SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AS A SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROWTH STRATEGY: EXPANDING HORIZONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN INDIA. G.S. Tiwari*

Transcription

1 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AS A SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROWTH STRATEGY: EXPANDING HORIZONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN INDIA G.S. Tiwari* I Introduction THE LAW of environmental protection envisages growing interdependence of economic management of environmental resources and its impact on human life. Essentially, growing debate in recent times about the need for environmental protection has slowly but surely increased the focus on the nature and extent of development, which is of inescapable wider perspective, has to be sustainable, which embraces ecological dimensions, apart from social, economic and distributive justice components. Development that meets the needs of all people is the leit motif of constitutional governance. This notion itself presupposes continuity in the development process so that future options are not foreclosed, and also inescapability of an integration between development and environment, because the two have to remain in harmony to ensure and sustain focus on needs, which are basic of all and at all times. This linkage and integration between the two, one for meeting basic needs, removing poverty and ensuring socio-economic justice, and the other, for maintaining long-term sustainability is the anchor principle of legal policy concerning environmental law. Economic growth must not only ensure attainment of socio-economic justice and ideals of an egalitarian society, but also harness environment in a sustainable manner. This symbiosis will symbolise, in future, a new paradigm for constitutional governance and just social and political order. This thrust on integration of mutually reinforcing facets of socio-economic development and environmental protection is more pronounced in Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development, * M.A. (Eng.), LL.M., Ph.D. (Del.). 1. Principle 2, 5, 8 and 11 of the Declaration are more specific; also see infra note The Indian Law Institute

2 436 Journal of the Indian Law Institute Vol. 52 : 3 & 4 II Evolution of the principle of sustainable development The concept of sustainable development represents the core principle of international endeavour towards integration between environment and development which marked the environmental debate in the early seventies and late eighties. Its culmination into an overarching principle of environmental jurisprudence is essentially an increased focus on harmonious links between physical, economic and social aspects of environment and development. 2 The journey from Stockholm to Rio via the Brundtland Report highlights the shifting focus on one and the other and final culmination into this harmonious integration. The concept of sustainable development was contained in the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, entered the environmental debate more intensely in the 1970s, was popularised by the Brundtland Report and further developed in the document Caring for the Earth. It had its deep roots in early twentieth century theory of renewable resource management and was later conceptualised as a fully integrated approach to conservation and development by the world conservation strategy. 3 Actually, the world conservation strategy emphasised the interdependence of conservation and sustainable development. The Brundtland Report defines the terms thus: Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs Sustainable development requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better life 4. This definition emphasises two core principles: firstly, the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world s poor, to which overriding priority should be given, and, secondly, the idea of limitations 2. Ben Boer, Implementing Sustainability 14 Del L.Rev. 1 at 9 (1992); also see Ismail Serageldin, Making Development Sustainable in Finance and Development, IMF and the World Bank, vol.30, no. 4, p.7 (1993). Serageldin attaches economic, social and ecological aspects to sustainable development. 3. William E. Rees, Understanding Sustainable Development in Bernd Hamm and Pandurang K. Muttagi (eds.), Sustainable Development and The Future of Cities 19 at 20 (1998). 4. Our Common Future (Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development), (1987).

