife
     and forests by such measures as it thinks fit. Section
     5C(ii)(a) states that the measures may provide for
     '.lromoting policies and advising Central Government and
    State Governments on the ways and means of promoting
 B wildlife conservation and effectively controlling poaching
    and illegal trade of wildlife and its products and also for
    reviving from time to time the progress in the field of
    wildlife conservation in the country and suggesting
    measures for improvement thereto. Various other powers
c have also been conferred on the National Board which
    consists of experts in the field of environment. In such
    circumstances rather than giving a positive direction to
    include sandalwood in Schedule VI the Central
    Government is directed to examine the issue at length in
    consultation with NBWL and take a decision within a
0
    period of six months as to whether it is to be notified as
   a specific plant and be included in Schedule VI of the Act.
   The Central Government is also directed to formulate a
   policy for conservation of sandalwood including
   provision for financial reserves for such conservation and
E scientific research for sustainable use of biological
   diversity in sandalwood. Central Government would also
   formulate rules and regulations under Section 3 and 5 of
   Environmental Protection Act 1986 for effective
   monitoring, control and regulation of sandalwood
F industries and factories and that it should also formulate
   rules to ensure that no imported sandalwood is sold
   Lmder the name of Indian sandalwood and adequate
   labelling to this effect be mandated for products
   manufactured from or of import of sandalwood. States
G are directed to immediately close down all un-licensed
   sandalwood oil factories, if functioning and take effective
   measures for proper supervision and control of the
   existing licensed sandalwood oil factories in states. Time
   has also come to think of a legislation similar to the
H Endangered Species Act, enacted in the United States
  T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. UNION OF               937
                INDIA & ORS.

                                                               A
which protects both endangered species defined as
those "in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of their range" and "threatened
species", those likely to become endangered "within a
foreseeable time". The term species includes species
and sub-species of fish, wildlife and plants as well as        B
geographically distinct populations of vertebrate wildlife
 even though the species as a whole may not be
 endangered. [paras 27-29] [953-H; 954-A-H; 955-A-C]

                     Case Law Reference:                       c
    1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 12           relied on      Para 8
    1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 241           relied on      Para 8
     1980 (2) SCR 913                 relied on      Para 26
                                                               D
     1984 (2) SCR 664                 relied on      Para 26
    CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I. A. Nos. 1287, 1570-
1571, 1624-1625, 1978, 2395, 2795-2796

                                 IN                            E

     WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 202 OF 1995

     Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
                               WITH                            F
 I.A. Nos. 2470-2471, 2472-2473, 2474-2475, 2476-2477,
 2966-2967, in I.A. No.1287 in W.P.(C) 202 of 1995.

     Mohan Jain, ASG, P.S. Narasimha, Rajiv Dutta,
 Amarender Sharan, Basava Prabhu Patil, Gurukrishna Kumar,     G
 MG, D.K. Thakur, Prabhat Kumar, Karthik Ashok, Sheethal
 Menon, Namrata Bhatia, S.N. Terdal, Gaurav Agarwal, K.
 Parmeswar, Haris Beeran, P.K. Manohar, Bina Madhavan, M.P.
 Maharia, Sangeeta Kumar, Anitha Shenoy, T.N. Rao, Balraj
 Dewan, Aruputham Aruna & Co., Parekh & Co., M.N. Krishma,     H
     938       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 1 S.C.R.


 AN. Ganapathy, Ajay K. Dutta, S. Prasad, D. Bharathi Reddy,
  A. Subhashini, Tarjil Singh, Manjil Singh (for Kamal Mohan
  Gupta), Bishwajeet Dueby, Anushree Tripathi, Suresh A. Shroff
  & Co., A. Deb Kumar, Mudrika Bansal, Sukhbir Kaur Bajwa,
  Zafar Sadique, Anil Vyas, Balraj Dewan, Subramonium Prasad,
B Bipin Kalappa, Sumi! Goel, Rukhmini Bodbe (for Parekh &.
  Co.), K.R. Sasiprabhu, N.P. Maharia, G. Prakash Sanjay R.
  Hegde, T.V. George for the appearing parties.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C      K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. We are in this case
  concerned with the question whether sandalwood (Santa/um
  album Linn) stated to be an endangered species, be declared
  as a "specified plant" within the meaning of Section 2(27), and
  be included in the Schedule VI of The Wild Life (Protection) Act,
D 1972 (for short the Act). On going through the various
  international conventions, we thought ii appropriate to examine
  the repeated requests made by the State of Andhra Pradesh
  to the Central Govt. to notify Red Sanders (Pterocarpus
  santalinus) as a 'specified plant' and be included in the
E Schedule VI of the Act.

