New Delhi: Calling the Supreme Court’s recent order to put in abeyance its own November 20 verdict accepting a new uniform definition of the Aravallis “most necessary and welcome,” senior Congress leader and former Union environment minister Jairam Ramesh said there were three other environmental issues that the apex court must take up suo motu, as it did in the case of the Aravallis.In a post on social media platform X on Tuesday (December 30), Ramesh said that the apex court should reject the proposal to redraw the boundaries of Sariska Tiger Reserve — a move that would “enable the opening of around 57 closed mines”. On August 5 this year, citizens and environmental organisations moved a petition in the court raising numerous concerns about how the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) had approved the Rajasthan government’s proposal to increase the Critical Tiger Habitat of the Sariska Tiger Reserve from 881 sq km to 924 sq km, and reduce buffer zone area from 245 sq km to 203 sq km. This, they said, could pave the way to restart the operations of around 50 marble and dolomite mines, which used to operate before, but were stopped by an order by the Supreme Court in 2024. The top court heard the matter on August 6 and came down heavily on both the National Tiger Conservation Authority and the Standing Committee of the NBWL, flagging the haste with which the approval was given.Also read: Supreme Court Stays Own Order, Directs New Committee to Be Formed to Survey AravallisThe Times of India reported that in September this year, the court ordered that the proposal to redraw the boundaries of the tiger reserve must undergo public consultation before any final decisions are made. Objections regarding both the critical tiger habitat and the sanctuary would be solicited, the court had held.The second issue that the court must look into, Ramesh said, is to review its verdict to permit retrospective environmental approvals. On November 18 this year, the Supreme Court had “opened the door for a review of its own earlier verdict” of May 16 that barred retrospective environmental approvals. In January 2024, the Supreme Court had stayed two Union government orders of July 2021 and January 2022 granting ex-post facto environmental clearance for projects across sectors without prior environmental approval mandated under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification of 2006. In May this year, the court had held that the grant of ex-post facto or retrospective environmental clearances by the Union government was a “gross illegality”. But in another verdict in November this year, the same court overrode this verdict, saying that not granting retrospective environmental clearances would be ‘a waste of money’ and a problem for several public projects across the country.“Such approvals go against the very foundations of jurisprudence and make a mockery of governance. The review was uncalled for. Retrospective approvals should NEVER be permitted. Laws, regulations, and rules are, quite often, deliberately by-passed in the confidence that the decision-making process can be managed even after project implementation starts,” Ramesh said in his December 30 social media post.The Constitutional Conduct Group, a group of former civil service officers, had highlighted this in its open letter to the Chief Justice of India on December 28.The third issue that the Court must look into is to strengthen the powers of the National Green Tribunal, Ramesh said in his social media post.“The National Green Tribunal (NGT) was set up in Oct 2010 by an Act of Parliament after detailed consultations with the Supreme Court and with its full support and backing. Its powers have been thoroughly diluted over the past decade. The Supreme Court’s intervention is now essential to ensure that the NGT is allowed to function as per law without fear or favour,” Ramesh noted.For instance, in 2017, the Union government under Narendra Modi passed the Finance Act 2017, bringing in major changes in the appointment procedures for chairpersons and members of tribunals including the NGT. Activists and environmental lawyers have said that this would affect the ‘independence and effectiveness’ of the NGT.