3 2010] Sustainable Development as a Socio-Economic Growth Strategy 437 imposed on the environment s ability to meet present and future needs. 5 The document Caring for the Earth defines the term as improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems. 6 The Brundtland Report transformed sustainable development from an ecologically focussed notion to a human-centred approach by establishing a link between social, economic and environmental issues. The environment was recognised as a fundamental element in any growth equation, rather than an obstacle to growth. Thus, sustainable development was identified with increasing earth s support to human needs, by promoting living within the limits of nature. Earth s plants, animals and micro-organisms - interacting with one another and with physical environment in ecosystems - form the foundations of sustainable development. The continuing loss of biodiversity reflects in true measure the imbalance between human needs and wants and nature s capacity. In 1990, a Canadian workshop highlighted three fundamental objectives of sustainable development: 7 (i) an economic objective: the production of goods and services. The overriding criterion in fulfilling this objective is efficiency. (ii) an environmental objective: the conservation and prudent management of natural resources. The overriding criterion here is the preservation of biodiversity and maintenance of biological integrity. (iii) a social objective: the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of life. Equity is the main consideration in meeting this objective. Similarly, various components of the term have been succinctly summarised by one author thus: 8 5. Philippe Sands, 1 Principles of International Environmental Law 198 (1995). 6. Caring for the Earth : A Strategy for Sustainable Living, IUCN, UNEP and WWF, Gland (1991), p. 10. The World Conservation Strategy, IUCN, UNEP and WWF (1980), while stressing the importance of sustainable development, sought to achieve three main objectives - to maintain essential ecological processes, to preserve genetic diversity and to secure sustainable utilisation of species and ecosystems. Since, in the first document of World Conservation Strategy (1980) sufficient analysis of political and economic reasons for deterioration of natural resources was missing, the second document (1991) brought in social and economic concerns in the conceptual framework of sustainable development. 7. Supra note Akshay Jaitly, An overview of Post-Rio Political Economy Issues in Prodipto Ghosh and Akshay Jaitly (eds.), The Road from Rio: Environment and Development Policy Issues in Asia 29 (1993). Different perspectives of sustainable development

4 438 Journal of the Indian Law Institute Vol. 52 : 3 & 4 An economic definition places greater emphasis on the use of renewable natural resources in a manner that does not eliminate or otherwise diminish their usefulness for future generations. Alternatively, in a welfare State perspective, sustainable development has been described as development that improves health care, education and social well-being. A third, technology based interpretation is that sustainable development includes a rapid transformation of the technological base of industrial civilisation with the use of new technologies that should be cleaner, more efficient and less natural resources intensive. An ecological definition of the concept is that it involves improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems. Philippe Sands has summarised various components of the principle of sustainable development as under: 9 (i) The need to take into consideration the needs of present and future generations (the principle of intergenerational equity). (ii) The acceptance, on environmental protection grounds, of limits placed upon the use and exploitation of natural resources (the principle of sustainable use). have also been analysed by some other writers. Rees accords primacy to ecological considerations: W.E. Rees, The Ecology of Sustainable Development, 20 The Ecologist 18 (1990); Barbier emphasises a meeting of social and economic objectives, rather than ecological ones: E. Barbier, Economics, Natural Resource Scarcity and Development 103 (1989); Bartelmus is more explicit in attaching significance to human purpose of sustainable development: P. Bartelmus, Environment Growth and Development 72 (1994). The focus on human well-being is also stressed by the Rio Declaration of UNCED in principle as human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. Lakshman Guruswamy describes sustainable development as a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspiration : Lakshman D. Guruswamy et al. (eds.), International Environment Law and World Order (A Problem-oriented Course Book) 308 (1994); Eradication of poverty (social equity) and conservation of biodiversity are integral to sustainable development, has been emphasised by Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC The court observed, During the two decades from Stockholm to Rio sustainable development has come to be accepted as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and improve the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of the supporting eco-system : id. at Supra note 5 at 199 & 208.