        2. A non-governmental organisation moved the Central
   Empowered Committee (CEC) to initiate steps for closure of
  all unlicensed sandalwood oil industries, particularly in the State
  of Kerala. CEC after conducting a detailed enquiry and hearing
F the state officials, representatives of the sandalwood industries
  and various other interested persons, submitted its report dated
  24th February 2005 before this Court praying that all unlicensed
  sandalwood oil industries be also brought within the purview
  of this Court's order dated 30.12.2002 by which this Court had
G ordered the closure of all unlicensed saw mills, veneer and
  plywood industries in the country. Various other directions were
  also sought for. Report of the CEC was listed along with IA 1287
  of 1995 which came up for hearing on 1.4.2005 and this Court
  issued notices to the States of Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu,
H Andhra Pradesh, which are the major sandalwood growing
   T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. UNION OF                     939
       INDIA & ORS. (K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

states of the country. This Court then passed an order on              A
10.2.2006 directing closure of all the unlicensed sandalwood
oil extracting factories, operating in various parts of the country.
Consequently, 24 unlicensed sandalwood oil factories
functioning in the State of Kerala were closed down.
                                                                   B
       3. The State of Kerala and few other states submitted their
reply to the reports submitted by the CEC and pointed out that
no private sandalwood oil extracting units are now functioning
in most of the sandalwood growing states but only the state
owned public sector undertakings. The Karnataka Soaps and C
Detergent Ltd., a Karnataka State owned undertaking also
submitted their views. MoEF also filed a detailed affidavit
before this Court stating that they have no objection in the
closure of all unlicensed sandalwood oil manufacturing factories
 in the country.
                                                                   D
       4. Indian Sandalwood Association got themselves
 impleaded and filed objections to the CEC Report. CEC later
 submitted three other reports dated 8.1.2008, 2.9.2009,
  15.11.2010. CEC in the reports took the stand that the
 sandalwood oil industries could be permitted to function outside E
 the sandalwood growing states and that import of sandalwood
 as such should not he banned. The Additional Principal Chief
 Conservator of Forests, Karnataka also submitted before the
  CEC that there are no matured sandalwood trees available in
 the State of Karnataka and the State has not approved any F
 felling of sandalwood trees due to non-availability. State of
 Tamil Nadu also stated before the CEC that no felling of
  sandalwood tree was officially undertaken due to want of
  matured trees. State of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh have
  also filed affidavits stating that whatever little sandalwood G
  growth was there in those states needs to be protected and
  that sandalwood species is under imminent threat. MoEF in its
  affidavit dated 24th October, 2010 has stated as follows:

      "The Ministry supports the contention that all illegal
      sandalwood oil units should be closed down. As far as            H
      940      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A           closing of sandalwood units in non-sandalwood growing
             States is concerned the Ministry has "No Objection" in
            allowing the legal private entrepreneur from setting up
            sandalwood oil units in non-sandalwood producing States
            provided that only legally sourced sandalwood for which
g           Certificate of Origin has been obtained, is used and the
            regulatory enforcement mechanisms, set up by the State
            for detection, control and action against proceedings of
            illegal units are well in place."

~         The CEC, however, in its report dated 2.9.2009
'"'   maintained the following stand:         ·

           "In the light of the facts highlighted above the CEC is unable
           to agree with the contention of the Applicants that they
           should be permitted to establish /continue the sandalwood
D          oil units in non-sandalwood producing States under
           appropriate supervision and regulations and that the
           imported sandalwood is a substitute for Indian
           sandalwood. The CEC is of the considered view that if the
           present state of affairs is allowed to continue, sandalwood,
E          so unique and a special gift· of nature to India would
           become extinct in the not too distant future. The protection
          of sandalwood forest is simply not possible without first
          ensuring that the establishment I functioning of sandalwood
          oil units are severely restricted I regulated in the country
          particularly when the sandalwood has become an almost
F
          extinct commodity. One is duty bound to protect in public
          interest whatever sandalwood forests are left. This is one
          instance where the public interest necessarily and
          unhesitatingly has to take precedence over private interest.
          However, sandalwood oil units, based exclusively on
G
          imported sandalwood may be permitted in identified
          locations subject to strict supervision and regulations by
          the Forest Department.

