Latest news with #FundamentalRights
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Sri Lankan Supreme Court orders $1 bn compensation over X-Press Pearl disaster
In a landmark judgment that could redefine environmental accountability in South Asia, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has ordered non-state actors — including the owners, operators, and local agents of the ill-fated MV X-Press Pearl — to pay $1 billion as interim compensation to the Sri Lankan treasury. The ruling relates to the catastrophic maritime disaster in May 2021, when the Singapore-flagged cargo vessel caught fire and later sank off the Western coast of Sri Lanka, unleashing what experts have described as the worst marine pollution event in the island's history. The verdict followed the hearing of four Fundamental Rights petitions filed by fishermen, Catholic clergy, and environmental groups. Among the petitioners was Sri Lanka's most senior Catholic prelate, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith. Nearly 20 respondents were named, including former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa (represented by the Attorney General), several ministers, senior public officials, and heads of agencies responsible for marine environmental protection. The vessel's owners, operators, and local agents were collectively referred to by the Court as the 'X-Press Pearl Group.' Upholding the 'polluter pays' principle, the Court found that both the X-Press Pearl Group and state actors had violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners — and, by extension, the people of Sri Lanka. In a rare move, the Court also ruled that Sri Lanka's Attorney General's Department (AGD) had violated citizens' rights by failing to pursue appropriate legal action against the responsible parties. A slow-burning disaster The MV X-Press Pearl was a Singapore-registered container ship operated by X-Press Feeders. On May 20, 2021, while anchored off Colombo, it caught fire while carrying a highly hazardous cargo — including 25 tonnes of nitric acid, methanol, caustic soda, lubricants, and an estimated 400 containers of plastic nurdles (small, pre-production plastic pellets used in manufacturing). The ship burned for nearly two weeks before sinking, triggering a major marine pollution crisis. An estimated 1,600 tonnes of plastic nurdles tonnes of plastic nurdles were spilled into the ocean and along Sri Lanka's western coastline, causing extensive and lasting environmental damage. These lentil-sized pellets, which absorb and concentrate toxic chemicals, are often mistaken for food by marine species. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) later described the incident as potentially the worst marine plastic pollution event from a single vessel in history. A recent BBC investigation found that the nurdles continue to absorb pollutants like heavy metals from the sea and are getting more toxic over time, compounding the long-term threat to marine ecosystems. In the weeks that followed, tonnes of dead marine animals — including dolphins, turtles, and fish — washed ashore. Coastal fishing communities, especially in the Western Province, were devastated by fishing bans, leading to severe economic and cultural impacts. Attorney General's department under fire The Court was sharply critical of the Attorney General's Department, particularly for its decision to file a civil compensation claim in Singapore rather than pursuing legal proceedings in Sri Lanka. The Court described this move as 'unreasonable, irrational, and arbitrary.' It was revealed during the hearings that the AGD had entered into an agreement with the shipowners granting 'exclusive jurisdiction' to Singaporean courts — effectively sidelining Sri Lanka's own legal system. The Court concluded that the AGD had infringed upon the rights of Sri Lankan citizens by failing to indict the ship's owners and operators, thereby undermining national sovereignty and accountability. The Court also held former State Minister of Urban Development Dr. Nalaka Godahewa, the Marine Environment Protection Authority (MEPA), and its former chairperson Darshani Lahandapura responsible for violating the fundamental rights of citizens due to their failure in prevention, oversight, and timely response. Corruption allegations and police investigations In 2023, several parliamentarians alleged that the shipowners had paid a USD 250 million bribe to certain AGD officials to derail the compensation process. The police launched an investigation based on a complaint filed by a senior MEPA official — but the inquiry has since been stalled. In its ruling, the Court has directed the police to resume investigations into all criminal aspects of the case, including the bribery allegations, and to submit a progress report within three months. Additionally, the Court announced the formation of the MV X-Press Pearl Compensation Commission, which will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the environmental and economic damages. The USD 1 billion ordered is considered an interim payment and may be revised upward based on the commission's findings. Beyond the petitioners' demands Dr. Ravindranath Dabare, who represented several petitioners, told The Hindu that the judgment had exceeded expectations. 