Abstract
The study's overarching objective was to identify the pitfalls and bottlenecks in ensuring environmental justice on an equal basis embedded in the existing legal, policy, and institutional framework. The environmental victims were examined, and the opinions of the line experts were garnered. The study revealed that ordinary people could not seek justice to the court directly for environmental damage due to bubbles in the legal and policy framework. The courts suffer from various challenges like fuzziness in the jurisdiction, lack of legal advisors, and workloads. On the other hand, the court has no power to take cognizance of an offense independently. The wealthy and influential polluters are reluctant to respect the law due to insufficient punishment prescribed by the statutes. The victims are rarely compensated, and there are a few options to resolve the dispute in alternative ways. The provision of legal aid for the poor and disadvantaged people is not much helpful. The public departments are stuck with a lack of logistics and human resources. The jurisdictional overlapping, underlapping, and conflict of interest among the departments worsen monitoring, control, surveillance (MCS), and effective coordination. The regulatory framework does not welcome the community in decision-making and natural resource management. Hence, the study recommends legal and institutional reform. Policy initiatives are warranted for effective environmental governance, green growth, campaign, and volunteerism.
Highlights
INTRODUCTION16 Rahman implementation, enforcement, monitoring, and evaluation. It protects the right of victims to receive full compensation for damages and a health hazard
Environmental justice is considered the equitable treatment and significant involvement of all people irrespective of socio-economic status in developing, implementing, and enforcing environmental laws, regulations, and policies (Andreotta 2019)
The government loses nearly about 3.4% of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on account of ecological pollution only in urban areas (World Bank 2018). 28 % of all deaths are caused by pollution, which is much higher than the global average (16%)
Summary
16 Rahman implementation, enforcement, monitoring, and evaluation. It protects the right of victims to receive full compensation for damages and a health hazard. The “Ecologically Critical Area Management Rules, 2016” were approved to form various committees starting from national to grass root levels incorporating diverse stakeholders These rules restricted all activities against biodiversity conservation, pollution, and exploitation of natural resources; and encouraged co-management in the "Ecologically Critical Areas (ECAs)." the “Protection and Conservation of Fish Act, 1950”, “Fish Rules, 1985”, “Wildlife (Conservation and Security) Act 2012”, “Marine Fisheries Ordinance 1983," and the “Forestry Act 1927” support biodiversity protection nationally. DOE can use public prosecutors from the licensed lawyers in the trial stage This act appointed a judge equal to the Joint District Judge for an administrative Division, who disposes environmental cases within the jurisdiction besides the routine works. Under the "Mobile Courts Act 2009," the Executive Magistrate, with DOE's help, impose penalties for committing minor offenses
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