            5. MoEF however in its affidavit dated 24.3.2011 stated
H     that in the light of the non-availability of sandalwood, it would
  T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. UNION OF                  941
      INDIA & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

review its policy about permitting the export of sandalwood A
chips and oil, particularly, with reference to its adverse effect
on the production of sandalwood in the country and also would
examine the imposition of complete ban on sale/auction of
confiscated sandalwood in view of the alarming rate at which
sandalwood is disappearing and may become extinct in not too B
distant future.

     6. MoEF however in its latest affidavit dated 6.9.2011
expressed the apprehension that the inclusion of the
sandalwood species in Schedule VI in the Wild Life Protection C
Act, 1972 would alienate people from growing the species on
a large scale and hence it is of the view that an "All India
Sandalwood Legislation" would be an adequate solution, in the
event of which it was stated the species would be fully protected
within the country and at the same time trade could also be
regulated. Ministry has also expressed the view that D
sandalwood may be allotted to public sector units and that would
ensure that the artisans dealing with sandalwood would get raw
materials which would give them a greater impetus for taking
up their traditional work/skills and also give them an economic
boost as well as earn foreign revenue as sandalwood E
handicrafts have high demand for export.

     7. The Sandalwood Oil Manufacturers Association
expressed the apprehension that the inclusion of the
sandalwood as a specified plant under the Act would not be F
conducive and beneficial for the cultivation and preservation of
the trees. Reference was also made to the various provisions
of Chapter II IA of the Act and stated that the members of the
Association who have cultivation of sandalwood in the State of
Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and involved in the business of G
manufacturing products using sandalwood oil if covered by
Section 17A(b} would be put to considerable difficulties. The
Association also maintained the stand that if Chapter lllA of the
Act is fully implemented by declaring the sandalwood as a
 specified plant then it would adversely affect the interest of the H
    942      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2012] 1 S.C.R.


A   cultivators of sandalwood and would lead to further extinction
    of the species.

           8. We have heard the learned amicus curiae, Mr. P.S.
      Narasimha, Senior Counsel Mr. Rajiv Dutta, and other counsels
     at length. Learned amicus curiae referred to the affidavits filed
8
      by the MoEF and other state governments and submitted that
     there is consensus among all major sandalwood growing states
     and the Union of India that the export of sandalwood would be
     of serious threat and may lead to the extinction of the species.
     Few of the states have maintained the stand that no matured
C    sandalwood trees are available for felling which, according to
     the amicus curiae leads to the inescapable conclusion that
     Indian sandalwood is in fact endangered. Learned senior
     counsel highlighted the necessity of the inclusion of sandalwood
     in Schedule VI of the Act and submitted that the apprehension
D    expressed by the MoEF that it would discourage the cultivation
     of sandalwood has no basis. Learned senior counsel
     extensively referred to the provisions of Chapter lllA of Act and
     the provisions of Bio Diversity Act, and submitted that when we
     deal with the issue of an endangered species, the question to
E    be examined is not whether the species is of any instrumental
    value to human beings, but its intrinsic worth. Learned senior
     counsel extensively referred to the anthropocentric and
    ecocentric approach and submitted that anthropocentric
    approach would depend upon the instrumental value of life
F   forms to human beings while ecocentric approach stresses on
    the intrinsic value of all life forms. Learned senior counsel
    stressed that the bio-diversity law departs from the traditional
    anthropocentric character of environmental law and that our
    Constitution recognises ecocentric approach by obliging every
G   citizen to have compassion for all living creatures, so also the
    preamble to Act. Learned counsel also submitted that public
    trust doctrine developed in M.C. Mehta v. Kama/nath 1997 (1)
    sec 388 is based largely on anthropocentric principles and
    the precautionary and polluter-pay principle affirmed by this
H   Court in Ve/lore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and
  T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. UNION OF                    943
      INDIA & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

others 1996 (5) sec 647 are also rooted in anthropocentric           A
principle, since they too depend on harm to humans as a pre-
requisite for invocation of those principles.

