Introduction:

In the case of Angels Nair v. The Principal Secretary and Others (WA 2179 of 2023), the Kerala High Court recently addressed critical issues surrounding environmental conservation and the misuse of protected forest areas for non-forest purposes. The appellant, Angels Nair, the General Secretary of Animal Legal Force Integration, raised serious environmental concerns against a government order that permitted the shooting of commercial films and TV serials in forests, national parks, and wildlife sanctuaries in Kerala. His writ appeal challenged the validity of a government order dated March 30, 2013 (G.O. (MS) No. 37/2013/F&WLD), which allegedly contravened the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The allegations involved serious damage to wildlife reserves following a commercial film shoot, including environmental degradation through soil dumping, unauthorized road construction, and littering of non-biodegradable waste. The State and Centre contended that permissions were duly granted for filming, and the Single Bench had already reviewed the matter with appropriate directions. The High Court’s Division Bench, however, declared the 2013 order void for lacking the force of law, emphasizing statutory compliance under the Wildlife Protection Act. It directed the State to issue fresh instructions, while leaving room for legal challenges if future policies permit such activities.

Arguments by the Appellant:

The appellant, Angels Nair, who heads an environmental NGO, contended that the Kerala government’s G.O. issued in 2013 permitting commercial film and TV serial shooting in forest areas including national parks and wildlife sanctuaries was in complete contravention of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. He alleged gross environmental violations following the shooting of a commercial movie inside a protected forest. Nair claimed that the production team used foreign red soil to mimic the Chhattisgarh desert, severely damaging the native flora and fauna. The soil was allegedly dumped across large areas, destroying the natural biodiversity. He further submitted that an illegal road was constructed without requisite forest clearance, and significant waste like plastics, glass bottles, thermocol, and wooden planks were found scattered post-shoot, endangering both the forest ecosystem and wildlife. The debris was reportedly cleared only after his intervention through the judiciary. The appellant emphasized that the entire exercise of allowing film shooting in ecologically sensitive forest zones amounted to a blatant misuse of protected areas, contrary to the law and without any statutory safeguards. He argued that the 2013 government order lacked the authority of law and had created a precedent for similar ecological abuse. Nair further alleged that while permissions were indeed granted, they were not supported by law and hence violated the mandatory provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. He urged the Court to nullify the G.O. and enforce stricter scrutiny in granting any such permissions in the future. Furthermore, he argued that mere procedural compliance (obtaining administrative permission) could not justify damage to ecologically fragile areas, especially when such permissions were rooted in a government order devoid of statutory backing.

Arguments by the Respondents:

The respondents, which included the Principal Secretary and other senior state officials, defended the G.O. stating that the permission for shooting was duly granted following due process. They contended that the film shoot took place within the legal framework and under supervision. They further submitted that the claims made by the petitioner were exaggerated, and necessary remedial measures were taken once the issues were flagged. The respondents also emphasized that the 2013 G.O. had been in place for years and was routinely used to regulate filming activities without prior adverse implications. They stated that the permissions were granted keeping in mind both ecological safety and cultural promotion through cinema. Additionally, they argued that the Single Judge had already directed the concerned authorities to conduct a fact-based inquiry and initiate appropriate actions, which were already underway. As such, they sought the dismissal of the writ appeal, asserting that no further orders were necessary as the matter had already been adequately addressed. They also argued that the shooting was temporary and did not amount to a permanent alteration of forest land, thereby staying within permissible limits of forest use.

Court’s Judgement:

The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, took a firm stance in favor of environmental protection and strict statutory adherence. The Court held that the Kerala Government’s 2013 order permitting commercial filming in protected forest areas had no force of law. It categorically ruled that such an executive order, which enables commercial activities in ecologically sensitive areas such as wildlife sanctuaries, national parks, and tiger reserves, could not supersede or dilute the express provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Court noted that the statutory scheme under the 1972 Act clearly restricts non-forest activities within forest zones unless permitted by express law or policy framed under parliamentary mandate. The judges further observed that while the Single Judge had taken due cognizance of environmental damage and directed a central investigation, the broader issue was the validity of the executive order itself. By declaring the 2013 G.O. null and void for lacking legislative backing, the Court underscored that state governments must not permit commercial or non-forest activities in protected areas merely by way of executive notification. The bench directed the State Government to issue fresh instructions to its forest officers within four weeks to ensure that such filming permissions are not granted in contravention of statutory norms. The Court also kept the door open for future legal scrutiny by stating that if any new policy or amendment is introduced to allow filming in protected areas, its constitutional and legal validity could be challenged. While disposing of the appeal, the Court acknowledged that some of the issues raised by the petitioner had already been addressed through action initiated by forest authorities, and no further directions on that front were needed. However, the declaration regarding the invalidity of the government order had far-reaching consequences, ensuring that executive convenience does not compromise environmental statutes. Ultimately, the Kerala High Court’s decision was a significant affirmation of the primacy of statutory environmental safeguards over administrative convenience or commercial interests. It also set a precedent that any activity in protected forest zones must derive legitimacy from law and not merely government notifications, even if such activities were common practice for years.