5 2010] Sustainable Development as a Socio-Economic Growth Strategy 439 (iii) The role of equitable principles in the allocation of rights and obligations between various states (the principle of equitable use or intragenerational equity). (iv) The need to integrate all aspects of environment and development (the principle of integration). In a nutshell, the concept of sustainable development means meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better living. 10 Since poverty and inequality are endemic in the world, it will always be prone to ecological and other crises. Therefore, it requires that societies must meet human needs, both by increasing productive potential and by ensuring equitable opportunities to all. The thrust on economic growth by the Brundtland Report has been criticised by some experts on the ground that continued economic growth is irreconcilable with sustainable development. This debate will carry on. But, the important point highlighted by these developments is the need to integrate environmental concerns into developmental process. Economic growth, no doubt, is significant for development, but, at least, it is only essential or a means of development rather than an end in itself. That is why, the Earth Summit 11 in 1992, while confirming the need to integrate environmental protection into developmental process, stressed the need for striking a balance between environment and development by adopting sustainable development as its leit motif. The Summit was also instrumental in setting up necessary legal framework for implementing sustainable development on a global plane. Further, the Rio Declaration, unlike the Stockholm Declaration, attaches greater importance to social environment over physical environment. It achieves a balance between the substantive requirements of sustainable development and procedural requirements for implementing environmental protection. With human rights as the focus of sustainable development, the Declaration attempts to create a harmonious and equilibrated world society. Justice, equity and fair play become key words in the present task of restructuring the world community on the basis of sustainable development Supra note 4 at 44; also see, supra note UNCED 1992 held at Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. A recent UNEP report again highlighted the need for striking a balance between economic development and sustainability as major environment and development challenge: Global Environment Outlook, UNEP 25 (1997); also see supra note R.S. Pathak, Presidential Address on Post-UNCED Seminar on Environment and Development Policy issues in Asia, held in New Delhi in supra note 7, Ghosh and Jaitly (eds.), 14 (1993).

6 440 Journal of the Indian Law Institute Vol. 52 : 3 & 4 These trends and definitions have been analysed to suggest that the concept of sustainable development has evolved as a regulatory or limiting principle denoting limits on exploitation potential of earth s natural resources, and thus limiting the pace, nature and extent of development process. The legal nature of this regulatory principle, however, is not relatable to any right to environment in international environmental law regime, where the prime concern has been to lay down obligations, duties and responsibilities of nation-states towards protection, improvement and preservation of the environment for the present and also for the generations to come. This trend is clearly discernible in various conventions from Stockholm to Rio, and further to Johannesburg. In fact, a clear enunciation of right to live in a clean environment is yet to be established in international environmental law despite frequent voices being raised by experts in this regard. 13 The response of international community in this regard has been muted because of two dominant rights, namely the right to sovereignty over one s natural resources 14 and the right to development. 15 Nevertheless, indirect reference to the right of individuals and peoples with respect to the environment are traceable in some international declarations, which may be mentioned here. The 1962 Declaration of the UN General Assembly, which resolved that the rights of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources must be exercised in the interest of their national development of the well-being of the people of the state concerned, while reflecting the right to permanent sovereignty over 13. H.Steiger, The Right to Human Environment: Proposal for an Additional Protocol to European Human Rights Convention (1973); W.P. Gormley, The Right of Individual to be guaranteed a Pure, Clean and Decent Environment; Future Progress of the Council of Europe in Legal Issues of European Integration 1-23 (1975); W.P. Gormely, The Right to Safe and Decent Environment, 289 IJIL 1 (1988). 14. See, for example, Declaration 1 of the U.N. Declaration of the Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, 1962; Principle 21, Declaration of the U.N. Conference of the Human Environment, 1972 (Stockholm Declaration); Principle 2, The Rio Declaration on Environmental and Development, Declaration on the Right to Development, annexed to UNGA Res. A/ RES/41/128, dated December 4, 1986; see also a separate resolution entitled The Right to Development, A/RES/41/133 dated December 4, See Nagendra Singh, Right to Environment and Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law JILI 289 (1987) wherein the author argues that right to environment and sustainable development have emerged as general principles of international law.

7 2010] Sustainable Development as a Socio-Economic Growth Strategy 441 national resources as an international legal right (closely related to the later declaration on right to development), is a definite pointer to the well-being of the people which would include activities that are environment-friendly. Principle 1 of the Stockholm Declaration, 1972, declares that man has the fundamental right to freedom and adequate conditions of life in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, subject to the solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for the present and future generations. The adequate conditions of life contemplate an environment of well-being. Priniciples 8, 11 and 18 further guarantee quality of life, better living and common good of mankind, respectively. These principles do not directly guarantee any right to clean environment but the direction is towards that goal. Similarly, Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration, while affirming state s sovereignty to exploit their natural resources renders it subject to the condition that they do not cause damage to the environment of other states. This subtle symbiosis between states right and obligation continues further and Principle 2 of Rio Declaration virtually adopts the same trend, of course, with more explicit emphasis on the right to pursue their own environmental and developmental policies. Thus, essentially while development has grown as a right, need for environmental protection has grown only as an obligation. Principle 4 of Rio Declaration goes further in this direction, when it says that the right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generation. Environmental concerns have historically been addressed as incidental to economic concerns. It is only in recent times that the integral relationship between environmental protection and economic development has been recognised by the international community. Towards this end, the UNCED process and the instruments have made significant contribution, and it is unlikely that the two objectives could now be easily separated. 16 Though this integration has been internationally accepted as a core principle of sustainable development, developing countries have been careful to safeguard their future developmental priorities and limit the extent to which international environmental regulation might limit such developmental priorities. This direction is very clear in both UNCED treaties which are eloquent to the effect that the overriding priority needs 16. Supra note 5 at The Indian Law Institute