      9. Learned senior counsel also highlighted the principle of
sustainable development and inter-generational equity and
                                                                     8
stated that they too pre-suppose the higher needs of human
beings and lays down that exploitation of natural resources must
be equitably distributed between the present and future
generation. Learned senior counsel also highlighted that the
above principle would be of no assistance when a Court is C
called upon to decide as to when a species has become
endangered, or the need to protect irrespective of its
instrumental value. Learned senior counsel pointed out the
CEC and the States of Tamil Nadu ana Kerala have produced
enough materials to show that the sandalwood trees are
critically endangered and that illegal felling and trade go on D
unabated and regulation on cultivation and use of sandalwood
would definitely be in public interest and therefore constitutional.
Further it was also pointed out that Chapter lllA altogether does
not prohibit or abolish either the cultivation, possession or
dealing in specified plants, but it merely regulates the cultivation E
and use of specified plants though a licensing system of the
Chief Wildlife Warden. He therefore urged that this Court must
 interpret Chapter lllA along with the constitutional provisions and
 international obligations in a holistic manner to ensure that the
 Central Government is duty bound to protect sandalwood by F
 including the same in Schedule VI of the Act.

    10. Learned senior counsel, Shri Raj iv Dutta also offered
his suggestion/comments on the question of notifying
sandalwood as a specified plant under Schedule VI of the Act.        G
The apprehension voiced by learned senior counsel was that
on such inclusion there would be blanket restrictions and
conditions covering big and small private cultivators, to farmers,
to menial vendors and hawkers who possess sandalwood and/
or any part of and/or any derivative of sandalwood in any            H
    944       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2012] 1 S.C.R.


A product that uses a part of or derivative of sandalwood.
  Learned senior counsel also pointed that they have no objection
  in the prohibition of picking and uprooting sandalwood tree from
  forest area or any area specified by notification by the Central
  Government but they are more concerned with the applicability
B of Section 17A(b). Further it was pointed that once it is notified
  as a specified plant, Section 178 would be attracted that would
  only discourage the trade leading to the stoppage of many of
  the sandalwood oil industries in the country. Learned senior
  counsel also referred to Sections 17C, 17D, 17E, 17F and
c other relevant provisions and highlighted the difficulties that they
  would experience if sandalwood is declared as a specified
  plant. Learned senior counsel also pointed out that they have
  no objection in imposing proper regulation in the trade of
  sandalwood and all lnaia legislation is a better option.
D       11. We have heard the arguments of learned senior
  counsel appearing on either sides and perused the affidavits
  filed by various state governments, MoEF and the reports of
  the CEC and other relevant materials. Sandalwood is an
  evergreen tree which generally grows in the dry, deciduous
E forests of the Deccan Plateau. Sandalwood is also mentioned
  in one of the oldest epics, the Ramayana. Descriptions are also
  made by Kalidasa of its use in his literary works as well. In short,
  it is part of Indian culture and heritage and its fragrance has
  spread not only in India but also abroad and its rich oil content
F led to its large scale exploitation as well. Exploitation of this rare
  endangered species went on unabatedly, especially in the
  southern states of India and on intervention of this Court, the
  State of Kerala has closed down 24 unlicensed sandalwood
  oil factories. Similar steps were being taken by other states as
G well. Before we refer to various contentions raised by counsel
  on either sides, we will refer to some of the legislative measures
  taken by some of the states, which are as under:

    State of Kerala:

H         12. In State of Kerala best quality sandalwood trees are
  T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. UNION OF                    945
      INDIA & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

grown in the forest of Marayoor, spread over 93 Sq.Km which A
generate the best quality sandalwood oil in the world. Recently,
the Kerala Forest (Amendment) Act, 2010 introduced a new
chapter, Chapter 6A entitled "Provisions relating to
sandalwood" which regulates cutting and possession of
sandalwood. Section 47A provides that no individual shall cut, B
uproot, remove or sell any sandalwood tree without previous
permission in writing from the forest officer. There is also
absolute prohibition on transport and possession of sandalwood
or sandalwood oil in excess of one Kilogram or 100 ml
 respectively without a license from the forest officer under c
 Section 47C of the Act. Under Section 47C(3) only the
 government or the public sector undertakings (PSU) owned by
 the government shall manufacture or distil, refine or sell
 sandalwood oil. Section 47F imposes restrictions on purchase
 and sale of sandalwood from any person other than government
                                                                 0
 or authorised officer. Provision is also there for seizure of
 sandalwood and its oil under Section 47H and penalty for
 offences can be imposed. Act also provides for imprisonment
 for three years, extendable upto seven years and fine not less
 than Rs.10,000/- extendable upto Rs.25,000/-.
                                                                     E
State of Tamil Nadu

