When injunction is the norm and not an exception....

The Southern Bench of the National Green Tribunal in a matter relating to a plea to grant stay the celebration of Mahashivarathri at the foothills of the Velliangiri hills located at the elephant corridor. The petitioner believed that lakhs will attend the celebrations disturbing the peaceful existence of wild animals in the area leading to an increase in man-animal conflict in the region. It is indeed surprising that the Tribunal failed to grant a stay of the celebrations even on the preliminary assessment of facts that the venue for conducting the celebrations was indeed within an eco-sensitive region and that there are several petitions against the Isha Foundation pending before various judicial courts in this matter filed every year when the celebrations are due. The plea by the counsel for Isha Foundation that the High Court is seized of the matter and that requisite permissions were already obtained sounds hollow and does not hold water. There is no gainsaying that every year political bigwigs from the ruling party attend the celebrations giving the Foundation much needed publicity. It is therefore, not surprising that there is not a single order against the erring Isha Foundation and the plight of tribals have been sidelined to please the so-called God Man. So, is this dereliction of duty on the part of the National Green Tribunal subsequent to political pressure to connive the illegal activities of the Foundation? It is not clear as to why the lock and seal notice issued against the Foundation not acted upon since 2012, despite state government taking corrective measures against the Foundation. Why was no injunction granted against the construction of 112 feet idol of Lord Shiva on wetlands presumably owned by the Foundation? How did the Foundation even obtain title over land in reserved forest and hill areas? Courts cannot gloss over permissions obtained but examine whether such permissions were within the law and legally appropriate under laws relating to environment protection and forest land use and conversion? Who were the authorities who granted permission for such unhindered construction near the foothills of Velliangiri? What kind of permissions were given to the Foundation? If posed a question, I am sure Lord Shiva himself would favour the poor tribals who have been granted pattas, over Isha Foundation and its founder. Is the Foundation being protected by the ruling party due to its Hindutva agenda while it overlooks the impact of such unrestrained construction activity in an eco-sensitive area despite protests by tribals and poor people who depend on forests for their livelihood. It is sad that the court was not moved by the plight of the petitioner named Muthamma, a poor tribal woman who sought its intervention? Does it also mean that all those petitioners against the Foundation were unable to establish a prima facie case for injunction against the Foundation and that all petitions against the Foundation did not bear merit for the courts to intervene? Courts must also endeavour to establish the fact as to who supports the Foundation with muscle and money against the genuine grievance of indigenous communities living around the region.