'The Supreme Court went well beyond what the petitioners asked for. It recognised not only the environmental loss but also the systemic failure of the state in its duty to protect the people's fundamental rights,' he said. The ruling has been welcomed by environmentalists, legal experts, and affected coastal communities as a rare and powerful assertion of environmental justice in South Asia — where foreign corporate polluters often avoid liability. Legal scholars suggest that the ruling may set a regional precedent for addressing transboundary environmental harm and enhancing corporate accountability, particularly in the context of hazardous maritime cargo. Can the ruling be enforced? One of the AGD's primary justifications for filing the civil case in Singapore was uncertainty over whether a Sri Lankan court judgment could be enforced internationally. However, Dr. Dabare argues that the Court has addressed this concern by defining the 'X-Press Pearl Group' to include the vessel's local agents — thereby ensuring domestic enforceability. 'If they fail to comply, local agents will face the full force of Sri Lankan law,' he said. Meanwhile, the Singapore civil suit remains on hold, pending an appeal in the UK Admiralty Court. The UK court is reviewing an earlier decision to limit the shipowners' liability to £19.8 million — a fraction of the damage Sri Lanka claims to have suffered. With the Supreme Court's ruling now far exceeding that liability cap, Dr. Dabare contends that it is no longer viable for Sri Lanka to pursue both legal avenues. 'This ruling marks a definitive legal stance,' he said. The shipowners have yet to publicly respond to the judgment. -Saroj Pathirana is a Fellow at the Pulitzer Ocean Reporting network.
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Kanwariyas have their right to choose. But eatery owners also have their right to privacy
The Supreme Court, on July 22, in a significant turn, refused to intervene and probe into the legality of the directives issued by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments mandating the owners of eateries along the route of the Kanwar Yatra to display QR codes with details of their names, types of food served, license and registration certificates. The Uttar Pradesh government claimed that the idea behind this directive was to ensure transparency and uphold the choice of the Kanwariyas to abstain from consuming certain food during the yatra. This is a departure from the SC's earlier stand on this issue. In 2024, the SC had placed an interim stay prohibiting the enforcement of a similar directive and stated that the eateries along the Kanwar yatra route may be required to display the kind of food being served but they should not be forced to display the name or identity of the owners. However, on Tuesday, the SC found this petition infructuous, given that the yatra is over, and directed the petitioners to approach the High Court for a detailed order on the merits of the directive. This is a constitutional quagmire impacting not only the right to privacy of the owners of the eateries, but also affecting the very tenets of secularism. The imminent threat of police action could also provoke an infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 15(1), 17 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The major question rests on the touchstone of the guidelines laid down in KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India regarding the right to privacy. The guidelines state that every state action impacting an individual's right to privacy must satisfy the tests of proportionality, necessity, legitimate aim and suitability. This, in the context of Article 21, means that an invasion of privacy must be justified based on a law that stipulates a procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable. An invasion of life or personal liberty must also meet the threefold requirement of (i) legality, which postulates the existence of a statute; (ii) need, defined in terms of a state's legitimate aim; and (iii) proportionality, which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them. However, in this case, the state action does not seem to have qualified any of the aforementioned requirements. Firstly, as rightly argued by several petitioners in this case, the directive was neither authorised by a statute nor was it proportionate or necessary to achieve its slated objectives. As argued by the petitioners, if the slated purpose of the directive was to ensure that the Kanwariyas have access to pure vegetarian food along the route of the yatra, then the mandate to disclose the names of the eatery owners has no bearing, if all eateries are anyway serving pure vegetarian food as per their dietary requirements. Lastly, the names of the owners of these eateries are an inevitable marker of their caste and religious identities, and a mandate for the disclosure of these details by state action is violative of their fundamental right to privacy under Article 21. This particular case called for a balancing act by the SC, to maintain the crucial equilibrium between the consumer's right to know (for religious sentiments), vis-a-vis the right of the eatery owners to maintain their privacy. The impact of the Court's order refusing to intervene with the QR code requirement shall stand out as a case wherein the customer's right to know trumped the fundamental right to privacy of the eatery owners. If a balancing act between competing rights is not adequately performed by the constitutional courts, it may affect the constitutional ethos. The constitutionality of such directives must be tested by the existing legal provisions. The writer is a research fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