      13. Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 - Section 40G of the
Act provides that teak, blackwood, ebony, sandalwood and
also ivory and teeth of elephants, either grown or found on          F
government land or private property are royalties and no trade
shall be carried on in them unless they have been duly obtained
from the government. Section 40G(2) places restrictions on
felling of trees by any person without the permission of the Chief
Conservator of Forest or any other person authorised by him.         G
The state of Tamil Nadu has also enacted the Tamil Nadu
Sandalwood Possession Rules, 1970 and also Tamil Nadu
Sandalwood Transit Rules, 1967, and the Act also provides for
imposing penalties and imprisonment.

                                                                     H
    946      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 1 S.C.R.

A State of Karnataka

       14. Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the Rules made
  thereunder have removed the restrictions on growing
  sandalwood trees in private lands. Section 83 of the Act
  provides that where a person is an owner of sandalwood trees
8
  before the commencement of 2001 Amendment Act, he shall
  not fell or sell such sandalwood tree or convert or dress
  sandalwood obtained from such tree or possess or store or
  transport or sell the sandalwood except in accordance with the
C provisions of the Act. The Act also provides for imposition of
  penalty and imprisonment.

    State of Andhra Pradesh

        15. A.P. Forest Act, 1967, A.P. Sandalwood Possession
0 Rules,   1969, A.P. Sandalwood and Red Sanderswood Transit
  Rules, 1969 generally deal with the possession, control and
  transit of sandalwood and Red Sanders etc., but there is no
  restriction as such on the felling of sandalwood trees. The Act
  also provides for punishment for contravention of the provisions
E of the Act or the rules made thereunder.

        16. State of Maharashtra has also enacted the FeHing of
  Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964, The Bombay Forest Rules 1942,
  which deal with sandalwood as well. State of Madhya Pradesh
  has also enacted Madhya Pradesh Revenue Code. States like
F Gujarat, Orissa have framed special provisions for dealing with
  sandalwood. It is unnecessary to refer to the laws made by the
  various states in the country, suffice to say lack of uniform
  legislation, dealing with this endangered species, is clearly felt.

G      17. Article 48A of the Constitution introduced by the
  Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act 1976 states that the State
  shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and
  safeguard the forest and wild life of the country. Article 51A(g)
  states that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect
H and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes,
  T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. UNION OF                     947
      INDIA & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.      A
By the same constitutional amendment Entry 17A "forest" and
17B "protection of wild animals and birds" were included in List
II I - Concurrent List so that the Parliament as well as the States
can enact laws to give effect to the Directive Principles of State
Policy as well as various international obligations. Earlier, by      B
virtue of Entry 20 of the State List VII Schedule to the
Constitution, namely protection of wild animals and birds, only
the State had the power to legislate and Parliament had no
power to make law in this regard applicable to the State unless
the legislatures of two or more states passed a resolution in         C
pursuance of Article 252 of the Constitution empowering the
Parliament to pass necessary legislations on the subject.
However, by virtue of (42nd Amendment) Act 1976 of the
Constitution, the Parliament has got the power to legislate for
the whole country. Consequently, The Wildlife (Protection Act)
                                                                      0
 1972 was enacted by the Parliament to provide for the
protection to wild animals, birds and plants and for matters
 connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto with a view
to ensure the ecological and environmental security of the
 country. The Act was later amended and Chapter-lllA was
 inserted by Act 44 of 1991 enacting provisions for the protection    E
 of "specified plants".

