INTRODUCTION
The environment is a natural gift to human beings; everyone has the right to access it, and similarly, it is our responsibility to save the environment. The recent change in the environment and climate change is continuously alarming us, to protect nature and adopt the laws and policies that protect the environment, the responsibility is on the state as well to safeguard the environment as well as ensure citizens are living in a safe environment guaranteed under article 21 The Constitution states that the right to life includes the right to health and a clean and secure environment. As humans have fundamental rights, ‘biocentrism’ also states that nature should have fundamental rights like to “survive, exist, persist and regenerate”. So, the environment is not considered a subject to protect but has rights of its own. In the current scenario, a shift from an anthropocentric approach to an ecocentric approach is needed and the responsibility of the state to safeguard the environment is mentioned in the Constitution which was highlighted in the latest Judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This blog discusses the highlights given by the court further.
UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF THE STATE HIGHLIGHTED BY THE COURT
The Constitution has undergone an amendment that is 42nd amendment in the year 1976, after signing the Stockholm Declaration, where articles 48A and 51A(g) were inserted. Article 48A states that the Protection and improvement of the environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife: The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.
Article 51A(g) states that to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.
Hence, it is the fundamental duty of the state to safeguard and protect nature. So the state should take proper measures, steps and adequate measures to safeguard the environment and health of the citizens. The state should ensure this and fulfil the duty. The right to life in a healthy, cleaner and safe environment under article 21, only gets fulfilled when there is a safe and proper environment guaranteed by the state. Lately, the Supreme Court has stressed serious environmental issues and the state’s role and duty to protect the environment and change policies regarding the environment is concerned.
UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF FOREST CONSERVATION
Forest conservation is important as they keep the planet cool and hydrated. The existing laws on forest conservation should be even more strict towards the conservation of Forests because the State Government can convert the conserved forest to commercial purposes, which will deteriorate the forest lands and completely decrease the natural resources for future generations. This would also displace the local community people who have been primarily dependent on forest land and resources for their living since their ancestral period. Because of the increase in deforestation, it is evident that a huge loss is caused to the planet and narrowing the count of forest lands in the country. These forests are home to many wildlife species and humans don’t have any right to destroy the forests, displace the local community and use it for commercial purposes. The government also has the power to declare a forest as a reserved forest, which means it is completely reserved and not used for any purpose, it also doesn’t allow the local community to access the resources and use them. It is solely for forest purposes and this should be protected and the government should safeguard it. The forest lands can be taken only when it is a last resort and no other option is available, except under those situations the forest lands cannot be disturbed.
In the case, The State Of Telangana vs Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per Lrs. The Supreme Court had decided on the contemporary issue of the environment and this judgment should be considered necessary regarding the state’s responsibility and change in the approach.
Facts
In the year 1960, the state of Andhra Pradesh surveyed forest land and the plaintiff’s land was also considered forest land, but the plaintiff objected that it was not forest land and he was the owner of the land, subsequently got an order from the court that he’s the owner and a permanent injunction that state should not enter into his possession. In 2018 court found that the land is forest land as the plaintiff failed to show the title deeds, subsequently in the year 2019 court found that the land which is a protected forest land reversed its stance stating that the survey conducted in 1959 was improper. Based on this the plaintiff has filed a review before the High Court, which is to be filed when there’s an error in the judgment, again in 2021 High Court reversed its decision regarding the land based on an improperly conducted survey. The matter was filed before the Supreme Court which found that the officers and the High Court had acted without jurisdiction and acted against the protections granted to the forests that is by reversing.
The Issues are
- Whether the land in dispute is forest land or private land.
- Whether the state is responsible for safeguarding the forest lands guaranteed under the Constitution
- Whether there is a need to shift from an anthropogenic approach to an ecocentric approach.
Analysis
The court has decided that the state is responsible for safeguarding the environment, according to Article 48A the state should improve and safeguard the forests as well and Article 51A(g) it’s the duty of every citizen to protect the natural environment including the forest and other, if these two are protected the right to life guaranteed under article 21 is protected. Parts III and IV of the constitution are considered as two wheels of the chariot. The court highlighted the importance of forests in human life because they take carbon dioxide and release oxygen which is essential for human beings. The Court has stated that “forests are selfless and render motherly service they not only provide for and facilitate sustenance of life but also continue to protect and foster it, but still humans continue to destroy them”, by destroying these forests we are destroying the habitat of the local community, their right to life as well as right to equality guaranteed under article 14. Similarly, the wildlife and the ecosystem are also affected if the forests are destroyed. Humans do not have any right to restrict a specific group from enjoying the environment and humans should act as trustees of the earth that means after utilising the natural resources the same should be restored by the humans, the court has stressed on shift to an approach that is from anthropocentric to ecocentric. Anthropocentric means Earth is full of humans rather than other creatures like plants and animals; hence it is a human-dominated society where humans are superior to nature and humans hold more intrinsic value than other entities like animals, plants, mineral resources, etc, and they can be justifiably exploited for human benefit. However, the ecocentric approach is opposite to the anthropocentric approach, it states that ecocentrism and biocentrism mainly focus on the environment and express that the environment too has fundamental rights like the right to survive, exist, persist and regenerate, which is the right of nature. Generally, focuses on the environment as a centre. So, this judgment stressed on state’s duty and responsibility to safeguard the environment because it reversed its decision, that land does not fall under the forest category. Moreover, it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to protect the environment, and this is high time to focus more on an ecocentric approach. So, in the present case, the respondent has failed to prove his title deeds, so it is not a private land.
CONCLUSION
Environmental issues and climate change are the top concerns globally. As a developing country, we should focus on development as well as the protection of the environment because it is a natural gift given to human beings. If we ruin the environment, later consequences are detrimental. It is our responsibility to follow sustainable development and save natural resources for future generations. If we look at the environment as an individual it too has the right to be protected, it is our responsibility to act as trustees of the earth. Forests play a crucial role in our life, we should come up with strict laws and policies for forest conservation rather than destroying them. The word Mother Earth would be meaningless if forests were not protected.
Author(s) Name: M.S.V. Syamala Devi (ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad)
