Intergenerational Equity

Intergenerational equity i.e. moral obligation of the present

generation to manage the earth in a manner without jeopardizing the

aesthetic and economic welfare of the future generations is advanced as an

argument in favour of „sustainable development‟ and natural resource use

(see Vallore Citizens Case). If present generations continue to consume and

deplete resources at unsustainable rates, future generations will suffer the

environmental (and economic) consequences.

The origins of the principle can be seen in the Principles 1 and 2 of

the 1972 Stockholm Declaration. These principles lay down the solemn

responsibility of the man to safeguard the natural resources of the earth for

the benefit of the present and future generations through careful planning

and management. The Report of WCED („Brundtland Report‟), 1987,

emphasizing the importance of sustainable development, talked not only of

equity for the present but of intergenerational equity. And thus the wheel of

human reasoning came full circle 200 years ago the Isopanishad had stated:

“All, in this manifest world, consisting of moving or nonmoving, are governed by the Lord. Use its
resources with

restrain. Do not grab the property of others-distance and yet

to come.”

In Dehradun Quarrying Case19 the Supreme Court of India observed:

“We are not oblivious of the fact that natural resources have

got to the be tapped for the purposes of the social

development but one cannot forget at the same time that

tapping of resources have to be done with requisite attention

and care so that ecology and environment may not be

19 (AIR 1987 SC 359)

136

affected in any serious way. It has always to be remembered

that these are permanent assets of mankind and not intended

to be exhausted in one generation.”

In Mathew Lukose v. Karnataka SPCB,

20, explaining the principle

of „inter-generationaly equity‟, the court held :

“The world belongs to us in usufruct, but we owe a duty to

the posterity and to the unborn to leave this world at least as

beautiful as we found it.”

In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood

Products21, the Supreme Court recognized the significance of

intergenerational equity and held a government department‟s

approval to establish forest-based industry to be invalid

because:

“It is contrary to public interest involved in preserving forest

wealth, maintenance of environment and ecology and

considerations of sustainable growth and intergenerational

equity. After all, the present generation has no right to

deplete all the existing forests and leave nothing for the next

and future generations.”

In Coastal Protection case22,also, the Supreme Court observed that

violation of anti-pollution laws not only adversely affects the existing

quality of life but the non-enforcement of legal provisions often results in

ecological imbalance and degradation of environment, the adverse effect of

which will have to be borne by the future generations.

In Shrimp Culture Case23, the apex court opined that sustainable

development should be the guiding principle for „shrimp aquaculture‟ and

20 1990 (2) KLT 686

21 AIR 1996 SC 149

22 (1996) 5 SCC 281

23 [S. Jagannath v. UOI(1997) 2 SCC 87]

137

by following the natural method, though the harvest is small but sustainable

over long periods and it has no adverse effect on the environment and

ecology. It held that there must be an Environment Impact Assessment

(EIA) before permission is granted to install commercial shrimp forms. The

assessment must take into consideration the intergenerational equity