Right to Development a priority under fundamental rights

Right to Development a priority under fundamental rights

Sub: Polity

Sec: Constitution

Context:

• The Supreme Court emphasized the need to strike a “golden balance” between the right to development and the right to a clean environment while setting aside two judicial orders halting development activities in Auroville.
• The verdicts uphold the principles of sustainable development, integrating Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

Key Supreme Court Observations

• While the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle are part of environmental law, the right to industrialisation and development is also a fundamental right.
• The right to a clean environment is guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21, while the right to development equally holds priority under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

NGT Order on Auroville Township (April 2022)

• The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Chennai, had ordered the Auroville Foundation to stop construction in its township project until environmental clearance was obtained.
• The Supreme Court found that the NGT had “committed a gross error” in assuming jurisdiction and giving directions that were untenable in law.
• The primary grievance raised was regarding road construction in the Master Plan, allegedly affecting the Darkali forest.

Supreme Court’s Rationale for Setting Aside NGT Order

• The Master Plan was approved by the Auroville Foundation’s governing board in 1999, sanctioned by the Ministry of Urban Development in 2001, and published in the Gazette in 2010.
• The area termed “Darkali forest” was not officially recognized as a forest but was a man-made plantation, not requiring environmental clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
• The NGT had misdirected itself by interfering in the restricted domain of judicial review under the guise of the precautionary principle.

Madras High Court Order on Auroville Town Development Council (March 2024)

• The High Court had set aside a June 2022 notification issued by the Auroville Foundation regarding the reconstitution of the Auroville Town Development Council.
• The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and criticized “disgruntled and discontented” residents for dragging the matter into unnecessary litigation.
• Respondent Natasha Storey was ordered to deposit Rs. 50,000 as costs to the Supreme Court Legal Service Committee within two weeks.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court’s judgment reaffirms the constitutional validity of industrialisation and development, alongside environmental protection.
• It establishes that judicial interference in approved and finalized developmental projects must be carefully exercised, ensuring sustainable development while respecting statutory approvals.