RIGHT OF ENVIRONMENT v. RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENT- (Blog)


 “Nurture Nature but not torture Nature”

-          Prof (Dr)R.Venkata Roa

We have dealt with the right to the environment like right to air, right to have clean water, right to the healthy environment mainly in the cases filed by M.C.Mehta sir, and also in various cases. Even we have gained this right via Constitution under Articles 21[1] and 48A[2] and in other Indian Statutes like Environment Protection Act, the wildlife protection Act, the forest conservation Act, etc, and the other International conventions like Rio declaration, Stockholm declaration, etc. We have all these statutes and conventions for the right to environment as well as protection of environment. But we all forgot to think about the right of environment like the right of a tree/ plant, right of a river, etc. We speak we have to protect them, but in reality, they are the silent victims and we are failing to protect them, for example, we take the environment for granted during the armed conflicts, and the ultimate ‘silent victims’ are the environment. In Ayodhya- Babri masjid case we all know ‘Lord Ram’ was given the status of Juristic person and the petition was filed on behalf of him. Likewise the environment and its trees, rivers should be treated as a living entity and they too have certain rights, and we have to save them as ‘potential Guardians’ on their behalf.

We also know that environment is connected to wildlife and other living creatures. There was a complaint that the cell-phone towers are the ones responsible for the death of many birds especially the sparrows are the major victim of that. Hence how we are going to solve these issues? Now for us cell-phone signals, and internet connectivity, are important and we emphasize the importance of the sparrows and other living creatures too. If sparrows are alive now then the locust attack can be avoided because we know sparrows eat those insects. But now what have we done? We are using insecticides and other pesticides to kill them and to protect the crops, but friends remember we are still put to greater threat because these chemicals still will be present in the crops and when we consume it that will lead to many health complications.

Anthropocentric approach v. Bio-centric approach:

The environment has two ethical-approaches:[3]

a.        The anthropocentric approach- human beings are considered to be the centre of concern and therefore the protection of environment is considered to be the right to environment of every human being.

b.      The Bio-centric approach- here the biological species are the central concern and therefore environment consisting of these biological species is supposed to have the right to be protected from the hazards of human exploitations.

Conclusion:

Hence the right of environment can also be emphasized only with the help of human beings. Human should also have the feeling that the environment is a living entity and they too have rights which have to be respected by us.


[1] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086- A.21 also enshrines to have a right to life towards a healthy environment. Thus Right to life would become meaningless if there is no healthy environment.

[2] Charanlal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613; Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598- the Supreme Court of India held that in the context of our national dimensions of human rights, right to life, liberty, pollution free air, and water is guaranteed by the Constitution under articles 21, 48–A and 51 – A (g).

ADHITHYAN.C  &   N.ILAKKIYA,

SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MARITAL RAPES IN INDIA: AN UGLY REALITY- (Blog)

CYBER CRIME : A NEW BREED OF CRIMINAL- (Article)

DIGITAL HEALTHCARE IN CORONA TIMES- (Blog)