Institute of Legal and Management Studies

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka said that no religion allows or condones the degradation of the environment, and lamented that pollution is increasingly being justified in the name of religion. Speaking at a lecture titled “Clean Air, Climate Justice and We – Together for a Sustainable Future” organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Justice Oka made an impassioned plea to stop polluting activities in the name of rituals..

“The most crucial reason for our failure to protect the environment is the failure of both citizens and the State to perform their fundamental duty under Article 51A of the Constitution,” Justice Oka said. “Unfortunately, there is a tendency to damage the environment in the name of religion. But if we examine the tenets of all religions, we will find that every religion teaches us to protect the environment and to show compassion to living beings. No religion permits us to destroy the environment or cause cruelty to animals while celebrating festivals.”

“Can Anyone Say Bursting Crackers Is an Essential Religious Practice?”

Justice Oka said he was not going to discuss cases he had adjudicated, including the MC Mehta matters concerning pollution. It may be noted that recently, the Supreme Court relaxed the absolute ban on the use of firecrackers which was imposed in NCR as per an order passed by a bench led by Justice Oka. Lifting the ban partially, the Court permitted the use of green crackers for Diwali subject to certain conditions and timelimits.

“I said that don't expect any firecrackers today but I must refer to firecrackers,” he remarked. “I will give an example of firecracker bursting in Diwali. It is not confined to Diwali and not to Hindu festivals alone. Many parts of India have seen on the first day of Christian New Year's firecrackers being burst. They are used in marriages of people belonging to practically all religions.”

Justice Oka then posed a constitutional question: “Can anyone say that bursting of firecrackers is an essential part of any religion which is protected under our Constitution? When we celebrate festivals, we do it for joy and happiness, when families come together, they exchange gifts and sweets. But the question is, how is there joy and happiness by bursting crackers which cause irritation to the old and infirm and to birds and animals?”

“So the question is whether these activities are protected by Article 25 of the Constitution,” he said. “In my limited knowledge, the answer must be firmly in the negative.”

“Please Visit the Beaches After Visarjan”

Justice Oka next turned to the issue of idol immersions and water pollution. “The second question is whether our religions encourage lakhs to take bath in a river, thereby polluting the river. Please rationally think about it,” he urged.

“Please visit the beaches and other parts of Mumbai after the visarjan of Ganpati idols. You can see from your own eyes what kind of damage we cause by immersion of the idols. It is not confined only to Ganpati visarjan. Other religious fests are held on the beaches and lakes.”

He also recalled how certain judicial orders had themselves permitted environmentally harmful practices. “Unfortunately, our own High Court permitted the making of idols of plaster of Paris taller than six feet, completely contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Central Pollution Control Board,” Justice Oka said. “Not only was it permitted, but the High Court also allowed immersion of these bigger idols in the sea, rivers and lakes. I saw the effect of these orders.”

He, however, noted a “silver lining” in the efforts of civic authorities to create artificial ponds for immersions, but lamented that the public has not yet been convinced to adopt these eco-friendly alternatives.

“No Religion Permits Loudspeakers”

Turning to noise pollution, Justice Oka observed that religious celebrations across all faiths have become sources of unbearable sound pollution. “Coming to festivals of all religions, we use loudspeakers causing noise pollution that affects human bodies,” he said. “The music is so loud that some buildings vibrate, the vehicles vibrate.”

He stated categorically, “I don't believe that any religion permits or encourages the use of loudspeakers in celebrating any of these religious festivals. Any religion. For example, the use of loudspeakers for Azaans by mosques- there is a judgment of the Bombay High Court saying that this is not protected under Article 25 and not part of essential religious practice. And it was approved by the Supreme Court.”

“Why do we require loud music to celebrate festivals?” he asked. “Why can't we realise that it affects human beings, especially the old and infirm? What joy do we get by creating noise pollution either by bursting crackers or by using loudspeakers while celebrating festivals?”

Justice Oka also highlighted the impact on other living beings: “Human beings can afford to use earplugs, but what about birds and animals? Recently, I read online that for celebrating religious festivals, lights were put on trees which not only destroyed the trees but also the birds. We never think of what happens to birds and animals.”

