SC on why forests must be protected at all costs, Climate change impacts right to equality?

New Delhi. To protect the ecosystem, the Supreme Court has ruled that Article 48A, envisioning protection of the environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife, is directly linked to citizens and there is a sort of interdependency between the two. The government has been ordered to safeguard the forests to shield humanity from the effects of climate change.

In Kompally village in the Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh, a man named Mohd Abdul Qasim has attempted to convert forest land for personal use since the 1980s. A bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and S. V. N. Bhatti reprimanded the government officials for their complicity and fined the Telangana government Rs 5 lakh for adopting inconsistent positions.

The Supreme Court reprimanded the reversal of the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling of state bifurcation by the judge of the Telngana High Court while reviewing a petition from the earlier judgment that denied Qasim any right over forest land.

In his 60-page decision in the Telangana case, Justice Sundresh said that the Constitution's provisions 14, 19, and 21 shall be construed in relation to provisions involving a forest. He said that preserving and safeguarding forests is what is best for people and other animals.

The bench quoted a letter from a tribal chief to the then US President saying that “man is dependent on earth and not the other way around."  Article 51A(g) correspondingly imposes a duty on a citizen to protect and improve the natural environment as well as to have compassion for other living things, according to the bench. Article 48A imposes a clear mandate upon the state as a directive principle of state policy. The Supreme Court has now upheld environmental protection on an equal footing with fundamental rights twice in a row, according to this verdict.

According to the Supreme Court, an ecocentric approach must replace an anthropocentric one. Stating that a nation's wealth cannot be measured solely in terms of its revenue. It should be viewed instead by emphasizing its natural riches, which are far more important than the other characteristics.

Regarding the preservation of the Great Indian Bustard case, the court emphasized the need for environmental protection in order to guarantee quick and balanced growth. The constitutional guarantee of the right to equality may be impacted by climate change, according to a bench that included Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra. The right to life cannot fully be achieved in the absence of a clean environment free from the unpredictable effects of climate change.