Empowering nature with biocentric jurisprudence

Context: In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has sought to move away from an anthropocentric basis of law.

Consequences of anthropocentric centric vision: Species in danger 

• 50 years ago, there were 4,50,000 lions in Africa. Today, there are hardly 20,000.
• Indiscriminate monoculture farming in forests of Borneo and Sumatra is leading to extinction of orangutans.
• Rhinos are hunted for medicinal value of their horns and are slowly becoming extinct.
• From the time humans populated Madagascar about 2,000 years ago, 15 to 20 species of Lemurs, which are primates, have become extinct.
• International Union for Conservation of Nature lists 37,400 species that are gravely endangered and the list is ever growing.

Shift towards biocentrism

• Constitutional law on eco-conservations: 
  • Constitution of India upholds biocentrism (Article 48 A, Directive principles of state policy), thereby giving nature, the rights, imposing obligations and regulating human affairs.
  • But Constitution is significantly silent on any binding legal obligations.
• Judicial activism for eco-conservation: Courts have expanded the scope of Article 21 – Right to life.
  • M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others vs Union of India & Others case, 2021: For protection of Great Indian Bustard, a gravely endangered species, with hardly 200 alive in India. In all cases where overhead lines in power projects exist, governments of Rajasthan and Gujarat shall take steps forthwith to install bird diverters pending consideration of conversion of overhead cables into underground power lines.
• Legislations evolving towards recognising “Right of Nature laws”: These seek to travel away from an anthropocentric basis of law to a biocentric one.
  • In 2008, Ecuador became the first country to recognise “Rights of Nature” in its Constitution. Later, Bolivia has also joined the movement.
  • In 2010, city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania became the first major municipality in United States to recognise Rights of Nature.

Conclusion: Supreme Court’s judgment in M.K. Ranjithsinh case shall pave way for upholding the biocentric principles of coexistence with adequate intend from Government for stringent implementation.