ABSTRACT
There has been a continuous tension between those who strive for growth and those who call for environmental protection. With every passing day, the gap between the two groups seems to be widening. The real debate or conflict is not between conservation and development but between the environment and reckless exploitation of it in the name of convenience and development. The issue arises when there is indiscriminate use of natural resources. No one wants to stop economic progress that could give millions better lives. But we must insist on sustainable development that combines environmental care, social justice and economic growth.
INTRODUCTION
Increasing urbanisation and industralisation are inescapable if desired levels of economic growth are to be achieved. This is also thought to be necessary in order to significantly boost economic status. These revenue-generating activities, however, are almost certain to have negative environmental impacts, such as pollution. Notably, environmental quality is being sacrificed in order to achieve the aims of mass employment and alleviating poverty. It is alleged that environmental quality may be restored with a progressive increase in income levels, as well as improvement in financial and technical possibilities. However, the truth is that ongoing development activities erode ecological sustainability.
Almost all environmental rules are being compromised or entirely changed to make space for commerce. The world relies on 'nature's resource base' which serves as the foundation for all other types of capital, progress, development, and everything else. The woods, waterways, agriculture, and soil are the foundation of life on Earth, providing important ecosystem services without which we as a species would perish. We rely on them directly for food, fibre, firewood, and natural resources for building houses and shelter. We rely on our natural environment to regulate climate and precipitation, as well as to purify and cycle water.
To combat destruction of the environment, regulations and Acts such as the Environment Protection Act of 1986, the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, the Wild Life (Protection) Act of 1972, and others have been adopted in India. Even with these guidelines in place, there remains a shortage of suitable methods and methodological approaches for studying environmental factors. Ignorance in implementing the Environment policy, Inappropriate Scientific research and the loss of natural resources by mining and chopping of hills using unscientific methods are all examples of insufficient environmental conformity.
DEVELOPMENTAL FACTORS AFFECTING ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Economic development aimed at increasing the production of services and goods to meet the needs of an increasing number of people is putting more strain on the natural environment. The requirement for environmental resources was greater than the supply in the early stages of development. Today's world faces increased demand for natural resources, but their availability/supply is constrained by overuse and misuse. Sustainable development is defined as development that reduces environmental impacts while meeting the needs of the current generation without jeopardising the ability of the next generation to meet their own needs. The economy and environment are interdependent and require each other. Hence, any development that does not consider its effects on the environment can harm the ecosystem that sustains living
things. Disregard of environmental laws and guidelines is a major reason why natural disasters result in a large number of needless losses. Any activity to objectively assess the danger of natural disasters to a place is rarely carried out in the proper spirit. Uncontrolled mining and the improper carving of slopes into hills enhance the likelihood of soil erosion and, as a result, the probability of landslides. The government has supplied the majority of subsidies in order to offer welfare to disadvantaged segments of society. The subsidized character of services such as energy and electricity, on the other hand, leads to misuse and weakens environmental
Sustainability. Subsidies also erode the government's income base and hinder the government's ability to make investments in new, cleaner technologies.
Natural resource access is completely open, and no one user suffers the entire cost of ecological deterioration, resulting in resource misuse. The growing population exacerbates the connections between lack of development and environmental deterioration. Furthermore, poverty creates strong incentives to have big families and encourages migration, making metropolitan regions ecologically unstable. Both effects put more strain on resources, worsening environmental quality, lowering productivity, and reinforcing poverty.
Humanity's greatest ambition and challenge continues to be development. Nonetheless, despite remarkable economic and social development during the previous century, global poverty, starvation, and environmental destruction endure. Furthermore, environmental degradation and Global warming has begun to cause irreversible harm to the development progress gained thus far. As a result, plans and goals of development must be achieved while adhering to environmental restrictions.
