ECO-CENTRIC APPROACH

There has been radical departure from the anthropocentric approach to the eco-centric approach
and this can be observed in light of various decisions and judgments given by the Supreme Court
of India. The primary reason behind this approach can be attributed towards the need of
preserving various naturally-occurring life forms and their intrinsic values, which if preserved,
would help in achieving the goal of sustainable development. The transition in approach was felt
due to the casual and generic legislations which did not preserve the environment in any way.
Rather, until the recent time, the administration and the government didn’t realize that catering to
the endless human needs has actually pushed the environment and all other life forms into the
verge of extinction. Therefore, a need was felt to safeguard the flora and fauna which are now
present in the form of ‘representative samples’ of nature. Because myriad forms of species of
flora and fauna have been, advertently or inadvertently, destroyed by human actions in the name
of globalization and development. In the words of Radhakrishnan J: Environmental Justice could
be achieved only if we drift away from the principle of anthropocentric to eco-centric. Many of
our principles like sustainable development, polluter-pays principle, and intergenerational equity
have their roots in anthropocentric principles. Anthropocentrism is always human interest
focused and non-human has only instrumental value to humans. Eco-centrism is nature centered
where humans are a part of nature and non-human has intrinsic value. In other words, human
interest does not take automatic precedence and humans have obligations to non-humans
independently of human interest. Eco-centrism is therefore life-centered, nature-centered where
nature includes both humans and non-humans.

Highlighting the need for an eco-centric approach, the court stated that:

Human beings are just one of the many life forms that inhabit the earth. Environment Protection
does not mean protecting and preserving only those life forms that are of value to humans.
Therefore, eco-centric approach stresses more on respecting the intrinsic value, integrity and
inter-dependence of all forms of life.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 1973
(CITES) and The Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 (CBD) was ratified by India as the
conventions focused on eco-centric approach and laid down the idea of mutual existence of all
species of flora and fauna. India, being a signatory to these International Conventions is bound
by the ideals of eco-centric approach. Moreover, these conventions stresses on the ‘intrinsic
values’ and the ‘instrumental values’. The instrumental value of life forms makes them vital for
humans and their benefit. On the other hand, the extrinsic value of these life forms and various
others is not cared about. Humans ignore the effect of their activities on various life forms from
which they’re not benefitted. As a result of such ignorance, the environmental resources get
depleted.

Article 48A of the Constitution of India envisages that the state shall take appropriate steps and
measures to ensure that the environment and the wildlife remain protected. But, Article 48A is a
directive principle and it doesn't create enforceable right. However, in recent years, the Indian
Courts have interpreted Article 48A by reading it along the lines of Article 21, giving further
human rights, a dynamic environmental reading. As a result of such interpretation, the cases
related to environment and the ruling thereto have seen a paradigm shift from Anthropocentrism
to Eco-centrism. This transition in approach has prompted the courts to look upon the
environment perspective while considering human rights at any point of time.

The paradigm shift in approach can be observed in the case of Animal Welfare Board v. A.
Nagraja. Judgment talks about a 3-stage development in the Judiciary’s approach to
environmental issues, from the driving force to protect the environment coming from pure
human self interest to later on concern for future generations taking the lead and then finally to
nature’s own rights.

The Jallikattu Judgement

Jallikattu was practiced in Tamil Nadu and there were elaborate rules for conducting the event.
The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 permitted the same. This included
requirements for barricades, mandatory presence of veterinarians,involvement of NGOs, video
graphing, permission from the Collector, registration of the bulls.[6] Section 11 (1) (a) and
Section 11 (1) (m) of Prevention Of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act), 1982 read with Articles
51A (g) and (h) of the Constitution of India prohibit any kind of ill-treatment to animals. It was
contented that the Jallikattu act was inconsistent with the PCA act and the Constitution of India.
The Courts held that the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 was repugnant to the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1982 and was declared unconstitutional and void under
Article 254(1) of the Constitution. The PCA Act is absolutely eco-centric. It being declared a
welfare legislation by the Parliament, has zero tolerance for any harm inflicted onto animals.
Regulations or guidelines, whether statutory or otherwise, if they purport to dilute or defeat the
welfare legislation and the constitutional principles, Court should not hesitate to strike them
down so as to achieve the ultimate object and purpose of the welfare legislation.[7] The Court in
this Judgment by giving priority to animal rights over human customs, practice and traditions can
be seen to have successfully taken a step forward towards being eco-centric.

