Assam Citizens Envision the Potential of ‘Environment’s Judicial Protection’

It has not been so far that the citizens’ protest at Guwahati’s Dighalipukhuri has evaded our collective memory. To recall, the protest was against the proposed tree felling by the government to make way for the Reserve Bank-Noonmati flyover. 

The government had to change its plan and the ‘heritage trees’ were spared from the axes. But remember, the protest was coupled with PIL seeking judicial intervention into the matter.

However, the protest and citizens’ overt intervention was not out of the ambit of criticism for the absence of similar actions when large-scale ecological destructions had been in place in various places of the state. The involvement of prominent citizens garnered media highlights in the Dighalipukhuri protests, but several places across the state saw deafening silence from the ‘concerned citizens’ when ecologically destructive events were happening unabated.

Nevertheless, there is a silver lining—people have ceased to remain, silent spectators of the loss of the environment in the face of the so-called development, even where they are not noticed or their voices don’t get prominence. From various fields, concerned citizens have upped the ante against ecologically destructive measures seeking judicial intervention through PILs(Public Interest Litigation). Importantly, a few of these actions have brought positive results as well.

Seeking Protection of the Environment Judicially:

To take the latest one is the case where the Gauhati High Court has issued a show-cause notice to the Assam and Central governments after hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding the Garbhanga Wildlife Sanctuary. 

The PIL primarily addresses two critical concerns: the proposed denotification of the sanctuary and the planned construction of railway lines through its protected area. During the hearing, the court heard arguments from Mr. D.K. Das, counsel for the petitioner, and representatives of the Environment and Forest Department, the Central Government, and the Assam Government.

Notably, the first plea on Garbhanga was filed by activist Subrat Talukdar on 4th November and his PIL was defended by advocate Vikram Rajkhowa. The court considered the matter and directed the Assam government to provide their answer within 3 weeks, which is yet to come. The latest PIL has been clubbed with the one filed by Subrat.

Spread in an area of around 117 square kilometres, Garbhanga was notified as a ‘Wildlife Sanctuary’ in May 2022. But just after 17 months, the state government denotified the sanctuary. This erupted concerns amongst citizens and the judicial process was undertaken by Subrat Talukdar at the beginning and in the latest PIL.
There are other similar examples of judicial activism to protect the environment and the ecological balance that we should talk about today.

One Is from Bajali where a group of six people filed a PIL at NGT(National Green Tribunal) against illegal sand mining at Kaldia River. The illegal sand mining occurred at a distance of just 200 meters from the Soibari bridge over the Kaldia River.

NGT’s eastern bench imposed a fine as ‘Environmental Compensation’ on Arya Smart Living at North Guwahati for violating environmental norms. Here, a petition was filed by a group of homebuyers alleging that the developer violated environmental clearance conditions and the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) notification of 2006. This NGT judgment came in September this year.

Again a group of about 10 residents of Kapalkata village in Sonapur approached the NGT against the Taj Cement Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. They challenged the legality of the process through which the company conducted a public hearing for its proposed cement grinding unit. The NGT order in the case mentioned that the public hearing was not according to due process. 

One of the most discussed PILs is the one against Vedanta’s oil mining projects in the vicinity of Hollongapar Gibbon sanctuary and the proposed broadening of the railway track and electrification of it, which, again, is in front of the NGT. Notably, the NBWL (National Board of Wildlife) has presently put a hold on Vedanta’s mining proposal.

These are just a few of the cases that could reach the corridors. Many other cases are ongoing and many are awaiting to be placed in front of the judges’ table. 

Imperatives:

The environment is not only for us but also for the sustenance of our future generations. This is the message that provoked those who have come out proactively to save nature. Moreover, the brunt of climate change has become quite apparent in our place. Can we forget the scorches of the heat waves this summer? Do we not experience ourselves that the weather pattern has taken a turn in our lifetime? Do we not see that this planet will not remain liveable for our future generations if the ecological and environmental degradation continues unabated? We see and feel and few amongst us have taken up the task to follow till the justice is met, for us and our future generations. 

This in fact is inspiring. However, there remains a ‘but’ and that is the increasing greed of extracting more from nature to expand individual gains or accumulate more capital. When the government apparently fails to guarantee the citizens that the environment is protected from the clutches of  ‘profits of some’ and remains viable for all of us, people take up the fight for justice and for the future.