the evolution of “Right to Life” from a purely human-centric entitlement to a broader, planetary jurisprudence. The conflict between Anthropocentrism and Eco-centrism represents the most significant philosophical fissure in modern environmental law.
Here is an analysis of these conflicting values, substantiated by Indian Supreme Court jurisprudence.
1. The Core Conflict: Instrumental vs. Intrinsic Value
The fundamental tension lies in why we protect the environment:
- Anthropocentric Approach (Instrumental Value):
- Philosophy: Man is the center of the universe. Nature is a “resource” to be managed for human benefit.
- Legal Translation: Environmental protection is necessary because humans need clean air and water to survive.
- Key Concept: “Sustainable Development” (often interpreted as development that sustains human needs).
- Eco-centric Approach (Intrinsic Value):
- Philosophy: Nature has value independent of its usefulness to humans. Humans are merely one strand in the web of life.
- Legal Translation: Non-human entities (animals, rivers, forests) have legal rights and “dignity.”
- Key Concept: “Deep Ecology” and “Species Best Interest Standard.”
2. Phase I: The Anthropocentric Era (The “Right to Environment” for Humans)
Initially, the Indian Supreme Court read environmental rights into Article 21 (Right to Life). However, this was purely human-centric. The environment was protected only because human life was at risk.
- Case Law: Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (various decisions).
- The Conflict: In these cases, if a forest had no utility to humans (e.g., no timber, no tourism, no direct hydrological benefit), an anthropocentric law would find it hard to justify its protection against a profitable factory.
- Judicial View: The court often used the “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays Principle” essentially to keep the environment safe for people.
3. Phase II: The Shift to Eco-centrism (The “Rights of Nature”)
The paradigm shift in Indian jurisprudence occurred when the Courts began recognizing that Article 21 is not the exclusive preserve of Homo sapiens.
A. The Asiatic Lion Case: Rejecting Human Superiority
- Case: Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-I v. Union of India (2013)
- The Issue: The relocation of Asiatic Lions from Gujarat to Madhya Pradesh. The Gujarat state argued against it, partly on grounds of state pride (a human construct).
- The Shift: The Supreme Court explicitly rejected the anthropocentric view.
- Judges’ Remarks:“The fight for the protection of the environment… is not only for the human beings but also for the other species… We must apply the ‘Species Best Interest Standard’.”“Humans are just one among the various life forms… [We] reject the anthropocentric approach.”
- Analysis: This was a jurisprudential earthquake. The Court held that even if human interests (tourism revenue, state pride) suffer, the lion’s interest in survival takes precedence.
B. The Jallikattu Case: Expanding ‘Personhood’
- Case: Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014)
- The Conflict: Culture/Tradition (Human interest) vs. Pain/Suffering of Bulls (Animal interest).
- The Verdict: The Court banned Jallikattu (later overturned by statute, but the jurisprudential logic remains landmark).
- Judges’ Remarks (Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan):“Article 21 of the Constitution, while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and the word ‘life’ has been given an expanded definition… so as to include some of the rights of animals.”“The Bulls have a right to live with dignity and honor.”
- Analysis: This judgment integrated Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty to have compassion for living creatures) with Article 21. It essentially argued that you cannot claim a Human Right (to culture) if it violates the Fundamental Duty (compassion).
C. The Recent Affirmation: Public Trust Doctrine
- Case: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (Recent 2024 orders regarding Tiger Safaris) & State of Telangana v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (2024).
- The Conflict: Building Tiger Safaris (Human entertainment/Tourism) vs. Tiger Habitat integrity.
- Judicial View: The Court reiterated that the approach must be “Eco-centric.” The forest does not exist for the safari; the safari is barely tolerated if it doesn’t harm the forest.
4. Critical Analysis:
we must critique the “Man-Environment” binary. The modern Indian judicial trend is moving from Shallow Ecology (protect nature for man) to Deep Ecology (protect nature from man).
The Constitutional Nexus:
We are witnessing the “Constitutionalization of Nature.”
- Article 14 (Equality): Are we treating species unequally?
- Article 21 (Life): Does “Life” mean “Human Life” or “Biological Life”?
- Article 51A(g) (Duty): This is the bridge. The Court effectively says: Your Human Rights are conditional upon your performance of Fundamental Duties toward nature.
The Remaining Conflict:
Despite these judgments, the executive branch often operates on “Sustainable Development,” which is inherently anthropocentric. It seeks to balance the two values. The Judiciary, however, is increasingly saying that when the “irreversible destruction” of a species is at stake, the balance must tilt 100% toward Eco-centrism (as seen in the Godavarman continuing mandamus).
