NEW DELHI, MAY 2: Ending the logjam that was created after the Supreme Court last year said it would vet all the clearances for development-related work on forest land after being cleared by Forest Advisory Committee (FAC), the apex court on Friday reconstituted the committee.

This move effectively means that all large-scale transfers of forest land, once cleared by FAC, would directly go to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) rather than facing judicial scrutiny.

Accepting the names of experts suggested by Solicitor General (SG) GE Vahanvati, a special Bench headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan agreed to reconstitute the FAC. The question concerning who shall constitute FAC, an expert body that permits allocation/diversion of forest land for developmental works, has been pending since 2007 before the court, as it had gained the upper hand in its apparent row with the MoEF.

Referring to the verbal duel entered into by the Additional Solicitor General (ASG), who was then representing the Union Government, Harish Salve, amicus curiae in the forest-related matter, said the issue had “a very sorry start”.

In response to the stay ordered by the court on December 15, 2006, after the MoEF doubted the credentials of the people whose names were proposed by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and amicus curiae, the ASG had even questioned the powers of the court to decide such matters.

The amicus curiae, who had then offered to resign, on Friday expressed “gratitude” to the SG who was brought in place of the ASG for arriving at an agreeable solution. The names suggested by the SG — Prof Madhav Gadgil, an eminent environmentalist, Dr Ulhas Karanth, a leading tiger expert who recently won Paul Getty award for conservation, and Mahesh Rangarajan, another wildlife historian — were accepted by the bench.

The CEC last year had suggested names of Pranay Waghray, Belinda Wright, Bittu Sehgal, Shyam Chainani, PK Manohar and Claude Alvares. But MoEF proposed the names of JS Singh, AS Dogra and M Kamal Naidu and maintained that if CEC insisted on these names, they should be subject to an oral examination.