25 June 2024 : The Hindu Editorial Analysis

1. The Court spells the way in Himalaya’s development

(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 8)

Topic: GS2 – Indian Polity – Judiciary, GS3 – Environment

Context

The article discusses the conflict between development and environmental sustainability in the Indian Himalayan Region (IHR), emphasising recent Supreme Court judgments advocating for an ecocentric approach. It highlights the need for development models that respect the fundamental rights of nature and align with the region’s ecological capacity.

Introduction: The Indian Himalayan Region (IHR)

• The Indian Himalayan Region (IHR) is India’s critical provider of ecosystem goods and services, often referred to as India’s water tower.
• Despite recognition of its importance, development models in the Indian Himalayan Region (IHR) often ignore its unique needs, risking environmental degradation and economic ruin.

Recent Supreme Court Judgments: Towards Sustainable Development

• Recent judgments from the Supreme Court of India signal a move towards a robust rights-based regime where sustainable development is viewed as a fundamental right.
• The Apex Court emphasised adopting an ecocentric approach, placing nature at the core of development considerations.
• The Court stressed that humans, as enlightened beings, must act as trustees of the Earth, respecting the rights of natural elements like rivers, lakes, and mountains.

Nature’s Rights: Fundamental Shifts in Perspective

• The Supreme Court’s ecocentric approach posits nature not merely as an object of protection but as a subject with fundamental rights.
• The current development model in the Indian Himalayan Region (IHR), which includes extensive hydroelectric projects and road expansions, violates these natural rights.
• Rampant and reckless construction, especially in environmentally sensitive areas, exacerbates natural disasters and harms local ecosystems.

Recent Disasters: A Wake-Up Call

• A National Disaster Management Authority report highlighted that the 2023 floods in Himachal Pradesh were due to rampant, unregulated construction and loss of green cover.
• The Teesta dam breach in Sikkim and monsoon-induced landslides in Himachal Pradesh in 2023 underscore the destructive impact of current development practices.
• These events illustrate the urgent need to align development with environmental sustainability and the rights of natural systems.

Intersectionality of Rights: Supreme Court Interventions

• In public interest litigation, the Supreme Court has asked for measures to assess the carrying capacity of Himalayan states to ensure sustainable development.
• In the case concerning the Great Indian Bustard, the Court acknowledged the right to a clean environment and to be free from the adverse impacts of climate change.
• The Court underscored that sustainable development and environmental protection are intertwined with fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Sustainable Infrastructure: Essential for Development

• Sustainable and resilient infrastructure is critical for the equitable pursuit of developmental goals.
• Infrastructure must be designed to withstand climate change impacts and disasters to ensure equality and access across the country.
• Disasters often exacerbate social inequality, disproportionately affecting the poor who are least equipped to cope with such events.

The Right to Sustainable Development

• Sustainable development is increasingly seen as a fundamental right, essential for protecting communities from climate change impacts.
• This right necessitates that development projects consider environmental sustainability and disaster resilience from the planning stage.
• Integrated approaches involving policymakers, planners, scientists, and communities are crucial for harmonising development with disaster resilience and environmental protection.

Incorporating Disaster Management in Development

• India’s rapid development must incorporate disaster management to prevent and mitigate the impact of natural hazards.
• Current development practices often disregard nature, leading to unnatural disasters from natural hazards.
• Effective development planning requires convergence of various authorities to address disaster and climate resilience, ensuring projects are greenlit only after thorough assessments.

Towards a Sustainable Future for the Indian Himalayan Region (IHR):

• Supreme Court judgments and the new fundamental right to be free from climate change impacts emphasise the need for a sustainable development model in the Indian Himalayan Region (IHR).
• The development model must align with the IHR’s carrying capacity, ensuring long-term ecological and economic health.
• Balancing development with environmental sustainability is essential to protect both the region’s natural resources and its economic future.

