In a landmark development aimed at safeguarding India’s environmental governance framework, the Supreme Court has held that the Union of India cannot disband the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) without obtaining prior approval from the Court. The directive was issued on 22 November 2025 in the long-running forest conservation matter, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, one of the most influential continuing mandamus cases in Indian environmental jurisprudence.
This judgment reinforces the critical role of the CEC as the Court’s fact-finding and monitoring arm in environmental matters and clarifies its institutional position even after the establishment of statutory bodies like the National Green Tribunal (NGT).
Background: The T.N. Godavarman Litigation
The Godavarman case (initiated in 1995) is widely regarded as the cornerstone of India’s forest governance regime. Over the last three decades, it has produced hundreds of orders concerning forest conservation, protected areas, and environmental monitoring.
To assist the Court in this mammoth task, the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was created in 1997, functioning as a specialised body for:
- Independent fact-finding
- Conducting spot inspections
- Reporting environmental violations
- Recommending corrective measures
- Assisting in real-time judicial monitoring
In 2023, the CEC received statutory recognition through a notification issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, strengthening its legal foundation.
Despite this, a communication from the Cabinet Secretariat had suggested reconsidering the Committee’s continued functioning in light of the NGT’s role — prompting concerns of dilution or disbandment.
The Supreme Court’s Directions
A bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran firmly held that the CEC cannot be dissolved unilaterally by the Central Government.
The Court emphasised:
“The CEC is an institution that directly assists this Court in environmental matters under the direction and supervision of this Court… Without the assistance provided by the CEC, including spot inspections and reports, this Court could not have passed the series of environmental orders it has been passing for almost three decades.”
Key Directions Issued:
- Union of India shall not take any steps to disband the CEC without prior approval of the Supreme Court.
- MoEF&CC must depute an officer to serve as Secretary of the CEC.
- The post of Secretary must not be allowed to remain vacant.
- The application concerning staffing and continuation of the CEC stands disposed of with these directives.
Why the Court Reiterated the CEC’s Importance
The Court highlighted several crucial aspects:
1. Real-time monitoring
The CEC conducts on-ground inspections, enabling the Court to verify environmental violations and respond promptly.
2. Independence in fact-finding
Its reports are neutral, expert-based, and independent — essential for determining the truth in highly technical environmental disputes.
3. Legacy of environmental protection
For almost 28 years, CEC’s recommendations have influenced:
- Compensatory afforestation
- Wildlife protection plans
- Forest diversion clearances
- Mining regulations
- Illegal construction scrutiny
4. Complementary—not competing—role with NGT
The Court acknowledged the NGT’s technical and judicial expertise but clarified that CEC serves a different purpose, directly aiding the Supreme Court in supervisory roles under Godavarman.
Bench’s Observations on NGT vs CEC
The Court noted:
- NGT plays an adjudicatory role under the National Green Tribunal Act.
- CEC is directly accountable to the Supreme Court and assists in the Court’s own monitoring.
- The existence of one does not automatically dilute the relevance of the other.
Thus, any attempt by the government to dissolve the CEC without judicial oversight would undermine the Court’s long-standing environmental supervision.
Legal Significance of This Order
1. Reinforces judicial environmental governance
The order safeguards one of the most influential institutions in India’s environmental framework.
2. Prevents unilateral executive action
By requiring prior Court approval, the decision acts as a constitutional check on the executive.
3. Strengthens the independence of environmental monitoring bodies
The Supreme Court ensures that fact-finding institutions are not weakened due to administrative restructuring.
4. Clarifies coexistence of statutory and court-created bodies
It settles doubts on whether NGT’s jurisdiction displaces CEC’s functions.
Implications for Future Environmental Cases
This direction ensures that:
- Forest diversion proposals
- Mining approvals
- Illegal encroachment issues
- Violation of environmental norms
- Large-scale infrastructure assessments
…will continue to receive independent scrutiny through the CEC.
States and Union Territories, already bound by earlier Godavarman directives, must continue to comply with CEC guidelines and assist in its functioning.
Administrative Direction to MoEF&CC
To prevent bureaucratic delay or administrative vacuum, the Court directed MoEF&CC to:
- Immediately appoint a Secretary
- Ensure the position is never left vacant
- Provide necessary administrative support
This move aims to ensure smooth functioning and avoid operational paralysis.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s latest direction in the Godavarman matter is a decisive reaffirmation of the Central Empowered Committee’s central role in India’s environmental governance.
By prohibiting the Union from disbanding the CEC without judicial approval, the Court has sent a clear message: environmental oversight cannot be weakened through administrative decisions, especially in matters involving forests, biodiversity, and ecological balance.
As India continues to pursue rapid development, the coexistence of robust environmental institutions like the CEC and NGT is essential for ensuring that sustainable development does not merely remain a constitutional ideal but becomes an enforceable reality.
Also Read
