Navi Mumbai: The Supreme Court has upheld our right to open spaces while the Bombay High Court has struck down the Centre’s move to grant post-facto Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearances after committing the violations. Both judgments vindicate our constitutional right to a good environment. Article 21 covers the rights, including the right to live with dignity, the right to livelihood, and the right to a healthy environment.
As the Indian Bar Association says, Article 51-A states: “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.” And we say every citizen includes you, me, and the government and policymakers.
It is in this context that the environmental groups have been raising their voice against the government agencies’ onslaught on the environment.
Fast-dwindling Open Spaces In Navi Mumbai
The Supreme Court has pulled up Navi Mumbai city planner City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) of Maharashtra for cancelling a 20-acre plot at Ghansoli node earmarked for a sports facility and floating tender for real estate development. The apex court thus upheld the Bombay High Court's earlier order against CIDCO.
The main issue plaguing the so-called planned city of Navi Mumbai is fast-dwindling open spaces and CIDCO’s plans to lease out virtually every inch of land. As it is, the open space is woefully short of the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) and the WHO standards. AMRUT envisages a benchmark area of about 10,000 sq meters per thousand population, whereas NMMC open space works out to 3,000 sq meters. (0.3 ha per 1,000 people). Open spaces include playgrounds, recreation grounds, and gardens.
‘Pollute And Pay’ Syndrome
The Bombay High Court’s recent judgment striking down the Centre’s move to grant post-facto CRZ clearances is hence highly laudable. Had the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) been allowed to have its way, the move to grant environmental clearances after the project proponents’ violations would have opened the floodgates of applications for regularisation which in turn had a disastrous impact on the environment.
Vanashakti and Stalin D have done well by challenging the MoEFCC memorandum and pointing out that the ‘pollute and pay’ syndrome should never be encouraged.
For starters, the MoEFCC memorandum signed by joint secretary Sujit Kumar Bajpayee in February 2021 relied on what he called “several requests” from the coastal state governments for proposals for permitting activities that have commenced work without a prior CRZ clearance due to inadequate knowledge of the regulatory regime and other factors.
“Bringing such projects and activities in compliance with the environmental laws at the earliest point of time is therefore essential, rather than leaving them unregulated and unchecked, which will be more damaging to the environment,” Bajpayee argued.
Vanashakti counsel Askash Rebello pointed out to the High Court, that the government cannot override the CRZ Notifications of either 2011 or 2019 which make prior clearances mandatory.
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar, therefore, ruled that CRZ Notification, 2019 “does not contain any provision for any kind of post facto CRZ clearance”. The impugned Office Memorandum is clearly non-statutory in nature and post facto CRZ clearance is legally not permissible.
Environment- The Worst Victim.
We, the environmentalists, have been arguing right from day one that this memorandum was ill-advised as it would cause irreparable environmental damage. As it is, in the absence of proper monitoring and implementation of the CRZ notifications and the Environment Act, the environment has been the worst victim.
The concerned authorities remain unconcerned, and the alert citizens have a tough time in getting the officials’ attention to the violations. Little or no action is taken even after the citizens file complaints. This apathy would have worsened had the MoEFCC memorandum been allowed to go through.
A Need To View Environmental Crimes Through Different Lens
A case in point is the unchecked destruction of mangroves and wetlands in ecologically fragile Uran taluka, just across Mumbai harbour. The forest department had imposed a penalty of a mere Rs 1 lakh on JNPA for destroying 4,500 mangroves in the construction of its Container Terminal IV, as per the information given to us under the RTI Act. That’s it. The project was literally condoned by paying the penalty, that too by the contractor.
The Bombay High Court judgment in the Vanashakti case should serve as an eye-opener to agencies such as the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) and the revenue officials.
Courts, too, will have to view environmental crimes under a different lens because the damage caused will have disastrous consequences. The unseasonal floods and inundation of paddy fields in Uran send a clear message that inter-tidal water finds its way when you bury the wetlands.
(The views expressed are of the author. The author is a media veteran, an environmentalist and Director at NatConnect Foundation)
