LawRMS

Q: Rule making power under Environment Protection Act, 1986 and E.P. Rules: Critical Analysis from Human Rights Perspective. I. Introduction: The Umbrella Legislation and Rights Paradigm The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA) was enacted in the wake of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, serving as “umbrella legislation” to plug the gaps in existing laws.1 From a […]

This is a sophisticated area of study where International Environmental Law intersects with International Human Rights Law (IHRL). we must move beyond the basic premise that “pollution is bad” and analyze how global environmental crises fundamentally negate the enjoyment of codified human rights. From a jurisprudential perspective, we are witnessing the “Greening of Human Rights”—the

The Jurisprudence of Survival: Article 21 and Environmental Rights Subject: Constitutional Law & Human Rights Focus: The derivation of Third-Generation Human Rights (Green Rights) from Article 21. I. Introduction: The Teleological Expansion From a human rights perspective, the Indian Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 21 (“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal

The trajectory from Absolute Liability to the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) in India represents a shift from individual tortious liability (compensating the victim) to eco-centric restorative justice (remedying the environment itself). one must view this not just as a change in liability rules, but as an expansion of the Right to Life (Article 21). The

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

1. Introduction: The Shift from Retributive to Restorative Justice Traditionally, the Indian criminal justice system was viewed as a duel between the State and the Accused, relegating the victim to the status of a mere “prosecution witness.”1 As a Human Rights student, I argue that this model is insufficient. True justice cannot be achieved merely

This is a complex area where international criminal law intersects with human rights obligations. It requires us to look beyond the surface of “law enforcement” and analyze the tensions between state security (suppressing crime) and human security (protecting rights). The UN’s role is primarily anchored in the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC),

Jurisprudential shift from retributive to reformative justice. The modern human rights discourse views a prisoner not as a “subject of the state” but as a “subject of rights.” 1. Jurisprudential Foundation: “Convicts are not Non-Persons”1 The fundamental premise of prisoners’ rights is that a person does not shed their humanity at the prison gate.2 While

The criminal justice system operates on the “Golden Thread” of British jurisprudence—the presumption of innocence. The rights of an accused are not loopholes for criminals but are safeguards for human liberty against the immense power of the State. I. Constitutional Perspective The Constitution of India acts as the “Grand Norm” from which all procedural protections

Rights of Victims of Crime: A Human Rights Perspective Introduction: The Paradigm Shift Historically, criminal justice was viewed as a contest between the State and the Accused.1 The victim was often the “forgotten man” of the system, reduced to a mere prosecution witness.2 However, modern Human Rights jurisprudence, particularly “Victimology,” argues that the State’s failure