8 442 Journal of the Indian Law Institute Vol. 52 : 3 & 4 of developing countries are the achievement of economic growth and the eradication of poverty. 17 Thus, the international community acclaims that the parties have a right to and should, promote sustainable development, 18 which is a compromise achieved between the two claims of right to development and right to promote sustainable development. The desirable perspective, therefore, is that only economic growth that provides for equitable development opportunities with distributive justice and the right to livelihood with dignity can ensure sustainable development. This thrust is more pronounced in the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development, Sustainable development aims as much at the environmental stability with development as access to distributive justice for all, which is possible only through growth consistent with fulfillment of needs. III Sustainable development and socio-economic justice In the long-term perspective, democratic governance forms an integral relationship with sustainable development because it represents the will of the people through which alone all round happiness and welfare of all can be assured. Towards this end, socio-economic justice embracing meaningful and effective parameters of human development and based 17. Preamble to the 1992 Climate Change Convention: Preamble to the 1992 Biodiversity Convention. 18. Art. 3(4) of the 1992 Climate Change Convention. 19. Principle 2, 5, 8 and 11 are more specific. Principle 2: We commit ourselves to build a humane, equitable and caring global society cognizant of the need for human dignity for all. Principle 5:, we assume a collective responsibility to advance and strengthen the interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars of sustainable development economic development, social development and environmental protection at local, national, regional and global levels. Principle 8:, we agreed that the protection of the environment, and social and economic development are fundamental to sustainable development, based on the Rio Principles. To achieve such development, we adopted the global programme, Agenda 21, and the Rio Declaration, to which we reaffirm our commitment. The Rio Summit was a significant milestone that set a new agenda for sustainable development. Principle 11: We recognize that poverty eradication, changing consumption and production patterns, and protecting and managing the natural resource base for economic and social development are overarching objectives of, and essential requirements for sustainable development.

9 2010] Sustainable Development as a Socio-Economic Growth Strategy 443 on equality and liberty will remain closely linked with sustainable development. The limitation on developmental process and exploitation of environment is normatively linked to ecological stability and fulfilment of needs consistent with socio-economic justice as the regulatory framework of sustainable development has evolved on the basic premise of coexistence of the two apparently (not in reality) conflicting notions. In fact, from an analytical point of view, ecological, economic and social aspects of sustainability are inseparable. An analysis in section II shows evolutionary trends of sustainable development with shifting focus in varying degree from ecological, economic to social facets. Nevertheless, this does not, in any way, reflect the end of contemporary debate about the nature and content of sustainable development. Scholars like William Rees, 20 Daly, Pearce and many others are of the view that dominant economic paradigm of development is flawed; its limited content and false assumptions are selfdefeating in the quest for sustainable development. 21 Maintenance of ecological integrity has to be accorded primacy over others, namely the achievement of social equity, fulfilment of human needs, etc., thus giving rise to the idea of convergence between ecological and economic factors in the developmental implications. To advance the argument further, various interpretations of the theory of Constant Capital Stock are being developed, which overturns the conventional wisdom that sustainable economic development does not require the preservation of the current stock of natural resources or a particular mix of human, physical and natural assets. 22 Rees, therefore, argues that: 23 Developing sustainability requires profound changes in existing power relationships, a reordering of cultural values, massive institutional reform, and reconsideration of the social role of economic growth 24 For sustainable development, therefore, the need is more of appropriate philosophy than for appropriate technology. The thrust on economic growth as the preferred means to sustain development has, however, not been abandoned by any country in 20. Supra note 3, Id. at Id. at 31 & Id. at Id. at The Indian Law Institute