New Indian Express
13-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Ambedkar's vision is timeless moral compass for India, says Chief Justice Gavai
HYDERABAD: Over the past 75 years, India has made steady and significant progress, said Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, highlighting how the Constitution has served as a powerful instrument of social and economic transformation. Delivering a lecture titled 'Constitution of India: The Contribution of Babasaheb Dr B R Ambedkar,' at Osmania University on Saturday, he emphasised that Ambedkar's constitutional vision continues to serve as a timeless moral compass for modern India. The highlight of the event was the release of a commemorative special cover and postcard by Justice Gavai and Dr P Vidya Sagar Reddy, chief postmaster general of Telangana. The special cover and accompanying information sheet offer a vivid overview of Dr Ambedkar's life and his seminal role in drafting the Indian Constitution. A set of 22 picture postcards, inspired by the book 'Art and Calligraphy in the Constitution of India' — published by the Ministry of Culture, Government of India — was also unveiled. In his address, Justice Gavai reflected on key aspects of the Constitution, including the importance of one nation – one constitution, Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, and the necessity for timely constitutional amendments. He underscored the transformative power of the Constitution in advancing equality, liberty, and social justice, particularly for marginalised communities. He particularly stressed the significance of Article 32, which empowers citizens to approach the Supreme Court in the event of a violation of their fundamental rights. Calling it the 'heart and soul' of the Constitution, he remarked that rights without remedies are meaningless, and judicial recourse is essential for safeguarding democratic freedoms. Justice Gavai also noted that although the Indian Constitution drew inspiration from various global models, it was uniquely adapted to India's needs. 'Unlike the dual legal systems seen in countries like the US, India has a strong federal structure with one Constitution applicable to all states and citizens,' he stated.
Hindustan Times
13-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Directive principles serve as roadmap to ensure justice: CJI
Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai on Saturday said Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Constitution were non-enforceable in courts but they served as a 'roadmap for legislators and executives to realise the promise of justice and equality'. Telangana chief minister Revanth Reddy, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and others during the 22nd Convocation of the NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad on Saturday. (ANI) Delivering a lecture on 'Constitution of India: The contribution of BR Ambedkar' on the occasion of Constitutional Awareness Week at Tagore Auditorium in Osmania University, justice Gavai said Article 32, which empowers citizens to approach the Supreme Court in case of violation of fundamental rights, was the heart and soul of the Constitution. The CJI admitted that the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Constitution were non-enforceable in courts but they served as the moral compass of governance. 'They are not just empty words; they serve as a roadmap for legislators and executives to realise the promise of justice and equality,' he said. Stating that there was a historical conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, he referred to the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, where the Supreme Court clarified that both must work in harmony as twin pillars of constitutional governance. He described the Constitution as an instrument of social and economic transformation, as envisioned by Ambedkar. 'The Constitution is very dear to my heart,' the CJI said and explained its journey from the Objective Resolution in 1946 to its adoption in 1949. He credited Dr Ambedkar's leadership and intellectual rigour in shaping the foundational document of modern India. He noted that while the Constitution of India was influenced by global models, it was tailored uniquely to India's needs, creating a single, unified legal framework unlike the dual systems seen in countries like the US. 'Ours is a strong federal structure with one Constitution applicable to all states and citizens,' he said. Justice Gavai encouraged law graduates to uphold constitutional values and cautioned against pursuing foreign degrees under peer pressure, stressing the need to invest in and strengthen India's legal education system. 