At the bottom of Nakkhu, even though people pleaded for two hours, they did not get help and they went away. What would happen if a minister or an MP was included in it?
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
The constitution has given the court the right to hear the petition of public interest. It is necessary to think about it first. After many years of hard work in India, the courts there got this right through judicial interpretation in the eighties.
With us, the constitution itself has given us the right to enter the court for any case of public concern from the beginning. In this way, it has become our duty to settle the matter in dispute in the country when it comes to the court. Our duty has become only judicial activism in India. In compliance with this duty, our courts also issue directives and orders to fill the void where there is a legal void. In that sense, many courts in South Asia are institutions that make such binding rules.
In the issue of building an international airport in Nijgarh, Bara, we said that eight thousand hectares of forest cannot be cut. The question may arise whether the court has such a right. The court must speak to stop the government administration from cutting down 8000 hectares of forest to build an airport with a runway of 3000 hectares by copying and pasting the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Whether it is an order not to build a building up to 65 meters from the shore to protect Pokhara's Fewa Lake, or the directive issued to keep the name of the rape victim confidential, the court has fulfilled its duty in the absence of law.
The EIA of the Chitwan Wildlife Conservation Park, which is on the World Heritage List, was also rejected by my bench because they were going to make a road through the park by preparing it in the same way. The decision I made in Wagmati has gone to the bench for review, so I should not say much as it is a pending case. However, as the matter came to public knowledge, I was somewhat surprised. This year's big flood in Bagmati is not the first flood. And this will not be the last flood either. Because the flood will come again. Now due to climate change, rain has started falling in limited areas due to 'cloud bursting'. This has also happened in Nepal. It happened in Pakistan too. The same happened in Sikkim. When this happens, we have to leave the place where the river flows. If others go and live on the land of the river, he washes them away. The land of the river belongs to the river. Even if someone cultivates it, the river cannot stop it.
Our constitution has provided for environmental sustainable development. Article 30 of the Constitution says clean and healthy environment. That 'healthy' means keeping the environment clean. Therefore, an uninterrupted flowing river belongs to our environment. The very fact of it was broken. That said, in the year 2065, the government said to leave 20 meters on both sides of Wagmati.
Consider for a moment, if we leave 20 meters at Pashupati Aryaghat, it reaches Pashupatinath temple. That is not what the government said. It means to keep the heritage intact. Even in this judgment, it is not said to remove the heritage. That is to say, if it is open, do not build a structure on it. That is also under consideration. The court will speak on this. The very prominent people of the state bodies said 20 meters without understanding the court, then Pashupatinath and Guhyeshwari are also included in it. If Pashupati falls, it will fall not by the court's decision, but by the government's decision.
is the office of rhetorical civility, which is an organization established by executive decision. No one will stop it. And that organization came to the court and asked us to give the law. The court made a law and asked all city chiefs within the Wagmati civilization to take sides and make them members of the board and move forward after discussion. As the flood has caused damage, does not the rehabilitation of displaced people become the responsibility of the state? The state has not done anything to them. And the court does not fulfill its obligations? At the bottom of Nakkhu, even though people pleaded for two hours, they did not get help and they went away. What would happen if a minister or an MP was included in it? Big and rich people don't get flooded, but poor and marginalized people do. The destruction of the environment has a terrible impact and it hits the poor and vulnerable people the most. In order to protect them, the court takes a proactive approach to environmental justice. Where standards are needed, standards are made. That's all we did.
We did this in Chure too. Ever since the court started looking into environmental issues, the court has also become a binding rule-making institution. This is the eighth judgment of the Division Bench including ours in Wagmati. The court has consistently ruled on this. They keep the party office in the flood area of Bagmati, so what should we do? There will be a flood, won't it? What should we do if the leaders keep their reputation in the flood area of Bagmati? What to do with that flood? What to do with rhetoric?
(Edited excerpt from an interview conducted by Umesh Chauhan and Ghanshyam Khadka of Kantipur with Justice Anand Mohan Bhattarai, who recently retired from the Supreme Court)
