Discuss the role of the Central Empowered Committee in enforcing Supreme Court directions on environmental protection, with reference to the Kaziranga mining case.

Constituted by the Supreme Court in the T.N. Godavarman case and later notified as a permanent body under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 [1], the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) is the Court's chief instrument for monitoring its forest and wildlife orders. The Kaziranga mining case illustrates both its reach and its limits.

How the CEC enforces judicial directions

• Acts as the operational arm of the Court's continuing mandamus in forest cases, converting broad orders into monitorable obligations.
• Conducts independent field verification on complaints and applications, insulating fact-finding from the executive being scrutinised.
• Fixes compliance timelines and reporting duties on named officials, and reports default back to the Court.
• Provides citizens and activists an accessible forum, widening environmental accountability beyond formal litigants.

The Kaziranga mining case

• The Court's 2019 order barred mining along Kaziranga's southern boundary and in the Karbi Anglong catchments feeding the park — a UNESCO World Heritage Site and the world's largest one-horned rhino stronghold [2].
• Acting on a complaint (Application No. 1592 of 2024), the CEC's May 2025 report found mining had continued in the Parkup Pahar Range, and recommended an immediate halt, no fresh leases, and full implementation by the Assam Chief Secretary and DGP [3].
• It sought a Watershed Drainage Analysis Report by October 2025; an RTI reply confirmed non-receipt, prompting the CEC to pull up the State for inaction [3].

Limitations exposed

• The CEC is recommendatory, with no enforcement machinery of its own; outcomes hinge on State compliance.
• Default surfaced only through a citizen's RTI, not proactive disclosure — a transparency gap.
• Simultaneous moves to shrink Kaziranga's eco-sensitive zone sit uneasily with the Court's 2022 direction, which set 1 km as a minimum, not a ceiling [4].

The CEC has proved indispensable as the judiciary's eyes on the ground, yet oversight without enforcement teeth invites delay. Statutory backing for time-bound compliance, published quarterly reports, and accountability of designated officers would let the CEC fully realise the Article 48A mandate of protecting forests and wildlife.