With an ever increasing
population and corresponding requirement of economic growth, a certain amount
of compromise with environment is inevitable. However, this compromise should
not be so extensive that it overrides the protection of environment altogether.
It is at this juncture that the concept of ‘Sustainable Development’ comes into
picture. Sustainable development is essentially a policy and strategy for
continued economic and social development without detriment to the environment
and natural resources on the quality of which continued activity and further
development depend.[1]
Sustainable development means what type or extent of development can take place
which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation.[2]
The United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992,
provided the fundamental principles and the programme of action for achieving
sustainable development.As defined by the Brundtland Report, sustainable
development means “Development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs”.[3]
 |
| [Source: Urban Times Magazine] |
Treating ‘Sustainable
Development’ as a part of Article 21, Constitution of India, 1950, Supreme
Court, in N.D. Jayal v. Union of India,[4]
held that:
"Therefore, the adherence to
sustainable development principle is a sine qua non for the maintenance of the
symbiotic balance between the rights to environment and development. Right to
environment is a fundamental right. On the other hand, right to development is
also one. Here the right to “sustainable development” cannot be singled out.
Therefore, the concept of “sustainable development” is to be treated as an
integral part of “life” under Article 21."
The right to sustainable
development has been declared by the UN General Assembly to be an inalienable
human right (Declaration on the Right to Development) (1986).[5]The
doctrine, under the guise of development, does not allow the environmental
degradation.[6]
However, if without degrading the environment or minimising adverse effects
thereupon by applying stringent safeguards, it is possible to carry on
development activity applying the principles of sustainable development, then
such activity can be carried out.[7]It
should also be noted that, while applying the concept of “sustainable
development”, one has to keep in mind the “principle of proportionality” based
on the concept of balance.[8]
The concept is required
to be implemented taking a pragmatic view and not on ipse dixit of the court.[9] Court
should follow the principle of sustainable development and find a balance
between the developmental needs and environmental degradation.[10]
Adherence
to the principle of sustainable development is now a constitutional
requirement.[11]
Supreme Court, in Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board
v. C. Kenchappa,[12]while
considering the need to maintain environment during land acquisition, held
that: [The concept of ‘sustainable development’ was extensively discussed in
this case]
“.....before acquisition of lands
for development, the consequence and adverse impact of development on
environment must be properly comprehended and the lands be acquired for
development that they do not gravely impair the ecology and environment.”
The much discussed
‘precautionary principle’ and ‘polluter pays principle’ are part of sustainable
development.[13]The
concept of ‘Sustainable Development’, which also emerges as a fundamental duty
from Article 51-A of the Constitution, dictates the expansion of population
being kept within reasonable bounds.[14]
From
above, one can understand the view of the Supreme Court in relation to
Sustainable Development. To some extent, the recent tragedy in the State of
Uttarakhand was considered to be man-made. If steps are not taken, similar incidents can again occur. Hence, in future, a cautious
approach has to be taken; otherwise, we will have to face the disastrous
consequences of such activities.
Click here for Environmental Jurisprudence and the Supreme Court: Part I [“Precautionary Principle” and "Polluter Pays Principle"]
[3] 1987 report of the World
Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Report)
[Report of the Commission chaired by the
then Prime Minister of Norway, Ms G.H. Brundtland]; Vellore Citizens' Welfare
Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647, 657
[4] N.D. Jayal v. Union of India,
(2004) 9 SCC 362; Also see Atma Linga
Reddy v. Union of India, (2008) 7 SCC 788; Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of
T.N., (2010) 10 SCC 96; Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Assn. v. Noyyal River
Ayacutdars Protection Assn., (2009) 9 SCC 737
[5] A.P. Pollution Control Board Ii
Vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) and Ors., (2001)
2 SCC 62
[8] Research Foundation for Science
Technology & Natural Resource Policy v. Union of India, (2007) 15 SCC 193
[10] Intellectuals Forum v. State of
A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549, 574; Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (3) v. Bombay
Environmental Action Group, (2006) 3 SCC 434; H.P. v. Ganesh Wood Products, (1995)
6 SCC 363 at page 389
[13] Delhi Transport Deptt., Re,
(1998) 9 SCC 250, 251; Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource
Policy v. Union of India, (2005) 10 SCC 510, 518; M.C. Mehta (Taj Trapezium
Matter) v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 353; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,
(2002) 4 SCC 356; Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Assn. v. Noyyal River
Ayacutdars Protection Assn., (2009) 9 SCC 737
No comments :
Post a Comment