     18. Biological Diversity Act, 2002 was also enacted by the
Parliament with the object of conserving biological diversity,
sustainable use of its components and for fair and equitable          F
sharing of the benefits arising out of utilization of genetic
resources. Biological diversity includes all the organisms found
on our planet viz., the plants, animals and micro organisms.
Environmental Protection Act, 1986 enacted by the Parliament
empowers the Central Government under Section 3 to take               G
such measures for the purpose of protecting and improving the
quality of environment. When we examine all those legislations
in the light of the constitutional provisions and various
international conventions like Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 1973 (CITES),
                                                                      H
    948      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A the Convention of Biological Diversity 1992 (CBD) evidently,
  there is a shift from environmental rights to ecological rights,
  though gradual but substantial. Earlier, the Rio Declaration on
  Earth Summit asserted the claim "human beings are the centre
  of concern". U.N. Conference on Environment and
B Development {UNCED-1992), was also based on
  anthropocentric ethics, same was the situation in respect of
  many such international conventions, that followed.

        19. The public trust doctrine developed in M. C. Mehta vs.
  Kamalnath (1997) 1 sec 388, is also meant to ensure that
C all humans have equitable access to natural resources treating
  all natural resources as property and not life. That principle also
  has its roots in anthropocentric principle. Precautionary
  principle and polluter-pays principles affirmed by our Court in
    Ve/lore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India and Others
D (supra) are also based on anthropocentric principle since they
  also depend on harm to humans as a pre-requisite for invoking
  those principles. The principle of sustainable development and
  inter-generational equity too pre-supposes the higher needs of
  humans and lays down that exploitation of natural resources
E must be equitably distributed between the present and future
  generations. Environmental ethics behind those principles were
  human need and exploitation, but such principles have no role
  to play when we are called upon to decide the fate of an
  endangered species or the need to protect the same
F irrespective of its instrumental value.

       20. Anthropocentrism considers humans to be the most
  important factor and value in the universe and states that
  humans have greater intrinsic value than other species.
  Resultantly, any species that are of potential use to humans can
G be a reserve to be exploited which leads to the point of
  extinction of biological reserves. Further, that principle highlights
  human obligations towards environment arising out of
  instrumental, educational, scientific, cultural, recreational and
  aesthetic values that forests has to offer to humans. Under this
H
  T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. UNION OF                  949
      INDIA & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)

approach, environment is only protected as a consequence of A
and to the extent needed to protect human well being. On the
other hand ecocentric approach to environment stress the moral
imperatives to respect intrinsic value, inter dependence and
integrity of all forms of life. Ecocentrism supports the protection
of all life forms, not just those which are of value to humans or B
their needs and underlines the fact that humans are just one
among the various life forms on earth. (See Environmental
Ethics, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy 2002; Revised
2008.) The same book also gives a clear distinction between
instrumental value and intrinsic value which reads as follows:-  c
            "In the literature on environmental ethics the
    distinction between instrumental value and intrinsic value
    (meaning "non-instrumental value") has been of
    considerable importance. The former is the value of things
    as means to further some other ends; they are also useful D
    as means to other ends. For instance, certain fruits have
    instrumental value for bats who feed on them, since
    feeding on the fruits is a means to survival for the bats.
    However, it is not widely agreed that fruits have value as
    ends in themselves. We can likewise think of a person who E
    teaches others as having instrumental value for those who
    want to acquire knowledge. Yet, in addition to any such
    value, it is normally said that a person, as a person, has
    intrinsic value, i.e., value in his or her own right
    independently for his or her prospects for serving the ends F
    of others. For another example, a certain wild plant may
    have instrument.' value because it provides the ingredients
    for some medicint! or as an aesthetic object for human
    observers. But if the plant also has some value in itself
    independently of its prospects for furthering some otfier G
    ends such as human health or the pleasure from aesthetic
    experience, then the plant also has intrinsic value. Because
    the intrinsically valuable is that which is good as an end in
    itself, it commonly agreed that something's possession of
     intrinsic value generates a prima facie direct moral duty H
    950       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A         on the part of morel agents to protect it or at least refrain
          from damaging it."

         Above principle had its roots in India, much before it was
    thought of in the Western world. lsha-Upanishads (as early as
    1500 - 600 B.C) taught us the following truth:-
8
          "The universe along with its creatures belongs to the Lord.
          No creature is superior to any other. Human beings should
          not be above nature. Let no one species encroach over
          the rights and privileges of other species."
c
          21. Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi has also taught
    us the same principle and all those concepts find their place in
    Article 51A(g) as well. The intrinsic value of the environment as
    we have already indicated also finds a place in various
0   international conventions like, Convention for Conservation of
    Antarctic Living Resources 1980, The Protocol to Antarctic
    Treaty on Environmental Protection 1998, The Bern Convention
    on Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
    1982, CITES, and CBD etc.
E         CBD in its preamble states as follows:-

          "The Contracting Parties,

          Conscious of the intrinsic value of biological and of the
          ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific,
F
          educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of
          biological diversity and its components.

