Sir,
I thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak on this Bill. I would like to
compliment the hon. 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 the hon. Minister’s integrity or intention 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 very little time at my
disposal, 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
be120
in every State so that it is more accessible and quicker in disposing the
matter. That is not found here.140 (1) The Tribunal is going to be in
the four regions that is, East, West, North and South only. So, the
accessibility of the Tribunal is 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 subject 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 hon. Minister
to guide us. The whole idea240 of getting this Tribunal in this
specific Bill 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,280 environment and everything. So, this
particular point in Clause 14 does (2) not cover the entire meaning in
the constitution of it. The hon. Supreme Court has specifically said that
environment has to come in this. So, I would definitely like him to clarify it
and 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 removed360 because of the
Tribunal. So, if a person in 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?420 It is not possible for every 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 (3) phases, you go to the
Tribunal and then straightaway to the Supreme Court. For a big company, it
could be a very easy480 option but I am not sure a common man
can go quickly to a Tribunal or a High Court. It is an option for him to at
least 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 before in respect of the Ministry of Environment when they
used to560
take decision on this. It is like environmental solutions. If you remember,
when the issue of the Taj Mahal came up, they said that the colour was
changing. There was a policy decision taken600 by the Supreme Court. All the businesses
which were there were moved out. So, it was an environmental (4)
solution which the hon. Supreme Court gave. 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 in 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 more700
applicable to chemical zones. There are a lot of chemical zones in720
this country. If you see the State of Maharashtra where I come from, most
chemical zones are near rivers. 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. (5)
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. Take the
case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy where repercussions had come out much later. Suppose
something happens today and there is a requirement of moulding the relief, will
this Tribunal have840 the right to do it? That is the
clarification I am looking to get from the hon. Minister. 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. So, would this Tribunal
help them research? Would this Tribunal have this option which will help them
study the matter (6) about the ground reality and not just go by reports
made by people?
There
is one960
more point about strict liability for hazardous effects. There is no strong
reaction because there are a lot of people who do980 a lot of business and
they promise a lot of things. It happened in the case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy
where they said that they considered everything and they gave an assurance, but
there can always be freak accidents. So, when dealing with such cases, I feel
the company has to pay for the consequent damages that it has caused. So, there
has to be extremely strict liability clause for that purpose in this Bill. The
other two things which are missing in this Bill are the doctrine of public
trust and inter-generational equity. I think when these1080 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 (7) and generations have paid a
price because sometimes, people there start having upper respiratory tract
infections. That is1120 the first reaction to air pollution and
after 5 or 10 years, you realise that the entire block there is suffering from
cancer. There have been such instances and the hon. 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 this Tribunal. If you are having1200 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 really need to
have people who really work on the field. We have a great Minister right now
who1260
thinks (8) that environment is a big deal. We all need to realize that.
But1280
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 hon. Minister will clarify these points.
Mr.
Chairman, Sir, environmental crimes are the most serious crimes in the world,
not only because they hurt you immediately but 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,
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
destroying1400
hill ranges, and the export of leather and minerals are all genocidal crimes. (9)
To treat them so lightly as civil issues rather than criminal ones and to allow
the polluter to pay his way1440 out, 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. As I said earlier, the Minister
is like a rain upon the desert. We have waited for 20 years for a good Minister
and he and I share the same values. The only difference between us is that I am
so passionate about India, I want everything done today and the Minister wears
his passion like a cloak which he takes off and puts on when he changes
Ministry. I would urge him that if he could be the best Minister in the
entire Cabinet, (10) he is in a very ticklish position.
