Judges call for environmental protection, condemn attack on environmentalists
On the occasion of World Environment Day, recently retired Supreme Court Justice Abhay S Oka and sitting Supreme Court Justice Sanjay Karol called out the attacks on activists and the Judiciary for trying to protect the environment.Speaking at the inaugural ceremony for the Climate Change Conference organised by the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Justice Karol drew attention to the annual problem of seasonal air pollution in Delhi and the stink from the pollution in the river Yamuna. Justice Karol also called for cooperation between industry, the judiciary, the government and the people to protect the environment.'I see that there is no conflict between activism in the Indian judiciary and economic growth, or the development of the economy or otherwise in India. There is no doubt that all of us have to work together to achieve the constitutional goal that is set out in the preamble,' said Justice Karol.Justice Oka, who was also honoured at the event for his contribution to the development of environmental law in India, praised the activists who fight for the environment, despite the opposition they face.'What I find from my long experience—20 years as a lawyer and nearly 22 years as a judge of three constitutional courts—is that very few citizens show enthusiasm and courage to take up environmental issues. It is not easy to address environmental concerns, as those who raise these issues rarely get active societal support,' said Justice Oka.advertisement'Often, people seriously addressing environmental issues are branded anti-development, accused of obstructing so-called developmental activities. That is the greatest tragedy of our society.Those fighting for the environment are fighting for social and economic justice guaranteed under the Constitution. Their ultimate aim is upholding the rights under Article 21. However, those advocating for environmental causes rarely receive societal support. When society doesn't support them, how can we expect public authorities or the government to support them?' said Oka further.Justice Oka also said that there is no conflict between development and protection of the environment.'Someday, we should debate the concept of development itself. Do we necessarily mean construction of huge buildings, roads, and flyovers, or should development mean providing basic amenities to the poor and needy? That is a separate debate altogether,' said Oka.Justice Karol also called for 'grassroots solutions' to environmental issues.advertisement
"If you were to see our report card in the last 75 years, or since the 1980s, what is it really we have done? Have we done enough to protect the environment, or not? My view is this: a lot needs to be done, at all levels. And I would borrow an expression that the solution to the problem now is grassroots solutions to an international problem. So, grassroots solutions for global challenges. The way forward, according to me, is that we as individuals have to take up the causes pertaining to the environment,' said Justice Karol.Delhi High Court Justice Jasmeet Singh also spoke about the need to maintain a balance between development and environmental protection, particularly in light of the economic impact. "Limited attention is given to environmental care because of the economic challenges it poses. Transitioning to sustainable practices is frequently seen as costly or disruptive, especially in a developing economy like India. There is significant dependence on fossil fuels. This creates a sense of conflict between environmental responsibility and economic growth. But I believe that challenge can be transformed into an opportunity, an instrument of meaningful change," said Justice Singh.Senior advocate Lalit Bhasin, President of SILF and Chairman of the CII National Committee on Legal Services, also said that 'Sustainability is no longer an optional agenda; it is a core element of national and business competitiveness.'Meanwhile, at a separate event to mark World Environment Day at the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Chairman NGT Justice Prakash Shrivastava called for 'collective action' to protect the environment. Highlighting the urgent need to curb plastic pollution, Justice Shrivastava said that 'The National Green Tribunal stands as a sentinel for environmental protection, but our efforts alone are insufficient without the active participation of every citizen.' Must Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Road to justice for the Bengaluru XI
To blame any of the victims would be perverse beyond belief, dealing the unkindest of cuts to the families of those who lost their lives. Yet, it is with deepest sadness that it must be recorded that what happened was not the city's 'defect' or a sporting negligence—it was an Indian tragedy. Repeatedly, when crowds gather, for one cause or another, tragedy unfolds; yet, as a collective, we learn nothing. There is no doubt that the events of Wednesday afternoon have shaken Indian society's consciousness, but not so much that it will act as a deterrent. Not so much that there will be any changes of consequence when it comes to developing infrastructure that can safely handle large crowds, spontaneous surges of people or exuberant gatherings. Not thoroughly enough to force people in power to pause and get to the bottom of why something that should never have happened occurred. A probe has been ordered, arrests may be made, officials suspended and monetary compensation promised. This is a templated response. You can transpose the name of the team or sport, the venue, or the occasion with a religious gathering, a clamour to board a train—and the story would remain depressingly the same. They dare not say it aloud, but there will be a few who will look at the episode and think that only 11 people died. In India, it's not a number of fatalities that triggers righteous outrage. In 2005, at least 258 died in Satara, Maharashtra during a pilgrimage. In 2013, more than 115 were killed in a bridge collapse in over the Godavari in Andhra Pradesh. In 2024, the official count in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh was 121; the trigger was a tent collapse. In sports, globally, the numbers are equally terrifying: 300 in Peru at a football game in 1964, 93 in Nepal in 1988, and 126 in Ghana in 2001. In terms of numbers, the Hillsborough tragedy of 1989 where 97 people lost their lives at the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest in Sheffield is probably the most high-profile, not least because the victims' families banded together to mount a protracted campaign for justice. It took 27 years for the UK courts to charge those responsible In India, with the judicial system so overburdened that even the simplest of disputes can take decades to resolve, who knows when, if ever, those responsible for the events of Bengaluru 2025 will be brought to book.