Taking a step even further on the request by the Humane Society International to replace the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act with the Draft Animal Welfare Bill 2014, the Indian
legislators are considering making the necessary amendments. Such a move will act as a better
deterrence to the society from inflicting harm onto animals and it will be an exemplar shift from
merely just prevention of cruelty to promotion of well being of animals.

The Supreme Court of India has adopted an eco-centric approach in some of the recently decided
cases:

1. T.N GodavarmanThirumulpad v. Union of India(I);

2. T.N GodavarmanThirumulpad v. Union of India(II);
3. Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund-India v. Union of India.

India, being a developing country has always focused on welfare of it's citizens and the
government is duty bound to ensure that the people have adequate resources for their sustenance.
This has resulted in government adopting an anthropocentric approach in an implied way
because the welfare of environment was too remote an idea for a developing country. But, the
trend of eco-centric approach emanated from developed countries where people were already
self-sufficient and wanted to focus on preservation of environment as it was essential for the long
run and in achieving the goal of sustainable development. The people in developed countries
believed in Rights of the Environment and were of the opinion that the humans and the
environment, along with plants and animals, co-exist on Earth and each of those species have
rights and shouldn't be at the mercy of the other. Therefore, there can't be any justification
behind humans exploiting environment for their benefit.

In the landmark case of Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hiram G. Hill, the respondent moved the
US Supreme Court to halt the construction of Little Tennessee River Dam in order to protect and
preserve the tiny Fish-snail Darter. This particular fish was an endangered species and was
discovered in soon-to-be-flooded Little Tennessee River Dam project area. Since, the funds for
the project was sanctioned and costed around $100M, the US Supreme Court was in dilemma
whether to scrap the $100M project that came out of taxpayers money or to risk the extinction of
an already endangered species. But, it was contented that the Fish-snail Darter was an
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act and it instantly became an icon for species
preservation. The court ordered for halt of water-filling in the dam as it could've resulted in
extinction of the said species. The Supreme Court opined that the filling of water would've
caused an irreparable damage and the species would've been extinct.

Drawing inspiration from the US Supreme Court Judgement, the Supreme Court of India adopted
an eco-centric approach in the above-mentioned cases. In T.N GodavarmanThirumulpad v.
Union of India(I); the issue before the Supreme Court was about the protection and preservation
of Asiatic Wild Buffalo that were only found in Eastern and Western Ghats. In T.N
GodavarmanThirumulpad v. Union of India(II), the issue before the Supreme Court was about
protection and preservation of Red Sandlewood, an endangered species endemic to Andhra
Pradesh while in Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund-India v. Union of India, the
issue was about protection of Asiatic Wild Lions, an endangered species. The Supreme Court
adopted the eco-centric approach and stated that every species, whether plants or animals have
an extrinsic value and humans are duty bound to ensure their preservation and survival. The
Supreme Court also stated that these species have a right of their own and even though they
practically don't have any instrumental value to humans, they are the representative samples of
nature. The transition to eco-centric approach in these judgements is debatable as they're
vulnerable species, yet, these judgements are fairly progressive, considering the Indian context
and an alarming need to protect and preserve the environment.

CONCLUSION

The paradigm shift of environmental jurisprudence from Anthropocentrism to Eco-centrism is a

new trend when it comes to developing countries. India, being a developing country had an
anthropocentric approach because it was not possible for the government to manage adequate
resources for people and simultaneously preserve and protect environment. However, the
protection and preservation is not the need of the hour, it is an absolute necessity. Therefore,
Eco-centrism is more important than Anthropocentrism when it comes to Indian scenario. India
is a home to various species of flora and fauna that have both environmental and cultural
significance. It can no more be contended and argued that the anthropocentric approach assumes
an important role in development and globalization. The condition of the people after
Independence and the lack of resources cannot be used as an excuse behind such exploitation. It's
been 72 years since we attained independence and the condition of the people and country have
impoved drastically. If we continue to stick to anthropocentric approach and deplete
environmental resources, then there won't be any left for future generations and we might face a
catastrophe.