Author:- Deekanshu sheel 1st year student at Chankaya university
Introduction
The Dol Ka Badh dispute in Jaipur epitomizes the collision between rapid urban expansion and the inalienable human right to a healthy environment. Over 100 acres of urban forest—referred to as the city’s “green lungs”—face diversion for a fintech park, shopping mall, and residential complexes promoted by the Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO). This conflict has ignited fierce resistance from local residents, environmentalists, and political opponents, who allege multiple violations of national statutes, constitutional fundamental rights, and international environmental law. The controversy underscores critical questions: Can economic growth justify the destruction of urban green cover? Have statutory procedures under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FCA), Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA), Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA), and relevant constitutional mandates been duly followed? Does the State owe an unqualified duty to safeguard cultural heritage and community rights enshrined in Articles 21, 48-A, and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India?
Constitutional and Fundamental Rights Protections
Under the Indian Constitution, Article 21 guarantees the right to life, expansively interpreted to include the right to a clean, healthful environment. Landmark judgments such as Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (1988) and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) have held that environmental degradation violates Article 21, imposing positive obligations on the State to prevent pollution and ecological harm. Article 48-A, a Directive Principle, directs State policy toward the protection and improvement of the environment and forests, while Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty on citizens to protect the natural environment. Together, these provisions create a constitutional ecosystem in which economic development must be balanced against environmental stewardship and public health.
Statutory Authorities and Forest Conservation Regimes
The Indian Forest Act classifies forests into Reserved, Protected, and Village categories. Section 2 defines “forest” broadly, capturing all lands recorded as forests. Section 26 prohibits felling, clearing, or conversion of Reserved Forest land without official sanction, prescribing penalties for unauthorized acts. Dol Ka Badh’s classification under state records triggers the Act’s full protective ambit.
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
Enacted to curb deforestation, the FCA mandates prior central government approval for any “non-forest” use of forest land, including dereservation or diversion for commercial projects. Section 2 obliges State Governments to forward all diversion proposals to the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), and Section 3 establishes an Advisory Committee to scrutinize applications. The Forest Conservation Rules, 2003 prescribe detailed procedural timelines, site inspection by Forest Advisory Committees, and stringent compensatory afforestation obligations—planting double the number of trees uprooted, in degraded non-forest areas.
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
The FRA 2006 recognizes individual and community rights of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and traditional forest dwellers. Section 3(1) enumerates rights including habitation, self-cultivation, access to forest produce, and community privileges such as nistar and grazing. Section 6 mandates a three-tier recognition process via Gram Sabhas, Sub-Divisional Committees, and District Committees, ensuring participatory governance and free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). Bypassing FRA procedures in Dol Ka Badh risks nullifying entrenched rights of local communities under this Act.
Environmental Impact Assessment and Public Participation
Under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and successive EIA Notifications (1994, 2006, 2009, 2014), any large-scale development on forest land requires: (a) scoping to identify environmental parameters; (b) public notices in local languages; (c) public hearings enabling stakeholders to voice objections; and (d) final environmental clearance contingent on mitigation measures. Critically, the 2006 EIA Notification integrates FRA stipulations, requiring Gram Sabha recommendations before granting clearance for projects affecting forest rights holders. Reports indicate RIICO failed to conduct genuine hearings or secure Gram Sabha consent, undermining procedural legitimacy.
Judicial Precedents on Forest and Environmental Human Rights
The Supreme Court of India has, over the decades, progressively affirmed that environmental protection is intrinsic to fundamental human rights. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the Court explicitly recognized that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses the right to pollution-free air and water, thereby establishing environmental quality as a constitutional guarantee. Five years earlier, in Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995), it reinforced this principle by holding that ecological balance and a pollution-free environment are integral to citizens’ fundamental rights. Building on these foundations, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996) broadened the legal definition of “forest” to include all green cover, mandating a comprehensive nationwide audit of forest clearance and expanding judicial oversight over executive forest‐conservation decisions. In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), the Court enshrined the “Precautionary Principle” and the “Polluter Pays Principle” as indispensable tenets of sustainable development, directing that those responsible for environmental harm must bear the costs of remediation. More recently, in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2021), the Court extended Article 21’s protections to include safeguards against the adverse effects of climate change, recognizing the right to a stable climate as integral to the right to life. The landmark Niyamgiri judgment (2013) further cemented community rights by holding that tribal Gram Sabhas must grant Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) under the Forest Rights Act, thus affirming local autonomy over resource use. Collectively, these precedents mandate that any proposal to divert forest land must rigorously satisfy constitutional mandates, statutory requirements, and procedural safeguards, ensuring that environmental governance upholds both ecological integrity and human dignity.
International Conventions and Commitments
India’s evolving environmental jurisprudence is profoundly informed by international norms that underscore the right to a healthy environment and participatory decision-making. The Stockholm Declaration of 1972 first enshrined environmental protection as a human right, setting a global precedent for linking ecological health with human welfare. Two decades later, the Rio Declaration (1992)—notably Principle 10—affirmed citizens’ rights to access environmental information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters, principles that India incorporated into domestic legislation and EIA procedures. Although India is not a party to the Aarhus Convention (1998), its core tenets of transparency and participation have influenced Indian EIA and environmental‐information laws, promoting broader stakeholder engagement. More recently, the Escazú Agreement (2022), which sets a new benchmark for environmental democracy in Latin America, offers a model of best practices—such as legal protections for environmental defenders and enforceable public-participation mechanisms—that India could emulate to strengthen local governance and accountability in forest conservation. These international instruments reinforce India’s procedural obligations and bolster arguments for enhanced transparency, community empowerment, and access to justice in disputes like Dol Ka Badh.
