MoEF goes to High Court against landmark RTI judgement.

The Economic Times: New Delhi: Thursday, May 10, 2012.

A standoff between the MoEF and NAC member and conservation biologist Madhav Gadgil which resulted in a landmark RTI judgement from the Central Information Commission (CIC) has now landed in the High Court. Gadgil, who is an NAC member, had been a part of a Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

In an open letter currently being circulated on discussion groups, Gadgil has said the panel's mandate was "to assess the current status of ecology of the Western Ghats region, to demarcate areas within the Western Ghats Region which need to be notified as ecologically sensitive and to recommend for notification of such areas as ecologically sensitive zones under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and to make recommendations for the conservation, protection and rejuvenation of the Western Ghats Region following a comprehensive consultation process involving people and Governments of all the concerned States."

This report, he says, was submitted to the Ministry on 30th, August, 2011. And then, he says, "We were told that it will be released at a public function on 21 September 2011. On 19 September 2011 we were informed that the report is not going to be made public for the present, and that we should not release it or discuss it publicly."

A couple of days later, G Krishnan, a resuident of Ernakulam, filed an RTI request seeking the "Summary of the report submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests by the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel under the chairmanship of Professor Madhav Gadgil and their report on the Athirappilly HEP (Hydro-Electric Project), Kerala."

In response, the MoEF refused permission saying: "MOEF is still in the process of examining the report of WGEEP in consultation with six state governments of the Western Ghats region. The report is not final and a draft under consideration of MOEF and thus not complete/ready for disclosure under the RTI Act." And it told the Appellant to file his RTI application again at a later date after completion of the process. And then, the matter landed before the CIC.

In its defence, the ministry argued that "scientific or economic interests of the State" would be prejudicially affected on disclosure of the information at this stage. According to the ministry, premature release of the report could lead to demands/proposals for declaration of ecologically sensitive areas under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 ("EPA"). The PIO further stated that views from 11 ministries, the Planning Commission and six states were being sought.

Therefore, disclosure of information at this stage would lead to various proposals as per the recommendations of the report -- which had not been finally accepted. This would affect the economic interests of the state. The PIO submitted that MOEF intended to put the report in public domain once the policy was finalized.