Legislation is often not perfect. There are various drawbacks in the Acts enacted in relation to environment. Forests constitute a vital resource of the nation. It is a scientifically established fact that the forest cover should be at least 1/3 of the land area for a healthy state of environment. Vegetation generates oxygen. Trees hold the soil together, and in India, the forests provide livelihood to millions of tribals and villagers living in and around forests.
Experts and the mass media have brought to the attention of the decision makers and the public at large, the fact that the forest cover of the country has been rapidly shrinking. Some estimates put the present coverage at not more than 12% the land area. Fuel starved villagers, greedy forest contractors and corrupt officials are the proven culprits.
Some time back, the Government came up with a well-meaning but potentially draconian Forest Bill. There was virtually uproar against the Bill-principally on two grounds. One, that the Bill would make criminals of all tribals living in and off the forests, because it prohibited the taking of all the produce, including leaves and fruits from the forests. Two, the proposed Bill converted forest officers into judges and executioners at the same time. The bill failed to attract public support because it adopted and oppressive colonial model of law.
The aborted Forest Bill and the raging controversies over the present and proposed conservation zones, which strike at the root of the right of the villagers to graze their cattle, demonstrate that the central concern of all law-making should be man. Laws aimed at protecting the trees, animals and birds cannot in the process treat people as marginal.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It may be mentioned here that the Directive Principles of State Policy obligate the state to its people certain basic social and economic rights, which were described by Justice Krishna Iyer as follows:
“The Developmental directives of our Constitution are geared to social and economic justice.”
Again, the problems of individual-or-group inspired environmental litigation are different. The Water and Air Pollution Acts do not permit individuals and groups direct access to courts.
The Central and State Boards are to act as conduits of public grievances. In other words, individuals have no locus standi under the said Acts. To a certain degree, this lamentable lacunae have been plugged by the latest Environment Protection Act. The number of suits admitted by the higher courts by way of the public interest litigation procedure has made the rigid position of the Acts, denying locus standi to individuals, untenable.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
How successful has been this category of environmental litigation? Some, like the Silent Valley, the Delhi gas leakage cases, etc. have attracted media and public attention. But the same cases have also thrown up intractable issues of standing, burden of proof, expert testimony and the very competence of the ordinary courts to handle environmental disputes.
The rules of evidence courts to handle environmental disputes. The rules of evidence courts to handle environmental disputes. The rules of evidence relating to burden of proof, particularly, have created and unconscionable situation. An individual or even a committed group of individuals cannot be expected to submit authoritative proof of objectionable radiation level, for instance. The inequality of the resources available to the individual and the establishment make a mockery of the rules of evidence in environmental disputes.