(Part 2) Landmark Cases of 2024: Balancing Conservation and Electoral Integrity
India’s Supreme Court has long been a guardian of constitutional principles, often stepping in to address critical national challenges. Two recent landmark judgments exemplify this role:
- M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, which focuses on protecting the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB) while promoting biodiversity conservation.
- Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. Election Commission of India (2023), which explores the issue of electoral transparency and the demand for 100% VVPAT verification.
These judgments not only safeguard constitutional values but also highlight the judiciary’s role in navigating the fine line between idealism and practicality.
1. M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India: A Win for Biodiversity
Background: The Plight of the Great Indian Bustard
The Great Indian Bustard (GIB) represents India’s rich biodiversity but faces existential threats. Once found across 11 Indian states, the GIB population has dwindled to fewer than 150 individuals, primarily due to habitat destruction and collisions with high-tension power lines.
The petitioners sought the Court’s intervention under Article 21 (right to life) and Article 48A (state duty to protect the environment), emphasizing that saving the GIB is essential for preserving India’s ecological balance.
Key Arguments
Petitioners’ Stand:
- Right to Coexistence: The extinction of the GIB, they argued, would undermine Article 21, as biodiversity is integral to human survival.
- Ecological Responsibility: Biodiversity loss accelerates climate change, threatening global sustainability.
- Proposed Solutions: Called for underground cabling in critical habitats and bird diverters where undergrounding isn’t feasible.
Respondents’ Counterarguments:
- Financial and Logistical Constraints: State governments and power companies cited high costs and technical challenges in laying underground cables across vast areas.
- Cost-Effective Measures: Proposed bird diverters as a more viable alternative to reduce avian collisions.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Judgment
The Court acknowledged both the environmental and logistical challenges but prioritized long-term ecological benefits over immediate costs:
- Article 21 and Biodiversity: Extended the right to life to include biodiversity preservation, stressing that all living beings have an inherent right to coexist.
- Impact on Ecosystems: Highlighted that losing species like the GIB could destabilize ecosystems and exacerbate climate change.
- Practical Balance: Mandated underground cabling in critical GIB habitats and bird diverters where undergrounding is unfeasible.
Impacts and Reactions
- Environmentalists: Celebrated the ruling as a bold step toward biodiversity conservation.
- Energy Sector: Raised concerns about implementation costs, urging government subsidies and private partnerships.
- Policymakers: Recognized the need for sustainable infrastructure that balances conservation with development.
Broader Implications
- Policy Reforms: The ruling sets a precedent for integrating eco-friendly practices into infrastructure development.
- Implementation Challenges: Collaborative efforts, including public-private partnerships, are essential to overcome financial and logistical barriers.
- Global Inspiration: Kenya’s wildlife corridors, which integrate animal conservation with infrastructure projects, offer valuable lessons.
- Public Engagement: The case emphasizes citizen participation in environmental initiatives through education and advocacy campaigns.
2. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India (2023): Ensuring Electoral Trust
Background: Transparency in Democracy
The introduction of Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) was a milestone in India’s electoral reforms, enabling voters to verify their votes and allowing audits of EVM results.
However, the ADR filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking 100% VVPAT verification, arguing that partial verification—random checks in five polling stations per constituency—was insufficient to ensure electoral transparency and public trust.
Key Arguments
Petitioners’ Stand:
- Transparency and Confidence: Argued that partial checks undermine public confidence in the integrity of elections.
- Eliminating Discrepancies: Claimed that 100% verification would ensure error-free election results.
Respondents’ Counterarguments:
- Operational Feasibility: The Election Commission of India (ECI) maintained that full verification would delay results and strain resources.
- Statistical Reliability: Asserted that the current system of random sampling is statistically robust and operationally efficient.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Judgment
The Court dismissed ADR’s plea but left room for incremental reforms to enhance transparency:
- Practical Challenges: Acknowledged that comprehensive verification would be resource-intensive and time-consuming.
- Existing Reliability: Concluded that the current system, supported by random sampling, is statistically reliable and efficient.
- Future Reforms: Encouraged the ECI to explore innovative measures to address voter concerns without compromising operational efficiency.
Impacts and Reactions
- Election Commission: Viewed the ruling as an endorsement of its current practices.
- Reform Advocates: Expressed disappointment but welcomed the call for future reforms.
- Public Sentiment: Highlighted the need for better communication and awareness campaigns about the reliability of EVMs and VVPATs.
Broader Implications
- Building Confidence: The judgment reinforces trust in the existing system while paving the way for future improvements.
- Innovation in Practices: Pilot projects for expanded VVPAT verification could address voter concerns without overwhelming the system.
- Global Comparisons: Countries like Germany and the U.S. use post-election audits as a transparency tool, providing lessons for India’s electoral reforms.
- Public Education: Increasing voter awareness about EVM and VVPAT safeguards can enhance trust in the system.
Judicial Activism vs. Restraint
The Supreme Court demonstrated contrasting approaches in these cases:
- Activism in Environmental Conservation: The GIB ruling reflects judicial activism, prioritizing biodiversity over economic concerns.
- Restraint in Electoral Transparency: The ADR judgment illustrates judicial restraint, upholding existing practices while encouraging gradual reforms.
Conclusion
India’s Supreme Court continues to play a transformative role in addressing national challenges. By prioritizing biodiversity conservation in the M.K. Ranjitsinh case and upholding electoral transparency in the ADR case, the judiciary sets benchmarks for sustainable governance and democratic integrity. These rulings highlight the delicate balance required to safeguard constitutional values while addressing practical realities.
As policymakers and citizens, the onus is on us to translate these judgments into actionable reforms, ensuring that development and democracy thrive together.
FAQs
Why is the M.K. Ranjitsinh case significant?
It underscores biodiversity conservation as a fundamental right and compels eco-friendly infrastructure practices.What was ADR’s main argument?
ADR argued for 100% VVPAT verification to enhance transparency and eliminate discrepancies in elections.How did the Supreme Court address the ADR plea?
The Court upheld the current random sampling system but encouraged gradual improvements in transparency measures.What challenges does the GIB judgment face?
Financial and logistical barriers in implementing underground cabling require collaborative efforts from governments and private entities.What are the broader implications of these rulings?
These judgments pave the way for sustainable infrastructure, innovative electoral reforms, and greater public engagement in governance.
 v. Election Commission of India (2023)){kind=link}
0 Comments