Justice Khanwilkar orally stated Tuesday that the environment must prevail over all other rights
Justice Khanwilkar orally stated Tuesday that the environment must prevail over all other rights
In just four days, the Supreme Court has offered divergent opinions on whether the preservation of the environment should be a secondary concern when other rights are at risk.
Justice Indira Banerjee ruled that industrial units, which provide livelihood for many thousands of workers and contribute to the nation’s economy, should not be closed down because they have not received prior environmental clearance. This case involved a Haryana unit that employed 8,000 workers, but had not received prior environmental clearance.
Justice Banerjee stated that the absence of prior environmental clearance was a “procedural error”. “The court cannot be blind to the economy or the need for protection of the livelihood of hundreds and others employed in this project and those dependent on it, if such projects comply to environmental norms,” he stated.
Forest cover resurgence
On Tuesday, however, Justice Khanwilkar, the Bench, decided in favor of the environment. Justice Khanwilkar said orally that the environment must be respected more than any other rights. It was the courts’ constant vigil that had led to a revival of forest cover. Forests need to be protected. Forest must be preserved. It is only through the strict interpretations and expositions by this court that forest cover is increasing, he stated.
Through public interest litigation pleas, the Supreme Court has been at the heart of the development of environmental law in the nation. Its rulings have interconnected the survival of mankind and the survival environment by holding that the rights to life include the right to a healthy environment. It raised awareness among the public, legislature, and executive by pointing out that clean air was an attribute of a dignified lifestyle.
In its verdicts, the court has adopted principles of international law. These include inter-generational equitable, which states that the State has an obligation to preserve the environment for future generations.
The polluter pays principle is again in force. This principle requires that the polluter not only pay the victims of pollution, but also repair any damage to the environment.
The court brought in the public trust doctrine, stating that the State was only a trustee keeping the wealth safe for its ultimate beneficiary, which was the public. The principle of sustainable growth is a crucial check against uncontrolled expansion.
