A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia on Wednesday sought a response from the government in four weeks’ time.The Delhi High Court on Wednesday pulled up the Centre for “treating every statutory body as an extension of the government’s arm” while hearing a petition by former bureaucrats and others, flagging that the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife (SC-NBWL) has been constituted in contravention of statutory provisions and has been “stamp-approving” proposals at an “alarming” rate.The PIL, filed by 10 people, including retired Indian Forest Service and IAS officers, wildlife conservationists, and a non-voluntary organisation working in conservation, has flagged that the SC-NBWL “has been recklessly permitting proposals for diversion of Protected Areas” with over 97% of the project proposals considered by the SC-NBWL between 2014 and 2026 receiving approval.A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia on Wednesday sought a response from the government in four weeks’ time.Addressing the counsel representing the government, CJ Upadhyaya orally remarked during the hearing, “…If what the (petitioners’ lawyer) says is correct…see the composition of the Board… highest level functionaries of the country are members, and if the (Wildlife Act provisions) says Standing committee will be constituted by the Board, not the government, can’t you differentiate simply between a statutory board and the functions of the government?”He said, “Board is an entity distinct and separate from the government entity; it cannot act as a government department. There is a tendency (by the government)…treating every statutory body as an extension of the government’s arm. That is not the scheme of this Act. There is a purpose behind creating such an autonomous independent statutory body or a board or commission…you cannot usurp every power. It is alarming…” According to the petitioners, the statutory requirements for constituting the committee, which is expected to be an independent body, has not been complied with since the government changed at the Centre in 2014. The petitioners also highlighted that the committee, which has a mandate to promote conservation and develop wildlife, has been taking decisions and passing orders that are “beyond its mandate and jurisdiction under the Act and are completely contrary to the ethos and rationale behind the formation of the Committee.”The PIL also highlighted that the SC-NBWL has approved various projects, “prioritising economic benefits over long-term environmental impacts”.Story continues below this adThe petitioners cited that the SC-NBWL, reconstituted in 2026, in its very first meeting held on March 21 this year, considered 52 proposals. Of these, 28 were cleared, which is “a poor reflection of the functioning of the SC-NBWL, which should be ensuring that the last remaining Protected Areas of the country are free from all sources of destruction and fragmentation,” they added.Prime Minister Narendra Modi serves as the ex-officio chair of NBWL, the Board constituted under the Wildlife Act. More than 10 years after assuming office, PM Modi chaired his first-ever meeting of the NBWL in March this year. Apart from denotifying protected areas and eco-sensitive zones, as well as permitting petrochemical and mining projects in such areas, the standing committee, in just 12 meetings held between 2024 and 2026, “has recommended 187 proposals for establishing mobile towers in Protected Areas,” the petitioners have alleged.Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court Professional Profile Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express. Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare). Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others. She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020. With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025) Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles: High-Profile Case Coverage She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots. She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy. Signature Style Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system. X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read MoreStay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on InstagramTags:delhi high courtNational Board of Wildlife