#PetitionerInPerson In Conversation with Claude Alvares (Part 2)

Meet #PetitionerInPerson, Claude Alvares, one of the co-founders of the Goa Foundation. Over the last three odd decades, the Goa Foundation has been at the forefront of protecting the State’s environment. In the second part of the interview, Alvares talks about the Supreme Court, what keeps him going, and more..(Read Part 1 here).Anuj Agrawal: What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court’s role in developing environmental jurisprudence?.Claude Alvares: We have had very good environmental judges, but we have also had judges who (pauses) there is a general opinion that there were judges in Supreme Court who should never have been there. That was the claim of the central government itself in the NJAC proceedings so why do you have to bother about the opinion of a simple guy like me?.The Government of India makes such statements – about a judge who gave only ten judgements in his entire career. Then you must have seen Prashant Bhushan’s complaint against 4 or 5 former CJI’s?.Anuj Agrawal: But there have been some positive developments emanating from the courts right? For instance the 200 meter rule. .Claude Alvares: Coastal restriction is very good. But you know, the earlier government was much more respectful of environment laws, even the environment ministry was better earlier. That is the most worrying part, it is not the court. Even if these guys remove all the environmental laws in the book, the courts will still entertain petitions under Article 21 because they have already passed a judgement saying right to environment is part of our fundamental rights. I am not bothered about what Javdekar does or the PMO does..Anuj Agrawal: About the mining case, I know that you have taken great pains to publicize that you are not against mining, you just want mining to be done in a legal manner..Claude Alvares: You know that was not our argument before we went to the Supreme Court. We were more extreme in our view; we actually made a presentation before the Gadgil Committee saying that if you have come to protect biodiversity of Goa, then your panel would have to decide whether the interests of mining and the interests of Goa are in harmony. We said they can never be in harmony..That was our position and the mining industry recognized that as our position. But this was a factual point of view which we had put up, not a legal point of view..If you want to protect the state of Goa and its citizens and its environment then you have got to make a decision on mining. You can take a decision that says we will close it down in five years or ten years, but you have to take a decision. You can’t say we will keep on increasing mining, we will keep destroying forests, will keep on destroying people’s health. You can’t do that..Now, this government is not willing to take a decision so we went to the Supreme Court and said, “Terminate all the leases”..Anuj Agrawal: And then?.Claude Alvares: The Supreme Court said that they would not pass any orders terminating the leases because they have already expired. Can you shoot somebody after they are dead? So five years of mining in Goa was declared illegal..We were very happy but the Supreme Court also said that mining is a legitimate activity, it is protected by an Act of parliament, and we cannot stop mining. We can reduce it, put a cap on it but we cannot stop mining..So we had to change our point of view otherwise we would destroy our bona fides. That’s why we have been attacked by some of our friends. But you have to understand that the Supreme Court granted us substantive relief, but also said that they can’t close the mines. How will Goa Foundation now say that they must close down the mines?.Anuj Agrawal: One of the criticisms against you is that you are stopping development..Claude Alvares: If you look at Article 39, it says that you cannot increase the disparities between your resources and the population. Some people cannot benefit at the expense of all the rest. We produced records before the Supreme Court showing that out of 83,000 crore of turnover in 8 years (2004-2012) only 5% came to the government ie, 2,800 crore. The rest, around 55,000 crore went to mining companies..And then what happened in coal allotments when [the government] went for auction? They made more than 300,000 crore! That money would have gone to the mining companies, they would have become more powerful, they would have ruined democracy just like they did in Goa in those 8 years..When Parrikar became CM, he said if he had to begin an enquiry into the mines department, every official would go to jail. There are press statements to this effect more than a year after he became chief minister. So, its not about legitimate activity, forget about development..Anuj Agrawal: I know mining got a lot of attention but before you there were significant cases that you had filed..Claude Alvares: Mostly we had worked on the protection of beaches against the hotels. Some of them we won, some we lost..Anuj Agrawal: Do you see these as personal victories?.Claude Alvares: No no. We don’t consider it in terms of victories or losses. We are basically people who put up a case before a judge. It is a case that involves the whole of society; we don’t take up individual cases..We have built a very solid reputation as one of the strongest groups on environmental issues. So when we put up a matter before the court, the court never questions us, nor do courts questions our locus or bona fides..Because they recognize our work. All the lawyers know us from Micky Chagla to Rohatgi to Venugopal everybody knows the work that we do..Anuj Agrawal: Talk us through the process of identifying issues and then initiating litigation..Claude Alvares: We don’t have a legal team as such, we have trustees who may tell us about certain issues that can be taken up. Though, now we are not in the business of taking any issues. We are in the closure phase. We have fought for 30 years now, we want to put everything in a book and get out of it..We have fought for beaches in Goa, the forest, the pollution, mining areas, wildlife sanctuaries, buffer zones. There is no issue left to fight for in Goa. Now its only an issue of whether they will implement the judgments..Anuj Agrawal: What kept you going?.Claude Alvares: You should ask Bill Gates what keeps him going when he already has more than enough money. Some people are attracted by money and they keep chasing it, some by art, some by a career which doesn’t exist anywhere in principle. If somebody is allowed to chase money, I also should be allowed to chase something in my