          Conscious also of the importance of biological diversity for
          evolution and for maintaining life sustaining systems of the
G         biosphere.

        Affirming that the conservation of biological diversity is a
        common concern of humankind."

        India is a signatory to CBD, which also mandates the
H
  T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. UNION OF                   951
      INDIA & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)

contracting parties to develop and maintain necessary               A
legislation for protection and regulation of threatened species
and also regulate trade therein. CITES in its preamble also
indicates that Fauna and Flora are irreplaceable part of the
natural environment of the earth and international cooperation
is essential for the protection of certain species against over     B
exploitation and international trade.

     22. CITES, to which India is a signatory, classifies species
into different appendices in the order of their endangerment,
and prescribes different modes of regulation in that regard.
                                                                    c
      23. Parties to the CITES are also entitled to take (a) stricter
domestic measures regarding conditions of trade, taking
possession or transport of specimens of species included in
Appendix-I, II and Ill, or the complete prohibition thereof or; (b)
domestic measures restricting or prohibiting trade, taking D
possession or transport of species not included in Appendix I,
II or Ill. As indicated earlier species listed in Appendix- II shall
include all species which although not necessarily now
threatened with extinction may become so unless trade in
specimens of such species is subject to strict regulation in . E
order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival and
other species which must be subject to regulation in order that
trade in specimens of certain species referred to earlier may
be brought under effective control.

     CITES and CBD highlight the following principles:-
                                                                        F

     (a) The State is bound to initiate measures to identify
     threatened species.

      (b) The State is obliged to initiate measures to conserve     G
      and protect such threatened species.

      (c) The State is also required to formulate policies,
      legislation and appropriate laws to curb those practices
      (including trade) that result in extinction of species.
                                                                        H
     952       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 1 S.C.R.


 A         (d) The State is obliged to undertake in-situ conservation
           of biological diversity as it is not sufficient that a species
           is cultivated elsewhere. It, ought to be protected in its
           natural habitat.

    Indian sandalwood (Santa/um album Linn) is not seen included
8
    in the species listed in Appendix-II of CITES, however red
    sandalwood (Pterocarpus Santalinus) is seen included in
   Appendix-II. At the same time International Union for
   Conservation of Nature (IUCN) which is an international
C organization dedicated to finding pragmatic solutions of our
   most pressing enviro1,ment and development challenges has
   included Santa/um album Linn in its Red List of threatened
   species as "vulnerable" and red sandalwood (Pterocarpus
   Santalinus) in the Red List as "endangered". Therefore both
   in CITES and in the IUCN Red List of threatened species red
D sandalwood is described as "threatened with extinction",
  "endangered". A !axon is critically endangered when the
  available evidence indicates that it meets with the criteria of
  extremely high risk of extinction. It is Endangered when it meets
  with the criteria of facing a very high risk of extinction. A taxon
E is vulnerable v1hen it is considered to be facing a high risk of
  extinction. Near threatened, means a !axon is likely to qualify
  for a threatened category in the near future.

        24. Red sandalwood is a species of Pterocarpus native
F of India seen no where in the world. It is reported that the same
   is found only in South India, especially in Cuddapah and
  Chittoor in the States of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh
  border which is also known as Lal Chandan /Rakta Chandan
  in Hindi which is an endemic and endangered species. Red
G sandalwood possesses medicinal properties viz .. an
  anticoagulant, improves local circulation and used on traumatic
  wounds, aberrations and bruises. Since the trading is mostly
  in South India, especially in Andhra Pradesh (AP) it is stated
  that A.P. Forest Corporation has been appointed as an agent
  to Govt. of A.P. for disposal of red sandalwood available with
H Fores! Department.
  T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. UNION OF                   953
      INDIA & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

     25. Red Sanders is an endemic and endangered species A
as already mentioned, found only in the State of A.P. A.P.
Government has banned the sale of Red Sanders even by
private parties, the wood is of huge demand in Japan, China
and Western world and is very costly and it is included in the
negative list of plant species for export purposes, implemented B
by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of
Commerce, placing restrictions on international trade of Red
Sanders. Large scale smuggling of Red Sanders is however
reported from various quarters. In order to protect the species,
a proposal was made by the State of A.P. to Government of           c
India for its inclusion in Schedule VI of the Act which, in our view,
is justified.

