Case Details:
Subject: Certiorari (Related to Devghat Forest Conservation) 
Writ No: 2346 
Decision No:6127 
Decision Date: 2053-01-17 
Division bench: Hon. Chief Justice Surendra Prasad Singh and Hon. Justice Narendra  Bahadur Neupane  

Background of the case:
In this case concerning the protection of the environment and sustainable development, the Supreme Court sublimed the environmental jurisprudence and upheld its activist  role defending the significance of the Directive Principle enshrined in part IV, Article  24 of the Constitution, 1990. It held that despite the non-enforceability of the Directive  Principles and State Policies enshrined in the constitution, the court can allude to any  decision of the government made in disregard of the directive principles and the  policies.  

Facts of the Case:
The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 2047, Part 4 includes Directive Principles  and State Policies. The Article 26(3) and 26(4) contain the directive that state shall  pursue a policy of mobilizing the natural resources and heritage of the country in a  manner which might be useful and beneficial to the interest of the nation and state to  give priority to the protection of the environment and also to the prevention of its further  damage due to physical development activities and the state to make arrangements for  the protection of the rare wildlife, the forests and the vegetation. 

In this case, the writ petitioners prayed for the annulment of the act of the government  to provide about 42 bighas of land to the International Society for Medical Education  to build a College of Medical Science in the Devghat Area of Chitwan District. 

They argued that the land, provided to the Medical College under a 49-year lease  agreement, is culturally very rich, and the clearing of forests for the construction of the  college could lead to deforestation, and the dolphins in the Narayani River could  become extinct due to the clearing of forests.  

Questions to be discussed: 

1. Do the petitioners have the locus standi to file the petition or not?
2. Should the order be issued as per the petitioner’s demand or not?

Decision of the Court:

The petitioners have filed a writ petition under Article 88(2) of the Constitution of  Nepal, 1990, concerning the lease of 42 bighas of land in the jungle north of Narayan  Ghat Bazaar in Chitwan District to the International Society for Medical College by the  late His Majesty’s government. 

According to Article 88(2), the Supreme Court has the extraordinary authority to issue  necessary and appropriate orders for the determination of any constitutional or legal  question involved in a public or legal dispute and to ensure the enforcement of such  rights or resolve the dispute. 

In the context of writ petition number 1851 filed by Balkrishna vs. the late His  Majesty’s government, the special bench has elaborated that natural national resources  are the collective property of all citizens of the country. From various perspectives,  including economic development and environmental protection, there is significant  concern among citizens regarding these resources. This interpretation suggests that,  concerning environmental protection and locations of archaeological significance, the  petitioners' concerns are regarded as being of public interest and thus have locus standi. 

The court also held that the government appeared to have violated the provisions of the  Forest Act, 2049 Section (68) which stipulates that the government may, to launch any  national priority project and in cases where there is no alternative, grant permission to  utilize any forest on conditions that the project should not produce "significant effect"  on the environment. 

When making decisions on matters of national importance, the government must ensure  that decisions are made in line with the constitution and laws, keeping national interests  in mind. Although the court cannot enforce the Directive Principles and Policies of the  State as provided by the constitution, if the government makes decisions contrary to  these principles and policies, it is possible to point out such deviations. 

The preservation and protection of objects and heritage of archaeological significance  are the government's primary responsibilities. If we do not protect ancient artifacts, we  risk forgetting our country's ancient civilization and culture. In places with religious  significance that contain archaeological artifacts, if a medical college is constructed  without proper excavation, it cannot be guaranteed that the ancient temples and artifacts  will not be destroyed. 

In the decision to lease the land in the Devghat area, which is surrounded by forest and  holds natural, religious, and archaeological significance, to the International Society for  Medical College, the late His Majesty’s government has not provided specific reasons  or justifications for granting this land.  

As a result, the decision dated 2050/11/16 by the late His Majesty’s government is  deemed arbitrary. Therefore, the decision to allocate 42 bighas of land in Narayan Ghat, north of Bharatpur in Chitwan, to the International Society for Medical College is halted  by certiorari order of the court. 

Conclusion: 

The Supreme Court in Yogi Narahari Nath v Honorable Prime Minister Girija Prasad  Koirala requested that the government specifically take responsibility for the protection  and maintenance of an environmentally and archaeologically significant place because  “if such archaeological or ancient heritage is not protected, we may forget our ancient  civilization and culture.” The Supreme Court's decision was influenced by Nepal's  obligations under the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (WHC), under which  Nepal has pledged to conserve its national heritage in its entirety, 

In this landmark case, the Court highlighted the principle of sustainable development  by highlighting the government's obligation to balance developmental activities with  the preservation of the environment, cultural heritage, and biodiversity. It  acknowledged that environmental conservation is a fundamental aspect of life, and any  damage to natural resources directly affects human beings and other species.