Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dissented with CJI B R Gavai’s recall of a prior judgment, arguing the majority overlooked environmental jurisprudence fundamentals. Justice Bhuyan defended the original verdict, emphasizing the precautionary principle over the ‘polluter pays’ principle. CJI Gavai noted his departure from tradition by not altering his judgment after receiving the dissent. NEW DELHI: While dissenting with CJI B R Gavai on the court’s recall of the May 16 judgment of the SC authored by Justices A S Oka and him directing demolition of all structures which were granted post-facto environmental clearance, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan trained his criticism on the CJI and said the majority opinion of the court had overlooked the very fundamentals of environment jurisprudence.It was natural of Justice Bhuyan, who was part of the bench that penned the May 16 judgment, to defend the sanctity of that verdict in the face of many errors pointed out by CJI. But his statement that the CJI’s judgment was “an innocent expression of opinion” overlooking fundamentals of environment jurisprudence raised many eyebrows, as it is widely known that Justice Gavai, as head of the green bench, has passed many judgments for the protection of environment and forests while advocating the concept of ‘sustainable development’.In his 97-page counter to the CJI’s 84-page recall judgment, Justice Bhuyan said, “Precautionary principle is the cornerstone of environmental jurisprudence. ‘Polluter pays’ is only a principle of reparation. Precautionary principle cannot be given a short shrift by relying on the polluter pays principle. The review judgment is a step in retrogression.”After pronouncing his judgment, CJI Gavai recalled that there was a precedent in Court room no. 1 for a dissenting judgment to criticise that of the CJI and the CJI responding to the dissenting view (as happened between Justice S R Bhat and CJI D Y Chandrachud in the same-sex marriage issue).”I am departing from tradition. I have not changed a single word in my judgment even after receiving the dissenting judgment (of Justice Bhuyan),” CJI Gavai said. When Justice Bhuyan skipped reading paragraphs in his judgment criticising the CJI’s view and said he “didn’t want to read certain undercurrents”, Justice Gavai encouraged him to read it and said, “Anyway this would be in public domain. So read it.” But Justice Bhuyan was not persuaded.Justice K Vinod Chandran said he had written a separate judgment concurring with CJI only because “the (Justice Bhuyan’s) opinion rejecting the review denounces the one permitting it.” Justice Chandran said dissent is part of a healthy judicial process, but it must be practised by distancing oneself from an overbearing allegiance to one’s own beliefs of right and wrong.Giving a step-by-step counter to Justice Bhuyan’s judgment, Justice Chandran said, “The judgment under review, with due respect did not look into the aspects of the power conferred under the Environment Protection Act and the legal principles regarding an undertaking given in derogation of the statutory provisions.”He added, “I fully concur with the opinion of the Learned Chief Justice of India and find the review to be not only warranted, but imperative and expedient.”End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosAnmol Bishnoi, Accused In Baba Siddique Murder Case, To Be Deported To India From USIndia-Russia Ties: EAM Jaishankar Meets President Putin In Moscow’Some Last-Mile Issues…’: Piyush Goyal Remarks On Trade Pact With EU And US, India’s Export GrowthThe Ghost Of Bastar Falls: What Madvi Hidma’s Death Means For India’s War Against Maoist InsurgencyBathani Tola: 30 years on, justice still elusive for Bihar’s worst caste massacreShashi Tharoor Praises PM Modi Again, Sparks Fresh Congress Rift After Attending Goenka Lecture’I Did Not Say…’: Prashant Kishor Takes U-Turn On Vow To Quit Politics If JDU Wins Bihar PollsIndia Will Sign Trade Deal Only When It Is ‘Fair, Equitable And Balanced’: Piyush GoyalNarayana Murthy Sparks Fresh Storm By Urging to Adopt China’s 996 Model, Work 72 Hours Every WeekIran Halts Visa Waiver For Indians Amid Criminal Exploitation And MEA Safety Warning Alerts123PhotostoriesKiara Advani packs a lineup of must-see Bollywood hits you should watch right away8 underrated South Indian rice dishes perfect for a light and healthy dinner5 animals that can survivein extremely cold temperatures6 lower ab workouts to strengthen your coreThis Guava Paneer Avocado Salad has 25 gms protein and why it needs a place in daily breakfast5 natural home remedies to detoxify the liverChia seeds in water vs chia seeds in milk: Which is more beneficial for healthFrom teeth-brushing battles to screen time: Kareena Kapoor Khan’s honest parenting tales7 Japanese techniques to overcome laziness and boost productivity in life10 date ideas in New York City that are not drinking or movies123Hot PicksDelhi AQI TodaySheikh Hasina VerdictBihar Government FormationGold rate todaySilver rate todayPublic Holidays NovemberBank Holidays NovemberTop TrendingAaron Rodgers InjuryShedeur SandersPaolo BancheroStephen CurryPatrick BeverleyLeBron JamesStephen A SmithCade CunninghamDraymond GreenSophie Cunningham
NEW DELHI: While dissenting with CJI B R Gavai on the court’s recall of the May 16 judgment of the SC authored by Justices A S Oka and him directing demolition of all structures which were granted post-facto environmental clearance, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan trained his criticism on the CJI and said the majority opinion of the court had overlooked the very fundamentals of environment jurisprudence.It was natural of Justice Bhuyan, who was part of the bench that penned the May 16 judgment, to defend the sanctity of that verdict in the face of many errors pointed out by CJI. But his statement that the CJI’s judgment was “an innocent expression of opinion” overlooking fundamentals of environment jurisprudence raised many eyebrows, as it is widely known that Justice Gavai, as head of the green bench, has passed many judgments for the protection of environment and forests while advocating the concept of ‘sustainable development’.In his 97-page counter to the CJI’s 84-page recall judgment, Justice Bhuyan said, “Precautionary principle is the cornerstone of environmental jurisprudence. ‘Polluter pays’ is only a principle of reparation. Precautionary principle cannot be given a short shrift by relying on the polluter pays principle. The review judgment is a step in retrogression.”After pronouncing his judgment, CJI Gavai recalled that there was a precedent in Court room no. 1 for a dissenting judgment to criticise that of the CJI and the CJI responding to the dissenting view (as happened between Justice S R Bhat and CJI D Y Chandrachud in the same-sex marriage issue).“I am departing from tradition. I have not changed a single word in my judgment even after receiving the dissenting judgment (of Justice Bhuyan),” CJI Gavai said. When Justice Bhuyan skipped reading paragraphs in his judgment criticising the CJI’s view and said he “didn’t want to read certain undercurrents”, Justice Gavai encouraged him to read it and said, “Anyway this would be in public domain. So read it.” But Justice Bhuyan was not persuaded.Justice K Vinod Chandran said he had written a separate judgment concurring with CJI only because “the (Justice Bhuyan’s) opinion rejecting the review denounces the one permitting it.” Justice Chandran said dissent is part of a healthy judicial process, but it must be practised by distancing oneself from an overbearing allegiance to one’s own beliefs of right and wrong.Giving a step-by-step counter to Justice Bhuyan’s judgment, Justice Chandran said, “The judgment under review, with due respect did not look into the aspects of the power conferred under the Environment Protection Act and the legal principles regarding an undertaking given in derogation of the statutory provisions.”He added, “I fully concur with the opinion of the Learned Chief Justice of India and find the review to be not only warranted, but imperative and expedient.”