“Judges Must Not Be Influenced by Religious or Popular Sentiments”

Justice Oka then turned to the judiciary's responsibility, asserting that judges must act as role models in performing their constitutional duty to protect the environment. “Judges are also citizens of India,” he said. “If the Constitution expects all citizens to perform their fundamental duties, it is all the more necessary for judges to do so. They are better equipped than anyone else because they have judicial power to ensure that both citizens and the State perform their duties.”

“When we do justice to the environment as judges,” he added, “we do justice not only to human beings but to all living beings, to the planet Earth itself.”

Stressing the need for judicial independence from social and religious pressures, Justice Oka said, “Judges should not be influenced by popular or religious sentiments. In environmental justice, which is based on fundamental rights and fundamental duties, there is no place for such sentiments unless there is some genuine practice of religion protected by Article 25. At least judges should not get affected by religious emotions if they truly want to uphold fundamental rights and protect the environment.”

He emphasised that courts must adopt a “zero-tolerance” approach towards environmental violations. “Courts must be extra sensitive in matters of environmental degradation and must come down heavily on those who damage the environment or flout environmental laws,” he said. “When it is scientifically possible to undo the damage, it becomes the court's duty to direct that restoration.”

“Religion Must Reform Through Science”

Justice Oka reminded that the Constitution calls upon every citizen to develop a scientific temper and spirit of reform. “If any religious practice or celebration continues to cause pollution, we must initiate reforms based on science,” he said. “The duty of developing scientific temper is not against any religion. The Constitution does not tell you not to keep faith in God. It says that you must initiate reforms, and reforms can be initiated only on the basis of science.”

He cited examples such as the adoption of electric crematoriums to show that religious practices have evolved for environmental reasons. “Hundreds of such examples can be given,” he said. “In fact, religions survive because of reform.Otherwise, they could not have endured for centuries.”

“Political Silence and the Moral Role of Courts”

Justice Oka expressed disappointment that political leaders and religious figures rarely speak against pollution caused during festivals. “The most unfortunate part is that we don't find any political leader making an appeal to the citizens not to create pollution or destroy the environment while celebrating festivals,” he observed. “In fact, they encourage it. This applies to all religions.”

He warned that if the courts fail to act, future generations will hold them accountable. “Article 21 confers the right to live in a pollution-free environment. I can't say that on the occasion of a religious festival I have the right to create air, noise, or water pollution. That would mean violating someone else's fundamental right,” he said.

Justice Oka reaffirmed his belief that the judiciary remains the last bulwark against ecological degradation. “In today's scenario, the only institution that can truly protect the environment is the court. But to do so, judges must act without fear or favour, uninfluenced by religion or popular sentiment ,and with complete fidelity to the Constitution and to the planet we belong to.”

Expressing deep concern over the recent amendments to the environmental protection framework, Justice Abhay Oka said he was “worried” about the dilution of enforcement mechanisms under the Environment (Protection) Act, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. He noted that the legislature had deleted the provisions enabling criminal prosecution for violations of these laws and replaced them merely with monetary penalties. “Surprisingly, the legislature chose to delete the provision to set criminal law in motion by filing a complaint to a magistrate for violation of the Acts,” he said. “All these provisions have been replaced with monetary penalty. And we must find out the instances where the authorities have enforced the provisions regarding penalty.” Justice Oka observed that this shift risks weakening deterrence against polluters and undermining public faith in environmental governance.

Judges are also targeted for passing strong orders

The former Supreme Court judge also voiced concern about the growing hostility towards activists who take up environmental causes and members of the judiciary who pass strong environmental orders. “I understand that people may not support, but now they are being targeted,” he said. “In fact, with some sense of responsibility I will say this. Even the judges who pass strong orders are being targeted.”

Justice Oka emphasised that the common man looks upon judges to perform their fundamental duty and to ensure the enforcement of environmental laws. Stressing that courts must stand firm despite pressures, he said judicial courage is essential to uphold citizens' right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 21, even when such orders invite unpopularity or backlash.

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay Oka to shortly deliver a lecture on Clean Air, "Climate Justice and We - Together for a Sustainable Future" organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association.

Follow this thread for updates. pic.twitter.com/z4nKh8VRms