Intergenerational Principle of equity

Intergeneratioal equity refers to equity between generations, whcih include the needs of
the future generation in the design and implementation of current policies. Thus
intergenerational equity simply means a duty of present generation towards future generations
i.e. the present generations of human are obliged to take care of the natural resources and
ecology so that all future generations shall also have an equal chance to enjoy the mother nature
and right to life.

This preservationist model has deep roots in the original natural flow theory of English water law,
inwhich upper riaprians could use stream water so long as thier use did not impair i any way the
quantity or quality of water for those downstream. Ultmately this benefits the last reparians
before the stream enters the ocean or disappears because they have no one to whom they own
an obligation. Similarly, the present geenraton has a right to use and enjoy the resources of the
earth but is under an obligation to take into account the long term impact o its activities and to
sustain the resource base and the global environemnt for the benefits of future generations of
human kind.

The idea of inter genrational equity dates back as far as the political philosophy of Immanuel
Kant, who developed the idea of posterity benefiting fromt the work of its ancestors. Edmund
Burke also wtore about the idea of inter generational partnership.

The theory of intergenerational equty argues that we, the human species, hold the natural
environment of our planet in common with all members of our species: past generations, the
present generation and furture generation. As membes of the present generation, we hold the
earth in trust for future generations. At the same time, we are beneficiaries entirled to use and
benefit form it.

Brown Weiss, an American lawyer and legal scholar, put forward the concept of ‘ The planetary
Trust’. He proposed that the planetary trust obligates each generation to preserve the diversity
of the resource base and to pass the plant to future generations in no worse condition than it
receives it. Thus the present generation serves both as a trustee for future generations and as a
beneficiary of the trust.

Principle of Conservation of Options

Each generation should be required to preserve the diversity of the natural and cultural reosurce
base, so that it does not excessively restrict the optiions avalaible to future generations in solving
thier problems and satisfying thier own values and should also be allowed to preserved for the
enjoyment of future generations.

Drawbacks of Doctrine of Intergenerational Equity

1. It is unclear how far into the future thiese obligations strecth.

2. Political issue like how future generations can be given some form of voice or
consideration in present policy making is another concern.
3. It is difficult to find out what the interests or needs of future genertions will be.
4. Environmental managment tasks such as planning, monitoring and evaluation, typically
do not fit in with the longer term period needed to take account of fututre generations.

Cases

1. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products

The petitioner in this case has challenged the order of the Himachal Pradesh Government,
granting permission to certain Katha manufacturing units in the State for manufacturign
katha from Khair trees in the State, on the ground that the establishment of the these
industries would lead to indiscriminate felling of khair trees in th State whcih would have
a deep and adverse effect upon its environment and eccology. The High Court dismissing
the petition have allowed the State Government to go ahead with the permission. On
appeal the Supreme Court while according the approval for establishment and running of
forest based industries in general and the Katha industry in particular, the government
must take into consideration all the releant Central and State laws which have a bearing
oon the establishemnt of these industries. Allowing the appeal, the apex court remanded
bacck the case to the High Court with a direction that while deciding as to where the
 interests of justice and equity would lie, it should take into account and balance the the
public interest with the interest of the respondents.
2. Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP, AIR, 1987 S.C. 359
In this case a group of publlic spirited citizens brought to the notice of the court that the
quarry owners had indiscriminately mined skipper slops and therefore, depriving them of
trees and damaging the natural structure in the valley mainly due to extraction of more
and more limestone, resulting in landslides and blocked underground water channels
which caused dryness of many rivers and spring rivers in the valley. The Supreme Court
considering the recommendations of the Bhargava Committee mines which were falling
within the category of B and C were losed and as regards the category A mines those that
are ourside the limits of the city of Mussorie were allowed to function and those were
within the limits of the city were ordered to be closed. The court observed that a long
term planning is highly desirable to keep up the environmental standards. It is to be
remembered that the natural wealth should not be exploited thoughtlessly. It is a
permanent asset of human beings and are not intended to be exhausted in one
generation.
3. S. Jagannath v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 87, 146
In this case, it was found that the shrimp culture industry in Chilika and Pulikat lakes
(Orissa), adjacent to high sea was causing salinity of soil and drinking water, turbidity of
water courses with detrimental implications on local flora and fauna. Therefore the
industry was ordered to be closed and compensate (a) the individuals, and (b) for the
reversing of eccology. The amount of compensaton so collected was to be forwarded to
the collector. The workmen employed in the shrimp culture industry were awarded
compensation in terms of section 25 F(B) of the Industrial Didputes Act; and additional six
years wges as additonal compensation.

Conclusion

Inter generational equity principle emphasises on the equity that as the present generation is
enjoying the environment and it natural resources given by the previous generations and the
gernerations therebefore, similarly the present generation must hold the environment in trust fo
the future generationa and as the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in the “Doon Valley” case that
these natural assests must not be intended to be exhausted in one generation.