JUDICIAL VIEW OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA Whenever it refers to environmental stewardship, the legal system has long been among the most primary actors. The Indian legislature has passed several laws to safeguard the environment, although when it concerns evaluating and respecting those specific laws in compliance with the Sustainable Development Principle, Highest Court has contributed a lot. The Supreme Court of India has contributed substantially to conservation of nature, along with the safety of nature`s biodiversity. Despite its narrow regulatory jurisdiction, the court has played an important role in this regard. [HD1] The effective utilization of the "public interest litigation" like an instrument towards environmental protection under both Articles 32 and 226 from the Indian Constitution is the outcome of the court's devotion towards communal wellbeing broadly and environmental protection particularly .
Very first relationship involving the threshold of environment quality and the right to life was recognized in the case of Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India and Ors., commonly recognized as the Bhopal Case, that included the right to enriching enviroment as intrinsically as well as extrinsically. Apex court has also described Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which establish that right to life comprises of right to healthy environment, that incorporates entitlement to the fresh water and air for the entire satisfaction of their life. Such judgement was rendered in Subhash Kumar vthe State of Bihar. The Supreme Court ruled in this case that each person has a fundamental right to a healthy environment. The Apex Supreme Court also accepts the following notion of sustainable development: a long-term economic and social improvement endeavour or strategy which don`t risk natural resources and the nature that are vital to crucial to continuing activity and growth. Supreme court has more often in its judgements have talked about the concept of inter-general equity that exemplifies basic notion of equity across all ages in the utilization and preservation of nature as well as its natural resources. The following are the components of inter-general equity: Principle 3 of the Rio de Janeiro Declaration reads, "Right development must be accomplished so that equality fulfils Developmental and environmental duties to current generations." In the case of Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group, the Supreme Court of India endorsed this method. The basic goal of the concept is to discourage current generations from misusing non-renewable resources in order to deny them future advantages.
The following is the Precautionary Principle: - Principle 15 of the Rio de Janeiro Charter says that "States should generally apply the cautious approach that corresponds to their capability in order to conserve the nature. "When there is a possibility of calamitous or permanent damage, "denial of scientifically sound esteem ought not to be exploited as a pretext to postpone low cost efforts to reduce nature`s degradation." The Apex Court welcomed this strategy in a different way, stating that it has caused the onus of proof in environmental issues, where those wanting to alter the established order should always determine that the initiatives shall have no detrimental implications.
According to Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration, "Public governments must strive to endorse the internationalization of environmental costs and the utilization of fiscal measures, bearing in mind the concept that the polluter must, in essence, shoulder the cost of pollution, with due consideration for the general interest of public and without obfuscating global trade and investment." As indicated in above statement, purpose of the above thought is to make polluters liable for the expenses of ecological restoration along with awarding damages.
Development as well as environment constitute opposite sides of the same coin, and neither should be sacrificed in order to protect the other. each is crucial to our`s future prosperity. Therefore the Courts must move with prudence; then only we will be capable of achieving our aim of creating a developed, pollution-free nation for succeeding generations.
CONCLUSION
Current economic frameworks must be modified to account for biodiversity and natural ecosystems. The COVID-19 epidemic has taught us a lot. It made us realise how much we area part of nature and how important it is to protect the natural processes that keep our biosphere running. It has unequivocally demonstrated the importance of environmental sustainability to our personal and social well-being, as well as the development of our economy.[HD1] Our concepts of development, as much as our models of it, must evolve. Environmental degradation should no longer be justified in the name of development. Their emergence, like that of previous disasters, has been entirely fuelled by unrestrained development-related activity. Continuous agricultural and animal husbandry development and intensification, as well as unrestricted consumerism, have damaged nature, increased contact between wildlife, animals, viruses, and people, and paved the way for the pandemic to take control of our lives. Mining and infrastructural development are particularly responsible for widespread habitat degradation. All of these risks may be significantly decreased by limiting human activities that lead to biodiversity loss since this will assist to prevent the spread of new disorders. Politicians should consider ecosystems and biodiversity when making economic decisions. This will speed the transition from a fossil-fuel-based economy to models of sustainable, fair, inclusive, and equitable development.
This Editorial Column is authored by Pramati Chatta and Veer, second and first year students respectively at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law
Comentarios