'Excellence lies in strong foundations, not just foreign credentials,' he advised. Speaking on the occasion, justice Sujoy Paul, acting chief justice of Telangana high court, recalled Ambedkar's words that however good the Constitution may be, it can fail if those who implement it are not good. 'Likewise, even a bad Constitution can work well with good people.' He noted how the Constitution, once criticised as being overly long and rigid, has proven remarkably resilient over 75 years. 'We, the people of India, adopted, enacted, and gave ourselves this Constitution. And we, the people, are also its keepers,' he added. 'Indian legal system badly in need of fixing' Earlier, delivering the 22nd annual convocation address of the NALSAR University of Law at Shamirpet on the outskirts of Hyderabad, the Chief Justice of India said that the Indian legal system has been facing unique challenges and is badly in need of fixing. 'The country and its legal system are facing unique challenges like delays in trials which can sometimes go for decades. In certain cases, someone has been found innocent after spending years in jail as an under trial. It is badly in need of fixing,' he said. He, however, said he was optimistic that his fellow citizens would rise to the occasion to meet the challenges. 'We must build nurturing academic environments, offer transparent and merit-based opportunities, and most importantly, restore dignity and purpose to legal research and training in India,' the CJI said. He pointed out that it was not just enough to celebrate India's legal legacy but one must invest in its future, not only in institutions but in imagination, in mentorship programs, research fellowships, local innovation ecosystems and ethical workplaces that make the best minds want to stay or return. 'That future depends on how we treat our researchers, our young faculty and lawyers. Our best talent can help us resolve the problems that we are facing,' he said. Justice Gavai advised the passing out graduates to seek mentors for the sake of integrity and not for their power. Telangana chief minister A Revanth Reddy and Supreme Court judge Justice P S Narasimha also participated, while acting Telangana acting CJ justice Sujoy Paul presided.
Hans India
13-07-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Constitution reflects vision of Ambedkar, says CJI Gavai
Hyderabad: Chief Justice of India, Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, said Dr. BR Ambedkar's contribution to shaping the Indian Constitution as a testament to his foresight in acting as an instrument of social and economic transformation in the country. The CJI delivered a lecture on Dr. BR Ambekdari's contribution to the Indian Constitution organised by Osmania University on Saturday. He noted how Dr BR Ambedkar had to come up within a short period the Objective Resolution in 1946 and steered it till its adoption in 1949. The CJI said the Constitution stands as an epitome of Dr Ambedkar's leadership and intellectual rigor in shaping the foundational document of modern India. He stressed that rights without remedies are meaningless, highlighting Article 32, which empowers citizens to approach the Supreme Court in case of violation of fundamental rights. Calling it the 'heart and soul of the Constitution,' he stressed that judicial remedies are crucial to upholding democratic freedoms. Further, while India's Constitution was influenced by global models, it was tailored uniquely to India's needs, creating a single, unified legal framework unlike the dual systems seen in countries like the U.S. 'Ours is a strong federal structure with one Constitution applicable to all states and citizens,' he said. Touching upon the Directive Principles of State Policy, however, he noted the criticism that they are non-enforceable in courts but defended them as the moral compass of governance. 'They are not just empty words; they serve as a roadmap for legislators and executives to realize the promise of justice and equality,' he added. The CJI also traced the historical tension between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, referencing the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, where the Supreme Court clarified that both must work in harmony as twin pillars of constitutional governance. The Acting Chief Justice of Telangana High Court, Justice Sujoy Paul, recalled Dr Ambedkar's intellectual vision citing his words- 'However good a Constitution may be, it can fail if those who implement it are not good. Likewise, even a bad Constitution can work well with good people.' He also reminded me how Sir Ivor Jennings mocked the voluminous length of the Indian constitution. However, Sri Lanka's constitution drafted barely could stand for 14 years. On the other, the Indian Constitution has shown its resilience standing for 75 years, he added. Earlier, Supreme Court Judge, Justice Padmidighantam Narasimha, Advocate General of Telangana, A Sudarshan Reddy, paid floral tributes to Dr Ambedkar. Judges from the States of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Maharashtra were among those who attended the event. On this occasion, the CJI released a commemorative special cover and postcard and Dr. P. Vidya Sagar Reddy, Chief Postmaster General, Telangana, marking the event's historical significance for public memory.
