Justice Abhay S. Oka stated that activities like bursting firecrackers or polluting rivers cannot be justified under Article 25’s freedom of religion. He urged citizens and courts to prioritise environmental protection over religious sentiments.
New Delhi: Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S. Oka has said that no religious practice that harms the environment or causes pollution can claim protection under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of religion.
He urged citizens, governments, and the judiciary to rethink the environmental cost of religious festivals and faith-based customs that lead to air, water, or noise pollution.
ALSO READ: Rajasthan High Court Grants Asaram Bapu Six-Month Interim Bail on Medical Grounds
Justice Oka was speaking at a lecture organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association titled
“Clean Air, Climate Justice, and We – Together for a Sustainable Future.”
During his speech, he raised important concerns about how religious freedom is sometimes wrongly used to justify environmentally harmful activities.
Justice Oka said,
“So the question is whether bursting of firecrackers or these kinds of activities that pollute rivers is protected by Article 25? According to my limited knowledge, the answer must be firmly in the negative,”
He made it clear that religious freedom cannot be used as a shield for actions that threaten public health or harm the environment.
He remarked,
“I can’t say that on a religious festival I have the right to create pollution. I owe a fundamental duty to abide by the Constitution and to ensure that everyone enjoys their right under Article 21. When the courts deal with environmental matters, they should not be influenced by popular or religious sentiments,”
Justice Oka also expressed his concern over the recent changes made to India’s environmental laws — the Environment (Protection) Act, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act.
These amendments have removed criminal liability for violations and replaced them with monetary fines.
He said,
“Section 15 provided that any violation of the provisions of the Act, the rules, regulations and orders passed would constitute an offence and there was a provision to set criminal law in motion. Surprisingly, the legislature has chosen to delete those provisions, not only under the EPA, but under the Air and Water Acts. The result is that if somebody pollutes drinking water, he can’t be penalised. All these provisions are replaced by a provision for monetary penalty,”
The former judge reminded that protecting nature has always been a part of Indian culture and tradition.
He said,
“For centuries, our religious and philosophers have taught us the importance of preserving our environment. We don’t have to go to these international conventions; it is very much a part of our culture. Maybe with time, we have forgotten what is best in our culture,”
Talking about the functioning of special environmental courts, Justice Oka said their effectiveness should depend on their work, not on their name.
He remarked,
“Whether a bench is green or not depends on the nature of orders passed by it and not on the basis of nomenclature,”
Reflecting on his experience as a judge, he spoke about the challenges faced by environmental activists and the judiciary.
ALSO READ: Justice Begins at Home: Delhi High Court Stands Up for Its Law Researchers
He said,
“Sadly, there are very few citizens who muster courage to approach the court with environmental issues. Unfortunately, the activists who do pro bono work are ridiculed by the political class and targeted by religious groups. Even the judges who pass strong orders in environmental matters are being targeted. This is the most unfortunate situation,”
Justice Oka also spoke about the need to rethink the idea of “development.” He said that true progress should focus on improving the living conditions of citizens rather than destroying the environment in the name of economic growth.
He said,
“There is a prevailing view that environmental concerns should be balanced with the need for development. Perhaps all this happens because we have ignored what real development means in the framework of the Constitution,”
He added,
“I think the real development is where in our cities affordable residential accommodation is created for our poor, affordable transport, education and health for the common man. Today in any city, can a common man venture to acquire residential accommodation? It’s impossible,”
He also referred to a recent statement made by a senior government official who claimed that court orders were obstructing the government’s Viksit Bharat (Developed India) mission.
Justice Oka said,
“There is a recent criticism by a very eminent individual who hold a very good post in the government. He said court orders come in the way of Viksit Bharat. I have said that every citizen of India has right to offer constructive criticism. But this learned man should have given examples of those judicial orders that obstructed the endeavour of Viksit Bharat. He should have given particulars. Which are those orders? If he had done so, it would have become constructive criticism. If he had given instances, we would have studied those orders,”
Through his remarks, Justice Oka highlighted the urgent need for a collective effort by citizens, lawmakers, and courts to ensure sustainable development and uphold the constitutional duty to protect the environment.
His speech served as a strong reminder that environmental protection is not only a legal obligation but also a moral and cultural one deeply rooted in India’s values and traditions.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Justice Abhay Oka