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
Vijay Mallya relates how he told Arun Jaitley he was flying to the UK before he left India
TOI correspondent from London: Fugitive liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya has told a podcast, in a rare interview, that he told the late former finance minister Arun Jaitley that he was about to fly out of India to London before he left for the airport in March 2016. At the time there was supposed to be a CBI lookout circular (LOC) issued against him. Mallya told 'Figuring Out with Raj Shamani' he was not aware of any LOC against him, nor that it had been downgraded by the CBI from detaining him to informing immigration of authorities of his travel plans. He told Shamani that certain TV anchors and the Indian govt want to see him in 'jail clothes, eating jail food' in Tihar and spending the rest of his life behind bars. 'If that is what is inevitable, what options do I have? It might be inevitable, I'm not an astrologer. I will fight my way in court.' He said: 'I told FM Arun Jaitley before leaving for the airport and then I flew from Delhi to London on the way to Geneva for a meeting which was fixed months ago. I told the then finance minister because I went from Parliament to Delhi airport. When this news hit the media, once again, it created a storm. People went running to Mr Jaitley. He denied meeting me. A Congress MP saw us and then said to the media 'No, I saw them together'. Mr Jaitley had to retract his statement and say 'Yes, yes I met him but only while walking — it was a fleeting meeting'.' 'I never said I went to Mr Jaitley's office, sat in front of him, had tea with him. All I said is I told the finance minister while leaving, I'm going to London and going to Geneva for a meeting, please tell the banks to sit across the table and settle with me. How long does this once sentencetake? You see the way he denied it, and then when a Congress MP pointed out his mistake that he saw us, he quickly changed.' He also said he had always planned to go back to India but his Indian passport was revoked. In the four-hour podcast Mallya also said he would be prepared to return to India. 'If I have the assurance of a fair trial and assurance of dignified existence in India, I will think about returning to India seriously. ' He then reminded Shamani of the judgment in the Sanjay Bhandari case which found 'Indian detention conditions a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights)', which may mean he could not be extradited now. When asked why he had not gone already as he had lost his extradition battle in the courts, the 69-year-old said: 'My stay in England is fully legitimate. There is more than the particular case you are referring to. There are ongoing proceedings in this country. It's one of the legal battles I am fighting,' he said. This suggests he may have applied for asylum.
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC refuses to hear petition on animal sacrifice at Vishalgad
Kolhapur: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to hear an urgent petition filed against an order passed by Bombay high court allowing animal sacrifice in a dargah at Vishalgad in Kolhapur on Bakri-Eid. The counsel, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, said the high court had allowed animal sacrifice for Urs from June 8 to June 12. On June 3, a vacation bench of the high court, comprising Justices Dr Neela Gokhale and Firdosh Pooniwalla, noted that a detailed order on June 14, 2024, allowed sacrifice of animals and birds in "a closed and private area" near the Dargah and not in any "open or public place". Meanwhile, a heavy police force was deployed at Vishalgad, ahead of Bakri Eid on Saturday. Superintendent of Kolhapur Police, Yogesh Kumar Gupta, said, "A meeting has been conducted by all the stakeholders from administration like the collector's office, forest department, revenue department, animal husbandry, and police. A heavy police force, along with SRPF troop, has been deployed at the fort. We will follow the court orders. " Members of the Hindu outfits demanded, through a written statement, that the administration should not allow Urus to take place at the fort and that surveillance via CCTV cameras should be maintained at the fort. They insisted that the administration should ensure that slaughtering occurs only in areas permitted by the high court, and that too behind closed doors. The Hindu outfits also demanded immediate cancellation of the proposal to construct a slaughterhouse at Moshi village near Alandi in Pune on a 4-acre plot of land. State medical education minister Hasan Mushrif said on Friday, "Festivals should be celebrated peacefully, and citizens should ensure that the law and order situation is maintained." Police paraded through the main roads of the city. The procession concluded at Dasara Chowk. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