10 444 Journal of the Indian Law Institute Vol. 52 : 3 & 4 their pursuit to achieve socio-economic justice. For, the democratic societies must find means to secure basic needs satisfaction of all human beings and thus eliminate socio-economic inequalities, exploitations and abuse; only this can ensure all round welfare, happiness and progress towards security and peace. Developmental priorities in developing countries like India are inescapable because welfare and happiness of all are democratic imperatives. India is a constitutionally ordained society promising an egalitarian social order signifying equality, liberty, socio-economic justice and dignity to all. The mandate of articles 38 and 39(b) & (c) cannot be fulfilled without fixing and implementing certain socio-economic goals and effecting structural change in the society. 25 The imperative need is undoubtedly rapid socio-economic transformation to eradicate the problems of poverty, inequitable access and distribution of natural resources and to promote basic indices of human development, minimum standard of welfare and human rights. But the goals of economic and social development must be infused with sustainability; in fact, sustainability embraces socio-economic development. Thus, whereas industrialisation and technological advancement necessary for economic development is imperative for a developing country like India, the process of modernisation is destroying the nature in that it fosters search for cheap biomass-based raw materials and cheap opportunities for waste disposal. Modernisation is also steadily transforming the nature. Since commodification of nature gains priority in the planning process because of predominantly economic considerations, in physical terms, the tendency is to reduce the diversity in nature and transform it into a nature that is full of high yielding mono-cultures. The thrust on maximum profit and production overlooks long-term sustainability. Pressures of population on land for competing uses, such as agriculture, irrigation and power projects, industry, roads, etc. are contributory causes for the shrinking forest cover. Such devastations are taking place in the forests, agricultural land and produce, grazing land, etc. due to construction of dams, mining activities, deforestation, urban expansion, etc. Reduction in biomass due to enormous increase in biomass-based industry also raises the spectre of scarcity, unemployment and inequity. For example, a planned hydroelectric dam for power production and irrigation may inundate and destroy too much 25. See Kesavananda v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.

11 2010] Sustainable Development as a Socio-Economic Growth Strategy 445 forest cover which, in turn, would add to the global carbon dioxide load by removing millions of trees and plants. Abandonment of such a project may become imperative to prevent greenhouse effect, preserve forests and thus avoid displacement of human settlements too. Notwithstanding the above, there is no alternative to industrial development for non-development itself can be a curse and lead us to abysmal poverty. What is needed is that national development proceeds along rational sustainable lines for environmental conservation is the very basis of development. We have to ensure that development projects and programmes do not lead to depletions in our natural resources which imply that industrial development and environmental concerns have to be harmonised by carrying out environmental impact assessment of development projects and programmes. The balancing process has to prioritise between competing claims of poverty alleviation, need for development, equity, both intra- and inter-generational, conservation of biodiversity and rights of local tribal communities. The balancing process between development and environmental protection gets legally sanctified because of judicial recognition of a right to clean and wholesome environment 26 as part of right to life under article 21 of the Constitution. The universality of right to life and the inextricable linkage of environment with it allowed the judiciary some elbow space to mould and direct the pace, nature and extent of development. In this respect, the Supreme Court of India is far ahead of its counterparts in other countries. The Supreme Court has put the right to clean and wholesome environment on a higher pedestal. In the post- Maneka period, the court s approach has been to expand the ambit and scope of article 21 (right to life) and thus right to environment. The Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, 27 M.C. Mehta 28 series and host of other 26. The post-maneka period witnessed an era of constitutional activism resulting into expanded interpretation of fundamental rights in consonance with the social milieu and desiderata. As a result of highly creative interpretations, right to healthy environment, like so many other rights, has been included in the right to life guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution. R. L. & E. Kendra v. State of U. P., AIR 1985 SC 652; T. Damodar Rao v. Municipal Corpn. Hyderabad, AIR 1987 AP 171; Kinkri Devi v. State of H. P., AIR 1988 HP 4; L. K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 Raj. 2; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037; F. K. Hussain v. Union of India, AIR 1990 Ker. 321; Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, JT 1991 (1) SC 77; Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 577 are only a few significant illustrations of this trend. 27. R. L. & E. Kendra v. State of U. P, ibid.

