.jpg)
Prachi Dixit,
Unity P.G. and Law College
INTRODUCTION
The legal term "environmental subject" or "legal entity" describes certain environmental communities as legal entities. The rights, privileges, duties, and legal responsibilities of legal entities are granted to these entities. Since ecological networks, for example, streams and plants can't address themselves in court, a "watchman" can follow up for the benefit of the local area to safeguard it.
Uttarakhand's High Court recognized natural rivers and substances as legitimate elements, locus standi and presented principal human rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The natural entities mentioned in the judgments include the Yamuna and Ganga rivers and all of their tributaries,[i] ‘rivers, streams, glaciers, wetlands, grasslands, springs, air, rivers, lakes, meadows, dales, jungles, forests, rivulets, and lakes and cascades.'
The High Court emphasized the ecological and religious aspects in its initial decision. The High Court observed that Hindus worship both rivers because they contain profound spiritual and strict importance for them, they support numerous networks and natural resources.
In the end, two government officials were appointed by the High Court. Advocate General of the State in their capacity as individuals in loco parentis, or the human face to preserve, safeguard, and safeguard the rivers. The Attorney General was chosen as the river's legal representative to safeguard their interests.
Glaciers, rivers, streams, rivulets, lakes, air, and the two rivers’ grasslands, meadows, dales, jungles, forests, wetlands, springs, and waterfalls in the second judgment, were also declared legal entities with fundamental rights.[ii]
Natural beings’ significance to religion and mythology was recapped by the Court as well, quoting international environmental law principles. Similar to the first judgment, officials from the government, as well as the State Advocate General, were declared individuals in loco parentis, in addition to a well-known academic and lawyer. This article examines the decisions made by the High Court. The conclusion is that the judgments do not interact with the existing because they are subject to jurisdictional limitations. statutory framework and do not explain the new rights' scope or impact. They wish to grant nature blessings. The decisions reflect a strategy that could be referred to as "natural legal equality." This article looks at how this strategy will mean in light of the court's instructions and how they can be used by courts going forward.
INFIRMITIES BY JURISDICTION
According to Article 214 of the Indian Constitution there is a High Court in each state in India. [iii] These High Courts' writ jurisdiction is outlined in Article 226 of the Constitution. Courts. In both judgments, writ petitions were filed in accordance with Article 226. According to subparagraph (1) of Article 226, a High Court's jurisdiction is limited. to the region portrayed under the Primary Timetable to the Constitution.[iv] According to the schedule, Uttar was what gave rise to the state of Uttarakhand. Act of 2000 to reorganize the area of responsibility of the Section 28 of Part IV of the Act describes the Uttarakhand High Court, and "covers any part of the territories that are part of the State of Uttarakhand."[v] River Ganga additionally, the state does not contain Yamuna or any other natural entities. Uttarakhand. In a number of states across the nation, where the High Court lacks jurisdiction.
The use of a High is permitted by Article 226 (2). The court's writ has extraterritorial jurisdiction as an exception only when the cause of action calls for it. According to one interpretation of the phrase, a Court may exercise extraterritorial writ jurisdiction based on the alleged cause of action in the request. The respondents' illegitimate erroneous constructions on particular parcels of state-owned land and sought guidance from the federal government. to provide appropriate instructions for the distribution of water and land resources to prevent government land from being taken over. The second verdict concerns the contamination of the Ganga River as a result of the release of sewage into the river from ashrams and municipal towns along the river's course where the state respondents have not set up any treatment plants.
NATURE EQUALITY UNDER LAW
The goal of the rights for nature paradigm is to imagine nature as a separate entity. own, not as a resource for human use or property. The phrase "radical vulnerability" approach recognizes the institutional constraints that make it difficult to acknowledgement of this equality and a framework for vulnerability within the existing legal framework, progress The Case of the Asiatic Lions and the PCA Act case demonstrates both methods.[vi] Similarly, the High Court of Uttarakhand Both approaches are reflected in judgments. The High Court decisions make use of the in accordance with the parens patriae doctrine, individuals are appointed in loco parentis and granted Rights of Fundamental Kind[vii]. However, the judgments of the High Court contain three distinct findings, which may contribute to a "legal equality approach for nature," and how such an approach might be implemented examines the advantages of nature.