Summary Table
| Value Focus | Anthropocentric Approach | Eco-centric Approach |
| Philosophical Basis | Nature has Instrumental Value (for humans). | Nature has Intrinsic Value (in itself). |
| Key Legal Doctrine | Sustainable Development. | Deep Ecology / Species Best Interest. |
| Primary Beneficiary | Current & Future Generations of Humans. | Flora, Fauna, and Ecosystems. |
| Landmark Case | Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (Right to Clean Air). | Centre for Env. Law v. UOI (Asiatic Lions). |
| Judicial Tone | “Protect environment to protect health.” | “Protect environment to protect its dignity.” |
The most recent jurisprudence reveals a new, complex conflict: “Green Energy (Anthropocentric) vs. Biodiversity (Eco-centric).” It is no longer just “Factory vs. Forest”; it is now “Solar Panel vs. Endangered Bird.”
Here are the recent challenges and forward-looking suggestions.
I. Recent Challenges (The “Implementation Crisis”)
1. The “Green Dilemma”: Climate Rights vs. Species Rights
- The Case: M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (March 2024)
- The Context: The Great Indian Bustard (GIB) is critically endangered. Power lines for solar plants (renewable energy) are killing them.
- The Conflict:
- Eco-centric View: Shut down/underground the power lines to save the species (Intrinsic value of the bird).
- Anthropocentric View: We need solar power to stop Climate Change for human survival (Instrumental value of the land).
- The Ruling: The Supreme Court recognized a “Right to be free from adverse effects of Climate Change” (Articles 14 & 21).
- The Challenge: By elevating “Climate Action” to a Fundamental Right, the Court has inadvertently created a tool that State agencies can use to justify destroying local biodiversity (like the GIB habitat) in the name of the “greater good” (fighting climate change). This dilutes the “Species Best Interest” standard established in the Asiatic Lion case.
2. Legislative Pushback: The “Strategic” Exception
- The Statute: Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023
- The Context: This amendment significantly alters the definition of “forest,” effectively overriding the broad “dictionary meaning” standard set by the Godavarman (1996) judgment.
- The Challenge: It exempts “strategic linear projects of national importance and national security” within 100 km of international borders.
- Critique: This is a legislative re-assertion of Anthropocentrism. It treats forests not as ecosystems with rights, but as “land banks” for national security.
- Real-world Example: The Great Nicobar Island Project. A massive transshipment port and township are proposed in a Biosphere Reserve. The justification is “National Security” and “Trade” (Anthropocentric), while the Shompen tribe and Leatherback Turtles (Eco-centric) face existential threats.
3. The “Legal Personhood” Stalemate
- The Issue: While the Uttarakhand HC granted “Legal Personhood” to rivers (Ganga/Yamuna) in the Mohd. Salim case, the Supreme Court stayed this order.
- The Practical Challenge: Liability. If the River Ganga is a “person” with rights, it also has duties. If the river floods and kills people, can the “guardians” (State officials) be sued for manslaughter? The legal machinery cannot currently process a “Nature Person” effectively.
II. Suggestions (The Way Forward)
1. From EIA to “EcIA” (Ecological Impact Assessment)
Current Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) are anthropocentric—they measure pollution levels affecting human health.
- Suggestion: Mandate Ecological Impact Assessments (EcIA). These would measure the loss of “Ecosystem Services” and species connectivity.
- Legal Hook: Argue that the “Precautionary Principle” (Art. 21) requires proving no irreversible harm to species before a project begins, not just “manageable pollution” for humans.
2. Institutionalizing “Guardianship”
The “Rights of Nature” fail because the “Guardians” are usually State officials (Chief Secretaries) who are often the same people approving dams on the river. This is a conflict of interest.
- Suggestion: Create an independent “Nature’s Commission” (similar to the National Human Rights Commission).
- Function: This body would have locus standi to sue the government on behalf of rivers/forests. It solves the “who represents the river?” problem.
3. Doctrine of “Non-Rogue” Renewables
To resolve the M.K. Ranjitsinh conflict:
- Suggestion: The Supreme Court must clarify that “Climate Action cannot be an alibi for Extinction.”
- Principle: Renewable energy projects must be “Non-Rogue”—meaning they cannot be sited in “Critical Wildlife Habitats.” The “Right to Climate Security” (Human) and “Right to Existence” (Species) must be harmonized, not hierarchized.
Summary Comparison of Recent Tensions
| Area of Law | The Anthropocentric Push (2024) | The Eco-centric Defense |
| Climate Change | M.K. Ranjitsinh (Right to Climate Protection implies need for solar farms). | Species Best Interest (Solar farms cannot kill endangered birds). |
| Forest Law | Forest Amendment Act 2023 (Forests are strategic assets). | Godavarman Doctrine (Forests are ecosystems regardless of notification). |
| Development | Great Nicobar Project (Port > Turtles). | Public Trust Doctrine (State is trustee, not owner, of nature). |