12 446 Journal of the Indian Law Institute Vol. 52 : 3 & 4 cases have brought issues relating to development, human health, ecology, consumptive patterns and livelihood, efficient use of energy and material resources into focus. The noticeable feature of this development has been that the court did not generally allow the right to environment to be subjugated by the right to development. In cases where industrial advancement placed the right in jeopardy, the court did not hesitate to close down operations 29 and even pulling down environment-inimical structures. 30 The court has tried to balance the needs of environmental protection with the needs of development, which alone can usher in an era of socio-economic justice, all round happiness, welfare and progress. In the process, the court has relied upon the principle of sustainable development. 31 The acceptable hypothesis is that environmental protection and development are not antithetical to each other; both have to co-exist for the long-term goal of societal welfare and progress. Development that assures socio-economic justice and is consistent with environmental protection is the paradigm of constitutional governance. The developmental imperative infused with socio-economic justice has to be harmonised with environmental protection; both are viable constitutional goals and one cannot be abandoned for the sake of the other. Before we part with this section, it would be worthwhile to quote the observations of the Supreme Court about this harmonious balance in Indian Council for Enviro- Legal Action: 32 While economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environment destruction and violation; at the same time, the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other 28. Supra note 26 (M. C. Mehta). 29. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., AIR 1987 SC 359; M,C, Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086; Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, supra note M.I. Builders Pvt Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, AIR 1999 SC 2468; T. Damodar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corpn, AIR 1987 AP 171; Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC Supra note 8 (Vellore). 32. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, JT 1996 (4) SC 263 at 277; see also Goa Foundation, Goa v. Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 97; Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, supra note 8; A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu (2001) 2 SCC 62; Live Oak Resort (P) Ltd. v. Panchagni Hill Station Municipal Council (2001) 8 SCC The Indian Law Institute

13 2010] Sustainable Development as a Socio-Economic Growth Strategy 447 developments. Both development and environment must go in hand, in other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice versa, but there should be development while taking due care and ensuring the protection of environment In other words, in order to prevent ecological imbalance and degradation that developmental activity is sought to be regulated. It may be seen from the above that the focus on developmentenvironment balancing process is quite explicit. How does this balancing process work? What are the governing principles to effect this balance? These aspects shall be discussed in the next section. IV Balancing of priorities: Judicial activism The balancing process discards exclusivity and underscores relative prioritisation keeping in view the prevailing state and significance of competing interests like economic, ecological, social and cultural, etc. Most of the issues concerning environmental problems are connected with policy matters; more so, the matrix of balancing process which is to decide on the nature, pace and extent of development and/or the need for environmental protection, is akin to policy framework. Therefore, balancing becomes difficult, and willy nilly it enters into non-legal or nonjudicially manageable domain. This difficulty was clearly discernible in Narmada Bachao Andolan 33 case when the Apex Court was of the view that individuals or organisations in the garb of public interest litigation cannot be permitted to challenge the policy decisions taken after a lapse of time, particularly where massive projects are undertaken and hundreds of crores of rupees of public money has been spent. The pleas relating to height of the dam and the extent of submergence, environment studies and clearance, hydrology seismicity and other issues, except implementation of relief and rehabilitation, cannot be permitted to be raised at this belated stage. It was only the concern of the court for the protection of the fundamental rights of the oustees under article 21 of the Constitution which led to the entertaining of the petition. 34 Thus, one major element of this balancing process would be to ensure that giving effect to fundamental rights and directive principles is not (7) SCALE Id at The Indian Law Institute

