In the M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others vs Union of India & Others case*, the supreme court issued an important judgment towards the protection of Great Indian Bustard. The Great Indian Bustard is a gravely endangered species, with hardly about 200 alive in India today. The Supreme Court of India has sought to move away from an anthropocentric basis of law and stressed the importance of biocentrism.
The anthropocentric perception is widespread and is considered to be responsible for severe environmental crises ranging from global warming, ozone depletion, and water scarcity to the loss of biological diversity. But now is the time for resorting back to Biocentrism or ecocentrism.
Biocentrism and anthropocentrism are recognized as common ecological moral dilemmas. Biocentrism is the philosophy in which the natural environment has its own set of rights, which is independent of its ability to be exploited by or to be useful to humans. Anthropocentrism argues that of all the species on earth, humans are the most significant and that all other resources on earth may be justifiably exploited for the benefit of human beings.
The Ministry of Power, in an affidavit, has said: “The Great Indian Bustard (“GIB”) lacks frontal vision. Due to this, they cannot detect powerlines ahead of them, from far. As they are heavy birds, they are unable to manoeuvre across power lines within close distances. Thus, they are vulnerable to collision with power lines.” So to protect the birds, the Court has affirmed and emphasised the biocentric values of eco-preservation.
Isa Upanishad elaborates on the ancient Indian roots of ecocentrism. It clearly says that all the living and non-living organisms in this universe belong to God alone. The Constitution of India declares that it is applicable to the territory of India. While making such a declaration, it very obviously refers to humans within that territory and its predominant aim was to give them rights, impose obligations and regulate human affairs.
But, the Constitution is significantly silent on any explicitly stated, binding legal obligations we owe to our fellow species and to the environment that sustains us.
The Indian judiciary earlier was inclined towards anthropocentrism. But gradually, it has shifted more towards ecocentrism.
Sources:
* https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165550376/
https://epaper.thehindu.com/Home/MShareArticle?OrgId=GMV8Q2QRP.1&imageview=0
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs