CPI (M) ON GREEN TRIBUNAL

Lok Sabha has passed the National Green Tribunal Bill, 2009. Participating in the debate, CPI (M)’s M B Rajesh objected to the content of the bill. He said India was going to be the first country to set up a separate tribunal for the adjudication of environmental matters but the government cannot do justice to the issue because of its obsession with neo-liberalism. In the era of liberalisation, there is a contradiction between development and the environmental and social concerns throughout the world including our country. The growing greed for grabbing natural resources for profit has led to exploitation of nature and environment, but this legislation cannot be an effective instrument to protect our people’s interest in environmental battles. On the contrary, it may become a sharp-edged weapon in corporate hands. The bill would also restrict access to justice with centralisation of powers with the union government. Clause 3 of the bill gives too much power to the executive. In keeping with the Law Commission’s recommendations, Rajesh suggested the each state must have a bench. Clause 22(2) has a provision to declare a claim “untenable” and another provision to impose penalty on a claimant. This is a deliberate attempt to prevent people from bringing issues before the tribunal. There is a five-year stipulation for filing application for compensation though damage may occur over a long period. Therefore, this fixed period of five years should be removed. Civil courts are barred from adjudicating matters that lie within the tribunal’s jurisdiction. This is completely contradictory to the Law Commission’s recommendations. So the jurisdiction of other courts must not be barred and there is no provision for appeal in this bill.

As most projects are located in tribal and rural India, the local community’s livelihood and rights are always in jeopardy. So we must have the criteria that enable the appointment of social scientists and non-bureaucrats. But there is no space for social scientists and there is no mention of the socio-economic impact of environmental issues. The bill narrows the culpability and responsibility for environmental accidents. The definition of polluting activities should be more comprehensive and inclusive.

The most unacceptable aspect of the bill is its pro-corporate orientation, with many provisions favouring the private sector. There is a reference to workmen but it is not comprehensive enough to include contract labourers, casual or daily wage workers. Earlier, private companies could not appeal in a court against the government’s refusal to grant environmental clearance but now the bill provides its possibility. Expressing his serious concern, Rajesh said the bill would encourage exploitation of Palakkad type in Kerala which is experiencing large-scale loot and exploitation of groundwater by Coca Cola. He demanded increase in the provision of imprisonment from 3 to 14 years. The bill, in its sum and substance, is undemocratic and does not protect the interest of the people, he concluded.

Source: People’s Democracy dated 02-05-2010 (www.pd.cpim.org)