Should States have the final say in demarcating Ecologically Sensitive Areas? Discuss in the light of cooperative federalism.

The Union notifies Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs) under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 [2]. Yet the Western Ghats ESA has gone through successive drafts since 2014 without a final notification [4]. In October 2026 the Keralam Assembly unanimously passed a resolution asking the Centre to accept its revised proposal [1], which revives the question. States deserve a decisive voice, but not a final veto.

Case for a stronger State say

• Constitutional domain: land, agriculture and local government are on the State List (Entries 18, 14, 5). Forests are on the Concurrent List (Entry 17A).
• Mapping flaws: the Kasturirangan HLWG took the village as the unit. A whole village became ESA if ≥20% of it was ecologically sensitive [3], which pulls homes and farms inside the ESA.
• Legitimacy: cross-party resolutions like Keralam's [1] show what settlers on the ground fear. A boundary imposed without consent leads to non-compliance and lawsuits.

Case against a State veto

• Shared ecosystem: the Ghats cross six States. Exclusions granted one State at a time break up a single ecological unit. Repeated State objections have already stalled finalisation [4].
• Disaster risk: the GSI report on the 2024 Mundakkai–Chooralmala (Wayanad) landslide found that sustained rain triggered it and that plantations lay in the affected zone [5]. Leaving plantations out of the ESA could leave vulnerable slopes unprotected.
• Short-term pressures: quarry and real-estate lobbies act locally. Central oversight upholds Article 48A and Article 51A(g).

Cooperative-federal middle path

• Joint ground-truthing: Centre–State teams should verify disputed villages survey number by survey number and publish public maps.
• Shared forum: the MoEFCC expert committee should keep State members. States themselves have sought early notification [6].
• Bottom-up consent: gram sabhas should be consulted under the 73rd Amendment before quarries are allowed in ESA villages.
• Risk-based test: every request to exclude an area should be checked against GSI landslide data [5].

Centre (EPA, 1986) ⇄ States (land records) ⇄ Gram sabhas (consent)
            ↘ Joint survey + GSI risk data ↙
                 Final ESA notification

Fig: Cooperative demarcation model

Neither Centre-only rule nor a State veto works for an ecosystem that crosses State borders. The better path is co-decision: the Union sets ecological standards, while States and gram sabhas check boundaries on the ground. This fits the cooperative federalism of the Sarkaria Commission and serves SDG 15 (Life on Land), so that the Ghats are protected and people's livelihoods are not ignored.