14 448 Journal of the Indian Law Institute Vol. 52 : 3 & 4 compromised under any circumstance. This was so proclaimed earlier by the Supreme Court in a case involving ecological protection. 35 While life, health and ecology 36 have great importance for the people, and its protection and preservation are essential, the society shall have to prosper for the economic (emphasis supplied) benefit of people (society) and thus development process cannot be ignored. 37 For, it is now a well-settled principle of law that socio-economic condition of the country cannot be ignored by a court of law 38 and since benefit to the society ought to be the prime consideration of the law courts and ecological imbalance being a social problem out to be decided by a court of law so that the society may thrive and prosper without any affection. 39 In an earlier case, 40 the Apex Court emphasised on the reconciliation between development and environment keeping in view the general welfare of the people and in the interest of the country and its development. Thus, economic growth is the sine qua non of any development model because this enables the community equitable opportunity to fulfil its basic needs. But, as the economic model of the growth has to be tempered with constitutional goal of socio-economic justice and ideals of an egalitarian society, any development capable of meeting the needs of present and future generations must be governed by the regulatory norm of conservation of natural resources. Achieving harmony between the two can be the only way to attain meaningful development. India presents a situation of classic dilemma in this regard. The governing norm, as proclaimed by Agenda 21, should be integration of environmental imperatives with developmental processes, which, in terms of natural resources, implies that country s demand for its sustenance should not exceed its carrying capacity. In fact, the concept of sustainable development 35. Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B. (1987) 2 SCC 295; see also, Rural Litigation & Entititlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P., supra note M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga pollution case), AIR 1988 SC 1037 at People United for Better Living in Calcutta-Public v. State of W.B., AIR 1993 Cal.215 cited with approval by the Apex Court in Goa Foundation, Goa v. Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 97; also see Live Oak Resort ((P) Ltd v. Panchgani Hill Station Municipal Council (2001) 8 SCC 329; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC Id. (Goa Foundation) at Id. at Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P. (1985) 2 SCC 431.

15 2010] Sustainable Development as a Socio-Economic Growth Strategy 449 itself is a balancing concept between ecology and development. 41 In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, 42 the Apex Court while stressing on the significance of sustainable development and intergenerational equity 43 emphasized that the present generation has no right to deplete all the existing forests and leave nothing for the next and future generations. 44 The apex court has also amplified in Vellore Citizens case 45 that intergenerational equity, use and conservation of natural resources, environmental protection, precautionary principle, eradication of poverty, etc, are the salient principles of sustainable development. The environment-development symbiosis is a preferred social goal aimed at attaining social good and benefit of clean and healthy environment and economic growth for all. Environment protection is as much a facet of right to life as meeting the needs of all through development process. 46 This symbiosis is adversely affected if either the development does not contribute to social benefit or there is irreparable damage to the environment, environmental degradation or ecological imbalance causing risk to people s health and life and to the society in general. In either case, the two would appear antithetical to each other and any exercise of power in this manner will be arbitrary, against public interest and violative of article 21 of the Constitution. 47 Environmental protection envisages conflict between socio-economic interests of the people impinging on their right to wholesome environment and ecological balance, on the one hand and rights of livelihood of tribals or local inhabitants, on the other. Whereas in the Doon Valley, 48 the 41. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, supra note 8 at 385; see also Consumer Education and Research Society v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 599; K. M. Chinappa v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC JT 1995 (6) SC Id at Id. at Supra note 8 (Vellore); see also S. Jagannath v. Union of India, JT 1997 (1) SC 160 at and M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, JT 1996 (11) SC cf. Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 42, where it has been held that Concept of social justice and equality are practical contents of right to life. 47. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu (2001) 2 SCC 62 at 79; also see M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Relocation of Hazardous Industries), (2001) 4 SCC 577; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (Doctrine of Public Trust), JT 1996 (11) SC Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 652 at 656.

