LLM Group 6 Environment and Legal Order Biological Diversity and Legal Order 2019 Question Paper with Solutions

The definition has three levels. Genetic diversity is the variation within a species, such as the thousands of traditional rice varieties of India. Species diversity is the variety of species. Ecosystem diversity is the variety of habitats, from the Sundarbans mangroves to the grasslands of the Thar. The definition speaks of variability, not number, because what sustains human life is difference: a population with genetic variation can adapt to disease and climate, and an ecosystem with many species can absorb shocks.

Why importance to human life is the right frame

People depend on biodiversity for every necessity of life, and the dependence is greatest for the poorest, who draw food, fuel, fodder, medicine and income directly from forests, rivers and commons. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the global scientific appraisal released in 2005, organised that dependence into four categories of ecosystem services and reported that about sixty per cent of the services it examined were being degraded or used unsustainably. Those four categories structure the rest of this answer.

Livelihood. Section 2(i) of the Forest Rights Act 2006 includes bamboo, tendu leaves, honey, lac, medicinal plants and herbs in minor forest produce, and section 3(1)(c) recognises the right of forest dwellers to collect, use and dispose of it. For millions of forest families biodiversity is the household economy.

The law has had to protect that dependence against those who would displace it. In Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 8 SCC 191, Government land in a Scheduled Area of Andhra Pradesh had been leased to non-tribal private companies for mining, although the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation forbids transfer of land in such areas to non-tribals. The Supreme Court held that "person" in the Regulation includes the Government, so that the leases were void, and that a mining lease in forest land without prior Central approval violates section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980. The case bears on the question because it shows that the biodiversity of a forest and the survival of the people living in it are protected together or not at all.

Pollination. A large share of the world's food crops depends at least in part on animal pollinators such as bees, butterflies, birds and bats, so the loss of insect diversity threatens yields of fruit, vegetables and oilseeds.

Disease. Diverse ecosystems regulate pests and pathogens, while degraded ones and the trade in wild animals increase contact between people and the diseases wildlife carries.

Climate. Forests, mangroves, grasslands and oceans store carbon and moderate temperature, and mangroves shield coasts from cyclones. The Supreme Court has now tied the protection of a species to the protection of people from climate change. In M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 280, decided on 21 March 2024, the Great Indian Bustard was being killed by overhead power lines, and the Court had directed in 2021 that lines in its habitat be laid underground. The Union sought modification because undergrounding high-voltage lines would obstruct the renewable energy India needs to meet its climate commitments.

Cultural services: identity, belief and recreation

Biodiversity carries meaning. Sacred groves protected by village communities across India, animals associated with deities, festivals tied to the seasons and plants used in ritual form part of cultural identity, and tourism to national parks and sanctuaries supports rural economies. The Constitution's fundamental duty in Article 51A(g) speaks of compassion for living creatures, and section 36C of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 allows community reserves to protect "traditional or cultural conservation values and practices".

The Supreme Court has given cultural value legal force. In Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, (2013) 6 SCC 476, bauxite mining was proposed on the Niyamgiri hills in Odisha, which the Dongria Kondh regard as the abode of their deity. The Ministry had refused Stage II forest clearance, and the State corporation challenged the refusal. The Court held that whether the religious, cultural and community rights of the forest dwellers would be affected was for the Gram Sabhas to decide under the Forest Rights Act 2006, and directed that their meetings be attended as an observer by a judicial officer of the rank of District Judge, after which the Ministry was to take its final decision in the light of what the Gram Sabhas decided.

Importance to human life as a constitutional right

Indian law does not treat these services merely as economic benefits. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598, the petitioner alleged that washeries of steel and coal companies were discharging slurry into the river Bokaro, polluting its water. The Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to the enjoyment of pollution-free water and air, which a citizen may enforce under Article 32. It dismissed the petition on the facts, finding that the petitioner had pursued a personal grievance, having bought slurry from the company, rather than the public interest.

The case bears on the question because it made the regulating services of rivers and air part of the constitutional right to life. Articles 48A and 51A(g) add the State's directive duty to protect the environment and safeguard forests and wild life, and every citizen's duty to protect them. Biodiversity's importance to human life is therefore not only a scientific observation but the content of constitutional rights and duties.

The services and their law

The limit of a human-centred view

Valuing biodiversity only for what it does for people has a weakness: a species with no known use to humans appears expendable. The Supreme Court has refused that conclusion. In Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India v. Union of India, (2013) 8 SCC 234, decided on 15 April 2013, concerning the relocation of Asiatic lions from Gir to Kuno, the Court rejected an anthropocentric approach and adopted a species best interest standard, holding that the protection of an endangered species is a matter of its own survival and not merely of human benefit. The Convention's preamble likewise affirms the intrinsic value of biological diversity alongside its ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values.

The two views are not in conflict in practice. Protecting biodiversity for its own sake protects the services on which people depend, and showing its importance to human life is often what persuades a government or a court to protect it.