Man doesn't Own Earth, Forests must be Protected, says Supreme Court
Supreme Court emphasises forest protection and environmental rights, urging governments to prioritise conservation efforts for a sustainable future.
image for illustrative purpose
The Supreme Court has ruled that protecting the environment and preserving forests and wildlife, as outlined in Article 48A of the Constitution, is directly linked to citizens' right to life. The court urged governments to safeguard forests to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.
In a recent case involving forest land in Kompally village, Telangana, the court criticised government officials for colluding with an individual attempting to convert forest land for personal use. The Telangana government was fined Rs 5 lakh for contradictory actions.
Additionally, in the Forest Protection Supreme Court ruling, the court questioned the reversal of a High Court judgement favouring environmental protection. The Environmental Conservation Ruling emphasised on the importance of upholding such decisions.
Referring to a tribal chief's 1854 letter to the US President, the court highlighted that humans do not own the Earth; rather, they belong to it. Article 48A of the Constitution mandates state action to protect the environment, while Article 51A (g) assigns citizens a duty to preserve nature.
This verdict underscores the Supreme Court's recent efforts to elevate environmental protection to the level of fundamental rights. Last month, in a case concerning the protection of the Great Indian Bustard, the court emphasised the need to balance environmental conservation with development. The court's focus on legal protection for forests highlights the growing importance of preserving natural resources for future generations.
Justice Sundresh, in authoring the judgement, emphasised that constitutional provisions related to forests must be interpreted in conjunction with Articles 19, 14, and 21. The court advocated for an ecocentric approach over an anthropocentric one, stressing the intrinsic value of natural wealth beyond mere economic considerations. This highlights the nature conservation legal mandate, urging a shift towards prioritising environmental preservation for the well-being of both present and future generations.
The court's decision highlights the vital role forests play in sustaining life and biodiversity. It urges a shift in perspective, recognising the significance of nature's contribution to national wealth and well-being.
