The Hindu Business Line : Nuggets of judicial wisdom

"The most vital `community need' at present is the reversal of the environmental degradation. There are virtually no `lung spaces' in the city. The Master Plan indicates that about 34 per cent of recreational areas have been lost to other uses," noted the Supreme Court in a 1996 case.

`WHAT brings you here to court so hastily?' is a question from King John. A simple reply to the poser is, `For justice'. Add to that `knowledge' too, though it is oft ignored that judgments are a wealth of wisdom. Take the NTC case, for example; if you are patient enough to wade through the hundreds of pages of text, you can spot many a nugget of judicial wisdom.

Iron out the creases: On the responsibility of judges, Lord Denning had this to say in Seaford Court Estates Ltd vs Asher, about half a century ago. "When a defect appears, a Judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of the Parliament, and then he must supplement the written word so as to give `force and life' to the intention of the legislature."

The right interpretation: In Madhav Rao Scindia vs Union of India (1971), the Supreme Court said, "The court will interpret a statute as far as possible, agreeably to justice and reason and that in case of two or more interpretations, one which is more reasonable and just will be adopted, for there is always a presumption against the law maker intending injustice and unreason ... The provision in a statute will not be construed to defeat its manifest purpose and general values which animate its structure."

Delegate, not abdicate: That the Legislature cannot delegate `uncanalised and uncontrolled power' is a snatch from the decision in Kishan Prakash Sharma vs Union of India (2001). "The Legislature must set the limits of the power delegated by declaring the policy of the law and by laying down standards for guidance of those on whom the power to execute the law is conferred... When the Constitution entrusts the duty of law-making to Parliament and the Legislatures of States, it impliedly prohibits them to throw away that responsibility on the shoulders of some other authority."

Private vs public interest: In all developed and developing countries, there is emphasis on planned development of cities, sought to be achieved by zoning, planning and regulating building construction activity, said the apex court in Friends Colony Development Committee vs State of Orissa (2004). "Such planning, though highly complex, is a matter based on scientific research, study and experience leading to rationalisation of laws by way of legislative enactments and rules and regulations framed thereunder."

Town planning, but why: The principal objects of any town planning legislation generally are to provide for planning, the development and control of the use of land and to confer on public authorities such as City Municipalities, Municipal Boroughs, Town Municipalities and Town Panchayats. powers in respect of the acquisition and development of land for planning and other purposes. Thus educates the 1986 decision of the Supreme Court in Prakash Amichand Shah vs State of Gujarat.

Precautionary principle: In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court observed that the `precautionary' principle and the `polluter pays' principle are essential features of sustainable development. The court explained the precautionary principle in the context of the municipal law thus: One, environmental measures by the State Government and the statutory authorities must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.

Two, where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. And three, the onus of proof is on the actor or the developer/ industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign. A landmark decision, that was.

Delhi gasping! Delhi is one of the most polluted cities in the world, said the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (1996). "The quality of ambient air is so hazardous that lung and respiratory diseases are on the increase. The city has become a vast and unmanageable conglomeration of commercial, industrial, unauthorised colonies, resettlement colonies and unplanned housing. There is total lack of open spaces and green areas. Once a beautiful city Delhi now presents a chaotic picture," lamented the judgment.

Breathless in Bangalore: In what may stir up nostalgia, Justice Chinappa Reddy had this to say in B. K. Srinivasan vs State of Karnataka (1987): "Bangalore was a beautiful city once. It was a city with magic and charm, with elegant avenues, gorgeous flowers, lovely gardens and plentiful spaces. Not now. That was before the invasion of concrete and steel, of soot and smoke, of high-rise and the fast buck. Gone are the flowers, gone are the trees, gone are the avenues, gone are the spaces. We are now greeted with tall puffing chimneys and monstrous high-rise buildings, both designed to hurt the eye, the environment and the man. But they are thought by many as symbols of progress and modernity. They have come to stay. Perhaps they are necessary. Nostalgic sentiments, we suppose, must yield to modern societal requirements."

Park is necessity, not amenity: Protection of the environment, open spaces for recreation and fresh air, play grounds for children, promenade for the residents, and other conveniences or amenities are matters of great public concern and of vital interest to be taken care of a development scheme. Sounds like a dream, doesn't it? But that thought is from the apex court's decision in Bangalore Medical Trust vs B.S. Muddappa (1991).

"Public park as a place reserved for beauty and recreation was developed in 19th and 20th century and is associated with growth of the concept of equality and recognition of importance of common man. Earlier it was a prerogative of the artistocracy and the affluent either as a result of royal grant or as a place reserved for private pleasure. Free and healthy air in beautiful surroundings was privilege of few. But now it is a `gift from people to themselves'.

"Its importance has multiplied with emphasis on environment and pollution. In modern planning and development it occupies an important place in social ecology. A private nursing home on the other hand is essentially a commercial venture, a profit oriented industry. Service may be its motto but earning is the objective. Its utility may not be undermined but a park is a necessity not a mere amenity."

No bleak tomorrow please: While thinking of the present, the future should not be forgotten, said the apex court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad vs Union of India (2002). We owe a duty to future generations, and for a bright today, a bleak tomorrow cannot be countenanced, the court observed.

"We must learn from our experiences of the past to make both the present and the further brighter. We learn from our experiences, mistakes from the past, so that they can be rectified for a better present and the future. It cannot be lost sight of that while today is yesterday's tomorrow, it is tomorrow's yesterday."

Tomorrow may decide what happens when the parties aggrieved by the Bombay High Court's decision go on appeal before the apex court.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
A wave of internationalisation of R&D

Land locked

Third-party certifying NGOs — A blow to WTO's Hong Kong ministerial?

Ranking against peers

Land eight times the size of Nariman Point

3 cheers for 2 articles

The cloud of environment clearance

Mumbai's happiness and hardship index

Nuggets of judicial wisdom

NTC land sale

Plight of classical mathematics

Development economics

Dais collapse