<p>The controversy over a contentious affidavit filed by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) in the Karnataka High Court may well have ended with the court allowing the NHAI to withdraw the affidavit after it tendered an apology for some remarks in it and acted on the court’s suggestions. The NHAI had said in its affidavit that the Environment Protection Act (EPA), 1986, was enacted by Parliament at the instance of foreign powers and that non-profit organisations which file public interest litigation (PIL) petitions under the Act were acting at the instance of such powers. It is surprising that a government agency could make such a statement about a law passed by Parliament, and the court rightly pointed out that the officers of the organisation should show sensitivity to laws relating to the environment. The NHAI’s statement was in response to a PIL challenging an order issued by the ministry of environment in 2013 granting exemption for the expansion of national highways without conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).</p>.<p>It is not the substance of the case but the NHAI’s controversial remarks that attracted attention. The EPA is one of the most important legislations passed by Parliament to address various concerns over damage to the environment. It was passed when the need for protection of the environment was being increasingly realised by the government, the political class and civil society. It has been in force for 35 years and has helped on many occasions to stop attacks on the environment or to soften the assaults. In fact, there have been demands to make it stronger and to make its implementation more effective. Courts have settled many cases filed by citizens on the basis of the law. </p>.<p>The NHAI also said that environmental groups in India were “attacking development projects” and “doing anti-national activities.’’ Its remarks reflect the view held by many sections, including those in government, that concern for the environment is antagonistic to development and NGOs are involved in anti-national activities. Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka not only took strong exception to the affidavit but also observed that he had never come across such obnoxious arguments by a government agency. The NHAI paid two environmental organisations Rs 2.5 lakh each as a donation, as suggested by the court. It is strange and unfortunate that an important organisation like the NHAI thought that concern for the environment was the result of a foreign conspiracy. Those who filed the affidavit did not have the sense to realise that the statement was a denigration of Parliament. The hope expressed by the court that environmental laws will be respected should be considered as a directive.</p>
<p>The controversy over a contentious affidavit filed by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) in the Karnataka High Court may well have ended with the court allowing the NHAI to withdraw the affidavit after it tendered an apology for some remarks in it and acted on the court’s suggestions. The NHAI had said in its affidavit that the Environment Protection Act (EPA), 1986, was enacted by Parliament at the instance of foreign powers and that non-profit organisations which file public interest litigation (PIL) petitions under the Act were acting at the instance of such powers. It is surprising that a government agency could make such a statement about a law passed by Parliament, and the court rightly pointed out that the officers of the organisation should show sensitivity to laws relating to the environment. The NHAI’s statement was in response to a PIL challenging an order issued by the ministry of environment in 2013 granting exemption for the expansion of national highways without conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).</p>.<p>It is not the substance of the case but the NHAI’s controversial remarks that attracted attention. The EPA is one of the most important legislations passed by Parliament to address various concerns over damage to the environment. It was passed when the need for protection of the environment was being increasingly realised by the government, the political class and civil society. It has been in force for 35 years and has helped on many occasions to stop attacks on the environment or to soften the assaults. In fact, there have been demands to make it stronger and to make its implementation more effective. Courts have settled many cases filed by citizens on the basis of the law. </p>.<p>The NHAI also said that environmental groups in India were “attacking development projects” and “doing anti-national activities.’’ Its remarks reflect the view held by many sections, including those in government, that concern for the environment is antagonistic to development and NGOs are involved in anti-national activities. Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka not only took strong exception to the affidavit but also observed that he had never come across such obnoxious arguments by a government agency. The NHAI paid two environmental organisations Rs 2.5 lakh each as a donation, as suggested by the court. It is strange and unfortunate that an important organisation like the NHAI thought that concern for the environment was the result of a foreign conspiracy. Those who filed the affidavit did not have the sense to realise that the statement was a denigration of Parliament. The hope expressed by the court that environmental laws will be respected should be considered as a directive.</p>