Supreme Court's stance on public-private partnerships raises governance questions
Supreme Court recognised the fundamental right of all citizens to be free from adverse impacts of climate change. This was in the context of a plea by environmentalists to protect the great Indian bustard from encroachment of its natural habitat by companies building wind and solar farms for expanding India's capacity for RE.
Meanwhile, a political controversy has flared up on the question of whether private property belongs only to its present owner and his or her inheritor(s), or should return to the public with owner's demise. At the same time, a nine-bench of the Supreme Court is re-examining its interpretation in 1978 of constitutional rights to private versus public property. Here, too, the question is about the fair redistribution of wealth in society.
These cases before the court point to fundamental questions about rule of law in a democracy. In a 'true' democracy, every human — whether she or he is wealthy or not, or having formal higher education or not — has an equal vote with others, and all voices must be heard while framing laws.
In a 'good' democracy, tribals who own no property, or don't even have primary school education, must get justice when their rights, and the natural environment on which they depend for their livelihoods and lives, are trampled upon by corporations to improve economic efficiencies and increase the country's GDP.
The conflict between capitalism and democracy is a conflict between two fundamental principles of governance: between property and human rights. The capitalist
