Direction: Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow by choosing the correct/most appropriate options:

In India, and indeed many countries around the world, development work is seen at a crossroads with protecting the world’s natural environment. Agriculture is the oldest and biggest intrusion into nature, which has historically upset our ecological equilibrium. Besides this, forests have to be cut down; rivers have to be dammed to provide irrigation. All this, and more, is done to enable our people to grow food, clothe themselves and provide shelter. Undoubtedly, governments have to ensure that development takes place with the least harm to the environment based upon necessity tests and positive obligations. In a developing country like India, this assumes greater significance for governments that are duty-bound to provide employment opportunities to the teeming millions, many of whom live in poverty. The ‘development versus economic growth’ debate has led to the evolution of healthy environmental movements, policies and institutions, coupled with a sensitive bureaucracy and judiciary to act as a check and balance. These stakeholders have made stellar contributions to preserve environmentally sensitive and fragile areas. More powers to their elbows. Sometimes, however, the powers that go overboard with their judgment resulting in avoidable economic harm and absence of comprehensive justice to the affected people. With the support of NITI Aayog, we have been engaging in several studies of judicial orders with the clear remit of looking at their costs and benefits rather than evaluating the validity of the orders themselves.

These studies are not aimed at examining how judges can ‘help economics beat environment concerns’, as some may claim. In fact, not all the orders under review relate to the environment and include verdicts in areas of public health and allocation of natural resources. The purpose is simple. Did the orders meet their objectives or not, how did they impact different stakeholders (not only parties), and is it possible to design an efficient alternative mechanism or remedy to help the judiciary consider varied stakeholder perspectives before giving an order? For instance, we found that the Supreme Court’s order prohibiting the sale of alcohol on highways did not lead to any reduction in drunken driving cases. In fact, retail outlets suffered economic and job losses due to a reduction in the sale of alcohol. In a stretch of 1000 km of a highway passing through select locations, we estimated the losses to be nearly Rs 500 crore, with no palpable benefits. Just imagine the total costs for the whole country.

It is nobody’s case to question the validity of a court’s order. We merely suggested that the court could have appointed an expert committee to examine the issue in-depth, analyse its enforceability and then take action, as it has done on several occasions. After all, the judiciary is funded by public money. Should the public not have an opportunity to review the quality of orders?