life..Anuj Agrawal: There must be some low points?.Claude Alvares: Oh yes, there are low points when we lose a case. The way we compensate is we say its not we who have lost, the judge has lost, the Constitution has lost, the society has lost. We share our sorrow with everybody..But in an unsuccessful environment litigation everybody loses. Who wins?.See if we were fighting a personal battle I can say, “We won. We are happy”. But in an unsuccessful environment litigation, everybody loses. Who wins?.Anuj Agrawal: What is your take on National Green Tribunal?.Claude Alvares: It was okay for the first two years, but I think now it is going down. I think they have good judges but they are badly structured. Justice Kumar dominates the bench. They talk, but he doesn’t hear the matter properly. He is very courteous to lay people though. I don’t know if the other side feels that way. He is too sort of (pauses) individualistic..Anuj Agrawal: Do we need a separate tribunal for environment matters?.Claude Alvares: I think it can be a very good thing since we don’t have to argue for admission of our matters. [In the NGT] you have the laws, and you show the court whether there is a violation of law..The NGT immediately issues notice, there is no question of saying whether its maintainable or not. So you are in, you can’t be thrown out. Of course, what happens afterwards one doesn’t know..The Pune bench we found to be extraordinary. They are very good. But now we find the High Courts interfering, staying the proceedings before the NGT. That should not happen, because then the NGT gets downgraded..People will say that if matters in the NGT, which can only be appealed in Supreme Court, are now going to be appealed in the High Court, then we might as well go to the High Court..This is also because the government’s commitment to the NGT has been very bad. It was started by Jairam [Ramesh], and now the present dispensation does not want anything to do with it. But we have..Anuj Agrawal: Moving away from courts, how important is non-court resolution, local support, awareness etc?.Claude Alvares: It would be far better if you can work it through the public rather than the courts. In one sense, courts are whimsical – sometimes it depends on the lawyer, sometimes on the judge. The judge sometimes doesn’t like the lawyer. We have seen very funny things in court at times..It is my personal conviction that if you get a good group of people willing to put in time and effort to put pressure on the administration, that also works..Many of the things that are now happening in the administration are because of popular administration. We should have a more enlightened approach to turtle nesting, and get local communities involved. See the Forest Department is acquiring these turtle nesting sites – that may not be the best method. It then becomes the property of the government, and that comes with its usual problems..We thought the BJP would be different from the Congress in this, but it does not look like it. They are simply importing the Western model, bringing in more of this and that. More bridges, more roads – I don’t think there will be anything left of this place after some time. The charm of Goa was taking ferries, going up and down..Anuj Agrawal: Are you optimistic or hopeful about the future?.Claude Alvares: No. Not at all. That is not an issue for me to consider. My issue is when I am alive, I must ensure that things are under control. After I am dead, what difference does it make to me? It does not affect me at all. There is another generation that has to worry about it..Anuj Agrawal: Would you advise one to study law?.Claude Alvares: No, I think there are too many law graduates. There are too many lawyers. You go to Delhi, and there are so many bright young people who are not even given permission to make mentions in the Supreme Court..The same lawyers are taking all the briefs. You go to Bombay High Court, and see the number of lawyers. They are all sitting [without] briefs. It is really like our engineers and doctors – there are just too many of them..If there is any discipline where you require a lot of people it is botany, restoration of environment, [restoration] of eco systems. That is where we require 75% of our bright people to go. The UN is saying that 60% of our eco-systems are in decline. Sixty per cent!.Actually lawyers are responsible for a lot of environmental destruction. They are the ones who encourage their clients to come up with all these bogus reasonings, [and] conceal information. A lot more things would be resolved if people were more honest. Lawyers should also worry about the environment; instead they are only bothered about saving their clients. In fact, lawyers are responsible for a lot of the problems of environmental jurisprudence..Anuj Agrawal: For instance?.Claude Alvares: I will give you one case. We have challenged this hotel that wants to set up a golf course seeking their CRZ clearance. The hotel’s lawyers come to the NGT and say that the NGT cannot hear this..Why? Because the Environmental Protection Act only says “environmental clearance” and not CRZ clearance. So then they file a maintainability petition – they lose, so they appeal in the High Court. They lose again, and go the NGT. Then another appeal to the High Court, which is dismissed. They now want to go to the Supreme Court. One year has gone by..Anuj Agrawal: Any advice for those who may want to follow in your footsteps?.Claude Alvares: Whatever advice I give is always overturned by family members. I always tell young people to do what they want to do. Run away from home if your parents are obnoxious, exploit the family members who are sympathetic to you. The Indian family system is created for leading a very open, a very liberated life free of any material worries..What I am saying is that in the family situation, you don’t have to earn a living. What you require is bread and money to survive, in order to function. After that money comes. There are at least four or five people who at any point of time are willing to buy my air ticket to Delhi for the mining cases. I have no need for money personally. I don’t need a car, a laptop, a new mobile phone. So what do I need money for?.A lot of youngsters are in my position but they feel that somehow they should go earn something and then do what they want to do. That never happens. Because the people to whom they give their life to just suck their blood and finish them off. But if they take the option of doing what they want to do, there is a huge support system [for them]..Follow what you want to do. Do what you want to do. The money will come.