The Economic Impact of Select Decisions by India’s Supreme Court and National Green Tribunal (NGT) is the title of a recent report submitted to the NITI Aayog. This study, conducted by CUTS (Consumer Unity and Trust Society) and commissioned by NITI Aayog, examines the economic repercussions of various judicial orders.
Key Highlights of the Study
The study primarily focuses on five major environment-related orders given by the Supreme Court and the NGT. The five cases under scrutiny include the Goa Foundation vs M/s Sesa Sterlite Ltd & Ors, 2018; Hanuman Laxman Aroskar vs Union of India (Mopa Airport Case), 2019; Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board vs Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd (Sterlite Copper Plant Case), 2019; National Green Tribunal Bar Association vs Ministry of Environment & Forests and Ors (Sand Mining Case), 2013; and Vardhman Kaushik vs Union of India & Ors (NCR Construction Ban Case), 2016.
Economic Impact of Environment-Related Judicial Orders
The report analyzes the economic consequences of these five select environmental court orders and estimates that from mid-2018 to mid-2021, 75,000 individuals were negatively affected by restrictive environmental orders. Over this same period, the Indian government lost revenue worth Rs 8,000 crore. If this revenue had been directed towards capital expenditure, the returns could have reached Rs 20,000 crore. The research also estimates job losses at 16,000 and puts industry revenue losses around Rs 15,000 crore, with workers losing income of about Rs 500 crore.
Case Study: Mining Ban in Goa
The impact of the mining ban in Goa resulted in a 10.06% Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) increase in state public debt from 2007 through 2021. The ban led to a surge in market loans taken by the state, which increased at a CAGR of 19.93%. The central and state revenues combined suffered an estimated deficit of Rs 668.39 crore in taxes paid by mining companies. State revenues alone suffered an estimated loss of Rs 1,821.32 crore. Mining companies lost an estimated Rs 6,976.71 crore between 2018-19 and 2020-2021. The ban also lead to a net job loss of nearly 15,000 positions.
Recommendations from the Study
The report recommends for the judiciary to strike a balance between the economy and environmental factors. It suggests the need for subject specialists or experts to guide judges on cases that involve economic impacts. Changes to the selection procedures of judges could ensure better quality and economic understanding.
The study also pushes for judicial accountability for high standard jurisprudence analysis and decision-making. Decisions leading to substantive economic losses need to consider the larger public good. Corruption and maladministration must be effectively dealt with through fines and penalties.
Transparency in the decision-making process at all levels, including the judiciary, is essential considering human-centric economic development, environmental sustainability, and equitable outcomes.
