Sir,
I thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak on this
Bill. I would like to compliment the honourable Minister and
his Ministry for bringing forward this Bill. I stand here in total support
of the Tribunal but there are a few queries in my mind. I do not
doubt his integrity or intentions in bringing forward this Bill. I feel the
Bill needs to be strengthened in respect of a few topics which I
would like to highlight. Since I have little time, I would just come to the
points. In the context of the 86th Report of the Law Commission,
there was a suggestion that the Tribunal has to be in every State so120 that it is more accessible and quicker
in disposing the matter. That is not found here. The Tribunal is going140 to be in the four regions that is, East,
West, North and South. So, the accessibility of the Tribunal is160 really not going to reach the end person
who really needs access to it. Secondly, Clause 14 of the Bill says that the
power to settle disputes, if it involves a substantial question relating to
environment, is relating to Schedule-I. Schedule-I specifically does not cover
ecology, wet lands and lakes. All these do not come under the term “pollution”.
So, I would urge upon the honourable Minister to guide us. The whole idea of
getting this Tribunal in this specific Bill240 is about the right to live. He is talking
about the right to live. If he is talking about the right to live,
it takes beyond food and livelihood. It is about air, water, environment
and everything. So, this280
particular point in Clause 14 does not cover the entire meaning in the
constitution of it. The honourable Supreme Court has specifically said
that environment has to come in this. So, I would definitely like him to
clarify it and320 enlighten
how this issue will be covered.
The
other point is about civil courts. The civil court was an option for people
before the Tribunal happened. Now, this has been removed because of the
Tribunal. So, if a person in360
any part of rural India likes to make an intervention about his
environment, he may not be able to go to a Tribunal. Would this be really
the right way to go forward? The accessibility to the civil court has been
totally diluted. Would the civil courts be considered to be brought in again? It
is not possible for every420
person to go to the Tribunal and then go straight to the Supreme Court. Anyway,
it is a double-edged sword. If you take it into two phases, you go to
the Tribunal and then straightaway to the Supreme Court. For a big company, it
could be a very easy option but I am not sure a common man can go480 quickly to a Tribunal or a High Court.
It is an option for him to prolong or delay the process but it can be
used either way by both the parties. If you could kindly clarify
this point, I would be happy. The other point is that the power of
framing schemes does not exist which the Supreme Court had earlier in respect
of the Environment Ministry when they used to take decision on this. It is like
environmental solutions. 560
If you remember, when the issue of the Taj Mahal came, they said that the
colour was changing. There was a policy decision taken by the Supreme Court.
All the businesses which were there were moved out. So, it was600 an environmental solution given by the
honourable Supreme Court. Will this Tribunal be able to support, monitor and do
a follow-up? I say this because it is not just a case of gas leak or
water getting polluted in640
an area. Suppose this happens somewhere and there is effluent coming out,
should there not be a monitoring system? Even if you go to the court, the
Supreme Court would monitor it, but I feel this is lacking in this Bill.
This is a very important thing and this is more applicable to chemical
zones.
There
are a lot of chemical700 zones
in this country. If you see the State of Maharashtra where I come
from, most chemical zones are near720
rivers. So, after all the pollution damages that they have caused, do
we have an option of shifting those plants from there? Could that be an
option? We will have to review this entirely and it is more for the chemical
zones. I think environmental solutions are extremely crucial for this Tribunal.
The other thing is about moulding the requirement of relief. When we
talk about civil courts, the civil courts do not have the option of doing it.800 Take the case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy
where repercussions had come out much later. Suppose something happens today
and you do not know what the repercussions are going to be for 5 or 10 years and
if there is a requirement840
of moulding the relief, will this Tribunal have the right to do it? That is the
clarification I am looking to get from the honourable Minister because
environment is about nature; it is not about suing one party or the
other and the issue ending there. It is about long-term consequences
which are going to affect the whole society. Then, I would like to make a point
regarding amicus curiae because these are environmental issues
and they need very specific interventions. We need super speciality
people to come and make interventions. Would this Tribunal help them research?
Would this Tribunal have this option which will help them study the matter
about the ground reality and not just go by reports960 made by people?
There
is one more point about strict liability about hazardous effects. There is no strong
reaction980 because there
are a lot of people who do a lot of business and they promise a lot of
things. For example, as it happened in the case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy
where they said that they considered everything and they gave an assurance, but
there can be freak accidents. So, when dealing with such cases, I feel
the company has to pay for the consequent damages that they cause. So, there
has to be a strict liability clause for that purpose in this Bill. The other
two things which are missing in this Bill are the doctrine of public trust1080 and inter-generational equity. I
think when these projects are taken up, they are long-term projects. They
are not there just for 5 or 10 years, they are there for generations ahead
and generations have paid a price because sometimes, people1120 there start having upper respiratory tract
infections. That is the first reaction to air pollution and after 5 or 10
years, you realize that the entire block there is suffering from cancer. There
have been such instances and the honourable Minister is very much aware of
these situations. So, does the Minister think that this Bill has covered
these issues?
The
last point that I would like to make is about the appointment of Chairperson
and other Members of this1200
Tribunal. There are a lot of Government people involved. If you are
having 10 people, all the people could be from the Government and it
could be a Government-dominated body. So, how are you going to keep
a fine balance? I am not insisting that there have to be NGOs and I
am not defending the NGOs. But you really1260
need to have people who really work on the field. We have a great Minister
right now who thinks that1280
environment is a big deal. We all need to realize that. But there can be
changes at all levels. The intention of the Bill is very good. But how
are we going to make sure that the people involved in this Tribunal
also feel the same way? I am sure the honourable Minister will clarify
these points. I thank the honourable Minister for bringing this Bill. We
all talk about the issue of global warming and climate change and India being a
participant in the global negotiations, I am sure it will definitely make a
difference to this country.
Mr.
Chairman, Sir, environmental crimes are the most serious crimes in the world,
not only because they hurt you immediately but1400
they hurt all the generations due to come. Mining, poisoning the rivers for gold
panning, throwing sewage into the water, opening polluting industries and ignoring
all the current laws whether from brick kilns to chemical factories, damming
rivers just to1440 give money
to contractors, allowing inappropriate factories near forests, allowing
inappropriate hotels outside sanctuary areas, allowing the sale of polluting
consumer goods like firecrackers, the sale of flooring material that have
clearly come from destroying hill ranges like the Aravalli, the export of
leather and minerals are genocidal crimes, not less than war by a few upon the
whole of India. To treat them so lightly as civil issues rather than criminal
ones and to allow the polluter to pay his way, probably from the same money
that he has earned by polluting the area, is cynical and shows collusion with
the enemy. Before I start, I am going to talk about the Minister. The
Minister is like a rain upon the desert as I said before. We have waited for 20
years for a good Minister and he and I share the same values. We have had 20
years of contract-driven Ministers or Ministers who did not understand what1600 they were doing.