Conclusion: A Call for Integrated Development

• The Indian Himalayan Region’s development must integrate sustainable practices, respecting both human and natural rights.
• Recent legal frameworks and judicial pronouncements highlight the path towards an ecocentric, resilient development model.
• An integrated approach involving all stakeholders is necessary to ensure the IHR’s development aligns with its unique ecological needs and resilience to climate change.

PYQ: Bring out the relationship between the shrinking Himalayan glaciers and the symptoms of climate change in the Indian subcontinent. (150 words/10m) (UPSC CSE (M) GS-1 2014)

Practice Question:  Discuss the challenges and implications of balancing development and environmental sustainability in the Indian Himalayan Region (IHR), considering recent Supreme Court judgments advocating for an ecocentric approach. (150 Words /10 marks)

2. Human dignity versus religious practices

(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 9)

Topic: GS2 – Indian Polity – Judiciary

Context

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently reinstated the traditional practices of “annadhanam” and “angapradakshanam” at the resting place of a revered saint, citing Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution, which protects religious freedoms. This decision contrasts with a previous Division Bench order and a similar Supreme Court case.It highlights the ongoing tension between cultural practices, human dignity, and the promotion of scientific temper.

Introduction

• The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently allowed the resumption of “annadhanam” (offering free food) and “angapradakshanam” (circumambulation) at Nerur Sathguru Sadasiva Brahmendral’s final resting place.
• The practice, involving rolling on plantain leaves after eating, was halted in 2015 by a Division Bench order in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition.

Legal Background and Constitutional Rights

• Justice G.R. Swaminathan reinstated the practice by invoking Article 25(1) of the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
• The judge linked the devotees’ belief in deriving spiritual benefits from the practice to the right to privacy, considering it a fundamental right under the Constitution.
• He argued that if the right to privacy includes aspects like gender and sexual orientation, it also includes spiritual orientation, provided it does not infringe on others’ rights and freedoms.

Previous Division Bench Order

• The Division Bench had halted the practice citing concerns over human dignity and equality under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
• It noted that the practice involved people of all castes and concluded it violated the rights to equality and life.
• The bench referenced a similar practice in Karnataka, where the Supreme Court had stayed the practice of rolling on leftover plantain leaves.

Justice Swaminathan’s Reasoning

• Justice Swaminathan overruled the Division Bench’s order, emphasising the breach of natural justice principles, as devotees and trustees were not included in the original PIL.
• He argued that the practice in question promotes communal amity and social integration since all devotees participate regardless of their community.
• He negated the Supreme Court’s order, noting the Karnataka case involved only Brahmins, whereas the current case included all communities.

Conflict Between Cultural Relativism and Universalism

• The judgement highlights the conflict between cultural relativism and universalism.
• Universalists advocate for adopting human rights standards, while cultural relativists rely on customary laws, practices, and religious beliefs.
• The judge chose the relativist argument, moving away from international norms that emphasise human dignity, such as those in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Role of the State

• It is the state’s duty to change unhealthy, harmful, and undignified religious and customary practices.
• While outright rejection of such practices might create significant backlash, the state should educate believers through reason and rational discussions to foster a humane community that values inquiry and reform.

Fundamental Duties and Scientific Temper

• The judgement failed to examine the constitutional duty of every citizen to develop a scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform.
• This duty is enshrined in the Constitution and should guide actions against superstitious and harmful practices.

Conclusion

• The judgement focused on the rights of devotees to continue their ritual under the guise of protecting their fundamental rights.
• It overlooked the broader duty to promote human dignity and scientific temper, aligning with international human rights standards.
• The state must balance cultural practices with the imperative to foster a rational, humane, and dignified society, ensuring development and respect for human rights go hand in hand.

Practice Question:  Discuss the implications of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court’s decision to reinstate the traditional practices of “annadhanam” and “angapradakshanam” in the context of Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution. How does this ruling balance religious freedoms with the principles of human dignity and scientific temper? (250 Words /15 marks)