With due respect

India8217;s highest court, more than that in any other democracy, has been a powerful trigger for changes in environmental policy. To take only two of several examples: Delhi8217;s buses are cleaner and auto-manufacturers have had to adhere to international emission norms thanks to a paradigm shifting court judgment. After investigative reportage in this newspaper, judicial directives saved geologically invaluable Himalayan rocks from being used as an advertising medium by soft drink manufacturers. At every step, there was a vibrant, sometimes even raucous, public debate 8212; remember how transporters, bolstered by politicians, held demonstrations against CNG? 8212; but the Supreme Court kept nudging the discourse back on course. Pushing and prodding, etching in stone the fundamental principle that public interest over-rides all. This newspaper, therefore, is especially conscious of the court8217;s crucial position in the inevitably strongly contested public policy battles. The Supreme Court has more than just adjudicated on these issues. It has given form and direction to policy and, immensely important in a robust democracy hosting competing and conflicting viewpoints, set rational parameters for debate.

It is in the context of this unprecedented judicial contribution that the court8217;s directive on public protests and articles on the Clemenceau case strikes a discordant note. That the Supreme Court is supreme when legal remedy has been sought is beyond dispute. But the Clemenceau case 8212; like the CNG issue or the defacing of rocks or the foundries that damaged the Taj 8212; has a potential to re-define policy. And, as in all such cases, the players, those in the court and outside, will debate, argue, agree, disagree. Pollution and its prescription are as much matters of science and technology as they are about our fundamental rights and government policy. The Clemenceau case is not just about a ship carrying asbestos afloat in the sea, it8217;s about environment, economics, livelihood and occupational safety. As we heard and saw in the CNG case 8212; through the court8217;s interventions as the executive faltered 8212; if there was some noise, there was plenty of light, too, since many impartial experts joined the debate.

Of course, the bench is right in cautioning against a trial in or by the media, or any attempt to prejudice the issue. But the directive that demonstrations or articles, 8220;either pro or against or taking a middle line8221;, would amount to prima facie contempt of court may put the lid on any debate. It could also set a disturbing precedent. No institution today stands as a more powerful custodian of individual rights and public expression than the Supreme Court. With the highest respect, we wait, your lordships.