16 450 Journal of the Indian Law Institute Vol. 52 : 3 & 4 Apex Court, though acknowledging the hardship to the people engaged in lime-stone quarrying operations and being uprooted, accorded precedence to the environment and ecological balance. In Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund, 49 the enunciation of right to livelihood has received emphatic recognition which more or less assures a guarantee to earn livelihood. This right assumes another dimension which has the potential to check government actions connected with developmental planning and execution with an environmental impact that threatens to dislocate poor people and disrupt their lifestyles. In Banawasi Seva Ashram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 50 the Supreme Court prescribed detailed safeguards to protect tribal forest dwellers who were being ousted from their forest land by the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) for the Rihand super thermal power project. The court permitted the acquisition of land only after the NTPC agreed to provide certain court-approved facilities to the ousted forest dwellers. 51 In its order, the court accepted the traditional rights of tribals who for generations had been using the jungles around for collecting the requirements for their livelihood - fruits, vegetables, fodder, flowers, timber, animals by way of sport and fuelwood. 52 In two other cases under article 32, the court passed interim orders requiring the state agencies to resettle and rehabilitate tribals who were being displaced by dams. 53 The right to livelihood of oustees displaced in the wake of industrial development causing massive depletion of forests, wildlife and natural resources will bring the entire gamut of developmental economics into sharp focus vis-a-vis the social parameters of development. The future will beckon a serious conflict between prioritisation of competing social and economic interests and values. The interplay of human rights will govern the future course of development, and thus the developmental process cannot overlook the interests of tribals and local people. The recent controversies surrounding Vedanta and Posco projects in the State of Orissa are also a pointer in this direction. 49. Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund v. Union of India, JT 1997 (3) SC AIR 1987 SC 374; see also Narmada Bachao Andolan, supra notes 33 & Id. at Supra note Karanjan Jalasay Y.A.S.A.S. Samiti v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 532 and Gramin Sewa Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1986 (Supp) SCC 578. In all these three cases neither the right to livelihood nor article 21 has been explicitly mentioned.

17 2010] Sustainable Development as a Socio-Economic Growth Strategy 451 The Narmada Bachao Andolan and Tehri Dam cases are pointers in the direction that developmental activities have to be pursued vigorously to ensure overall improvement and prosperity. While environmental and ecological considerations must be given due priority, with proper channelisation of developmental activities, ecology and environment can also be enhanced. 54 It is only economic growth which is a means to assure education, health and food to all. There cannot be sustained human development without economic growth as the latter facilitates human development. 55 It was very aptly observed in the Narmada Bachao case thus: 56 Poverty is regarded as one of the causes of degradation of environment. With improved irrigation system the people will prosper. The construction of Bhakra Dam is a shining example for all to see how the backward area of erstwhile undivided Punjab has now become the granary of India with improved environment than what was there before the completion of the Bhakra Nangal Project. Poverty essentially is capability deprivation, as postulated by Amartya Sen, 57 and can only be removed by development which has to be viewed as a facet of freedom, i.e. expansion of capabilities and opportunities. This enunciation regarding eradication of poverty is in tune with judicial pronouncements. 58 V Conclusion India is a developing economy which undoubtedly needs a vast industrial infrastructure. This is the only way to alleviate poverty and usher in social justice, the demonstrable insignia of constitutional governance and rule of law. The long-term perspective of environmental health and ecological stability will remain meaningful only if these are harmonised with developmental priorities. The imperatives of rule of law cannot allow islands of riches and prosperity; it will assume significance only 54. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2000 (7) SCALE For a detailed analysis on this aspect, see Human Development Report, 2003, UNDP. 56. Supra note 54 at Amartya Sen, Development As Freedom 87 (2003). 58. Supra note 41.

18 452 Journal of the Indian Law Institute Vol. 52 : 3 & 4 when overall index of human development, focusing on poverty alleviation, heath, education, nutrition, shelter, etc. is upgraded and rendered universal. An egalitarian social order, based on equality, liberty and justice, will have to become reality. Hence, environmental considerations cannot outweigh these concerns, but have to be integrated with developmental priorities to assure a sustainable present and future. Sustainable development is predominantly a growth strategy compatible with ecological stability and consistent with socio-economic justice. The Indian Law Institute