Nature is viewed in this manner as
I. a living entity in addition to;
II. a legal entity;
III. nature is recognized as an equal holder rights fundamental.
NATURE OF ORGANISM
In the High Court decisions, it is noted that not only the two rivers are also referred to as natural or legal persons, but they also have rights and responsibilities. and responsibilities of a living person. Comparing human rights violations to destruction of the environment, according to the High Court, "violations against nature can, despite being viewed through the lens of "environmental," be equally appalling damage.’
The Article was extended to animals in the PCA Act case, and the new definition could include all approaches. However, the implications of the rights for a river or other natural Legislative and judicial consideration would be required for entities other than animals.
NATURE AS A LEGAL ENTITE
In contrast to the Asiatic Lions and PCA Act cases, judgments grant legal standing. In this way, making nature visible to the law as an equal entity may aid in the completion of legislative voids. Despite environmental law's legal reach, Natural resources will not be protected by law. The Supreme Court's decision to safeguard the endangered Great Indian Bustard was made public, such a GAP. The rapid disappearance of is one of the greatest threats to the bird, grasslands etc. Currently, grasslands fall into the following categories of wastelands and are diverted to other uses of the land.
In the absence of a law or the petitioners sought a direction and administrative regulation to protect grasslands, from the Court that grassland shouldn't be considered "wastelands" anymore. Such a direction may provide temporary protection until the necessary laws are enacted. As a result, standing up for nature can be used to fill in legal gaps, i.e. where a particular harm to nature is considered a legal injury. The new right might make it easier to fill in legal and inconsistencies in legislation. Examples of gaps in the law include situations in which a statute governs the relevant environmental issue, but inadequately implemented regulations.
NATURE AS AN EQUAL RIGHT HOLDER
Nature is given equal rights under the rulings, The verdicts introduce the most spread-out interpretation of Fundamental Rights within the Constitution, extending them to incorporate the entire natural world. As previously stated, Courts have drafted and interpreted fundamental rights to date, the issue of human entitlements Which rights would apply to nature are uncertain and how a disagreement between the two parties would be settled. Examples of nature-related Fundamental Rights include right to life under article 21 and equality under article 14.
Article 14 guarantees status and opportunity equality and protection from arbitrary treatment through executive or legislative action. The article's text states that it concerns "persons." The article was interpreted as a rule aimed at the objectives outlined in the Constitution's Preamble. There are references to "Indian citizens" or "citizens" alone. The approach to legal equality might necessitate that nature is entitled to equality under Article 14 and should be included in the purposes of this article.
In assessment to, Fundamental Rights provide greater legal protection, rights under the law. In K.S. Puttaswamy the SC was of the opinion that a court can still recognize a Fundamental Right despite a statute[viii]. Fundamental Rights, in contrast to statutory rights, are a part of the "Basic Structure." they assume an inviolable status and serve as a reference point for the legality of a law or an executive order. The application of all subsequent laws must uphold Fundamental Rights. Fundamental rights will necessitate a shift in how the law views nature or environment. An effective application of Article 21 would, for instance, necessitate changes to laws like the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 allowing animal hunting in certain circumstances.[ix]
CONCLUSION
Rights for nature are recognized in declarations in India and other jurisdictions, the ascent. As discussed above, the decisions of the High Court contribute a novel method of observing nature through the lens of "legal equality for nature."
This approach has three distinguishing characteristics that are reflected in the verdicts. The method views nature as an equal and a legal entity as well as a living thing. When the cases are finally heard by the Supreme Court, it might think about keeping and expanding this new approach, filling in the various voids left by the High Court's rulings.
REFERENCES
[i] Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 126 of 2014, March 20, 2017 (Uttarakhand HC).
[ii] Lalit Miglani V. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 140 of 2015, March 30,2017 (Uttarakhand HC).
[iii] Constitution of India, Art. 214.
[iv] Constitution of India, Art. 226.
[v] Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, No, 29, Act of Parliament 2000. (India)
[vi] Prevention of Cruelty Act,1960, No.59, Acts of Parliament, 1960 (India)
[vii]Center for Environment Law V. Union of India, (2013) 8 SCC 234 (India).
[viii] K.S. Puttaswamy V. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India)
[ix] Wildlife Protection Act,1972, No. 53, Acts of Parliament,1972(India)
コメント