Government Notifications and Regulatory Instruments
A suite of national notifications and regulatory instruments further governs forest diversion, compensatory afforestation, and environmental compliance. The Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016, along with its 2018 Rules, established National and State Compensatory Afforestation Funds (CAMPAs) into which project proponents must deposit the Net Present Value (NPV) of diverted forest lands as well as penal afforestation levies; these funds, overseen by third-party auditors, finance restoration projects on degraded lands. The Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023, introduced digital portals for streamlined FCA applications, imposed stricter timelines for state forest departments to respond, and enhanced compensatory afforestation multipliers to ensure that ecological losses are more than offset. Meanwhile, the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023, seeks to expedite clearances for strategic and border-area projects but has sparked concern over diminished scrutiny and expanded central override powers. In the context of Dol Ka Badh, compliance with these mandates requires meticulous calculation of NPV, transparent fund deposits into Rajasthan’s CAMPA, and rigorous monitoring of afforestation outcomes by independent auditors, thereby ensuring that any diversion of forest land adheres to both statutory and ecological imperatives.
Human Rights Dimensions and Cultural Impacts
Dol Ka Badh’s roughly 2,500 mature trees perform indispensable ecological services—mitigating Jaipur’s urban heat island, filtering airborne particulates, and recharging groundwater—thereby underpinning residents’ right to health, life, and well-being as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and affirmed in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. However, procedural lapses—namely, the absence of genuine public hearings, inadequate dissemination of project notices in local media, and lack of Sanganer Gram Sabha endorsement—have undermined the Rights of Access to Information and Public Participation (RAIO) principles, denying communities informed consent and meaningful participation. Reports of clandestine nighttime tree-felling, intimidation tactics, and arrests of peaceful protesters not only violate the constitutional right of assembly but also contravene the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (1998), criminalizing legitimate environmental advocacy. Moreover, Dol Ka Badh constitutes a living repository of intangible cultural heritage—anchoring local customs, religious festivities, and oral histories—protections enshrined by UNESCO’s 2003 Convention and India’s guarantee of cultural rights. Ecologically, the forest sustains over sixty bird species, supports small mammals, and nurtures pollinators vital to urban and peri-urban agriculture; its removal would fragment habitats, elevate urban temperatures, depress groundwater tables, and imperil the livelihoods of low-income households dependent on borewells and nearby farms.
Recommendations for Equitable Resolution and Sustainable Development
To redress these human rights violations and safeguard ecological integrity, authorities must first impose an immediate moratorium on all tree-felling under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, until every statutory approval and Gram Sabha consent mandated by the Forest Rights Act, 2006, is duly obtained. An inclusive environmental scoping process should be launched under the 2014 EIA Notification, complete with Gram Sabha hearings in Hindi and local Rajasthani dialects per FRA Section 6(1)(e), to secure free, prior, and informed consent. Proposed commercial developments—a fintech park, a mall, and residential complexes—should be relocated to degraded or non-forest government lands in strict adherence to the FCA’s minimal diversion principle, thereby minimizing ecological harm. Dol Ka Badh itself should receive robust legal protection, either as a Biodiversity Heritage Site under Section 37 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, or as an Urban Green Reserve via municipal bylaws. Any compensatory afforestation must involve transparent deposit of Net Present Value payments and penal levies into Rajasthan’s CAMPA fund, followed by native-species planting on identified degraded sites, with independent civil-society organizations and third-party auditors monitoring outcomes. Judicial oversight must be strengthened through petitions to the National Green Tribunal to enforce Godavarman directives and supervise compliance, alongside encouragement of Public Interest Litigation by affected residents. Finally, to uphold the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, law enforcement must cease arbitrary arrests and intimidation of environmental activists, and a police–community liaison mechanism should be established to ensure peaceful protest and protect defenders’ rights. These measures will harmonize urban growth with environmental justice, affirm constitutional and international obligations, and preserve Jaipur’s vital green lung for future generations.
Conclusion
The Dol Ka Badh dispute brings into sharp relief the interdependence of environmental protection, human rights and sustainable urban development. At its heart is the simple proposition that a healthy environment—embodied by the 100 acres of mature trees in Dol Ka Badh—is indispensable to the right to life and well-being enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Equally vital is the guarantee of meaningful public participation and access to information, without which procedural legitimacy collapses and local communities are denied their voice. The pattern of clandestine tree-felling, intimidation of activists and disregard for Gram Sabha endorsement not only violates domestic statutes such as the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the Forest Rights Act, 2006, but also runs counter to international norms on environmental democracy and the protection of human rights defenders.Beyond legal compliance, protecting Dol Ka Badh is a matter of preserving invaluable ecosystem services—heat mitigation, air purification, groundwater recharge—and safeguarding the cultural heritage of Sanganer’s residents. It sustains biodiversity, supports pollinators crucial to peri-urban agriculture and underpins the livelihoods of vulnerable households. The recommended moratorium on tree-felling, rigorous participatory EIA processes, relocation of development to non-forest lands, statutory designation as a biodiversity or urban green reserve, transparent compensatory afforestation and strengthened judicial oversight together chart a path toward reconciliation between growth and protection. Crucially, they re-center the rights and wisdom of local communities, ensuring that development proposals respect the principles of free, prior and informed consent and the polluter-pays and precautionary doctrines.In sum, the resolution of the Dol Ka Badh conflict demands more than ad hoc compromise: it requires a systemic commitment to environmental justice that honors constitutional mandates, statutory safeguards and international best practices. By upholding procedural rigor, empowering Gram Sabhas, enforcing legal protections and affirming the human right to a healthy environment, Rajasthan can transform this flashpoint into a model of sustainable urban governance—one in which economic progress advances hand in hand with ecological integrity and the inalienable rights of all citizens.