     26. CITES as well as IUCN has acknowledged that Red
Sandalwood is an endangered species. It is settled law that the
provisions of the Treaties/Conventions which are not contrary D
to Municipal laws, be deemed to have been incorporated in the
domestic law. Ref. Ve/lore Citizens (Supra), Jolly George vs.
Bank of Cochin (1980) 2 SCC 360, Gramaphone Company
of India vs. Birendra Baldev Pandey (1984) 2 SCC 534.
 Under the above mentioned circumstances, following the E
 ecocentric principle, we are inclined to give a direction to the
 Central Government to take appropriate steps under Section
 61 of the Act to include Red Sanders in Schedule-VI of the
 Act as requested by the State of A.P., within a period of six
 months from the date of this judgment. We are giving this F
 direction, since, it is reported that nowhere in the world, this
 species is seen, except in India and we owe an obligation to
 world, to safeguard this endangered species, for posterity.
 Power is also vested with the Central Government to delete from
 the Schedule if the situation improves, and a species is later G
 found to be not endangered.

      27. Sandalwood as such we have already indicated finds
 no place in CITES but it is included in the Red List of IUCN as
 "vulnerable" and hence call for serious attention by the Central   H
     954      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 1 S.C.R.


 A  Government, considering the fact that all the sandalwood
   growing states have stated that it faces extinction. Section 61
    of the Act empowers the Central Government to add or delete
   any entry to or from any schedule if it is known that it is expedient
   so to do. Section 5 deals with the constitution of National Board
B for Wildlife (NBWL) which is headed by the Prime Minister as
   Chairman. Section 5C deals with the functions of the NBWL
   which states that it shall be the duty of the National Board to
   promote the conservation and development of wildlife and
   forests by such measures as it thinks fit. Section 5C(ii)(a)
c  states that the measures may provide for promoting policies
   and advising Central Government and State Governments on
   the ways and means of promoting wildlife conservation and
  effectively controlling poaching and illegal trade of wildlife and
  its products and also for reviving from time to time the progress
  in the field of wildlife conservation in the country and suggesting
0
  measures for improvement thereto. Various other powers have
  also been conferred on the National Board which consists of
  experts in the field of environment. In such circumstances
  rather than giving a positive direction to include sandalwood
  in Schedule VI we are inclined to give a direction to the
E Central Government to examine the issue at length in
  consultation with NBWL and take a decision within a period
  of six months from today as to whether it is to be notified as a
  specific plant and be included in Schedule VI of the Act.

F      28. We are also inclined to give a direction to the Central
  Government to formulate a policy for conservation of
  sandalwood including provision for financial reserves for such
  conservation and scientific research for sustainable use of
  biological diversity in sandalwood. Central Government would
G also formulate rules and regulations under Section 3 and 5 of
  Environmental Protection Act 1986 for effective monitoring,
  control and regulation of sandalwood industries and factories
  and that it should also formulate rules to ensure that no imported
  sandalwood is sold under the name of Indian sandalwood and
H adequate labelling to this effect be mandated for products
  T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. UNION OF                    955
      INDIA & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

manufactured from or of import of sandalwood. States are             A
directed to immediately close down all un-licensed sandalwood
oil factories, if functioning and take effe-::tive measures for
proper supervision and control of the existing licensed
sandalwood oil factories in states.
                                                                     B
    29. We are also of the view that time has also come to
think of a legislation similar to the Endangered Species Act,
enacted in the United States which protects both endangered
species defined as those "in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of their range" and "threatened species",   C
those likely to become endangered "within a foreseeable time".
The term species includes species and sub-species of fish,
wildlife and plants as well as geographically distinct populations
of vertebrate wildlife even though the species as a whole may
not be endangered. We hope the Parliament would bestow
serious attention in this regard. With the above directions, all     D
the applications are disposed of.

D.G.                    Interlocutory Applications disposed of.