CONTENTS
- High Seas Treaty: A Crucial Step for Marine Biodiversity Protection
- On the Jurisdiction of the CBI
High Seas Treaty: A Crucial Step for Marine Biodiversity Protection
Context:
Despite their importance in terms of regulation of climate patterns and maintenance of biodiversity, the high seas—areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdictions—are largely unprotected and poorly managed. The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement addresses this issue. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the BBNJ Agreement, also known as the High Seas Treaty, is a significant international treaty aimed at conserving and sustainably using marine biodiversity in these areas.
Relevance:
- GS1- Water Resources
- GS2- International Treaties & Agreements
- GS3- Conservation
Mains Question:
The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Treaty represents a significant international effort to protect our oceans, promoting equity and cooperation among nations. Discuss the significance of high seas and the challenges associated with the implementation of the treaty. (15 Marks, 250 Words).
About High Seas:
- The term “High Seas” refers to those portions of the ocean that are not considered part of any nation’s territorial waters or internal waters, as defined by the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas.
- These areas lie beyond a country’s Exclusive Economic Zone, which extends up to 200 nautical miles from its coastline and where the nation has jurisdiction over both living and non-living resources.
- Importantly, no single country bears responsibility for managing or protecting resources in the high seas.
Significance of High Seas:
- The world’s vast and enigmatic oceans play a crucial role in maintaining the health of our planet. They regulate climate patterns, produce approximately half of the oxygen we breathe, and support a diverse array of life essential to global biodiversity.
- Marine ecosystems are exceptionally varied, housing numerous species, many of which remain undiscovered.
- Preserving this biodiversity is not only a moral imperative but also essential for practical reasons.
- Healthy marine ecosystems provide critical services, such as carbon storage, which helps mitigate climate change and support fisheries that millions rely on for sustenance and livelihoods.
- Covering about two-thirds of the ocean’s surface and 95% of its volume, these regions provide invaluable ecological, economic, social, cultural, scientific, and food security benefits.
Associated Concerns:
- High Seas face serious threats such as pollution, overexploitation, and escalating climate change impacts.
- Anticipated increases in human activities, including fishing, mining, and biotechnology, pose further risks to these vulnerable areas.
- Despite covering nearly half of the Earth’s surface, they lack comprehensive legal frameworks to regulate these activities effectively.
- This regulatory gap leaves them susceptible to overfishing, habitat destruction, pollution, and climate change impacts.
The BBNJ Agreement:
- The BBNJ Agreement seeks to establish measures for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, aiming to safeguard these vital ecosystems for future generations.
- The BBNJ Agreement stands out for its commitment to equity, recognizing the varying capabilities of developed and developing nations in managing marine resources.
- It includes provisions for capacity-building and technology transfer, aiming to level the playing field and enable all countries to effectively participate in ocean governance.
- This approach is crucial for ensuring equitable sharing of the benefits derived from marine resources.
- The BBNJ Agreement embodies a global vision of stewardship where nations collaborate to safeguard the shared heritage of our oceans.
- It establishes frameworks for creating marine protected areas (MPAs), conducting environmental impact assessments (EIAs), and ensuring fair access to marine genetic resources (MGRs) and their associated benefits.
- This comprehensive approach ensures that conservation efforts are globally coordinated, scientifically grounded, and inclusive of all stakeholders.
- It exemplifies the effectiveness of multilateralism in tackling global challenges.
Challenges Associated with the BBNJ Agreement:
- Despite its significant advancements, the BBNJ Agreement faces substantial challenges. Enforcing compliance across the vast and remote high seas will be complex.
- Effective implementation will require robust monitoring systems, international cooperation, and adequate financial resources.
- Furthermore, harmonizing the agreement with existing regional and sectoral bodies is essential to avoid conflicts and duplication of efforts.
Conclusion:
Nevertheless, the BBNJ Agreement represents a beacon of hope for addressing the environmental impacts of human activities on our planet. It demonstrates how international collaboration can lead to meaningful progress in protecting marine ecosystems and ensuring sustainable use of ocean resources for future generations.
On the Jurisdiction of the CBI
Context:
The Supreme Court on July 10 upheld the West Bengal government’s lawsuit accusing the Union government of “constitutional overreach” for using the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register and investigate cases in the state, despite the state’s withdrawal of general consent on November 16, 2018.
Relevance:
GS2-
- Government Policies & Interventions
- Important Aspects of Governance
- Transparency and Accountability and institutional and other measures
Mains Question:
Does the CBI need the permission of the State to carry out investigation in its territory? Which states have withdrawn general consent to the central agency and what have been the subsequent repercussions? (15 Marks, 250 Words).
More on the Judgement:
- A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the Centre’s preliminary objections, which argued that it was wrongly made a defendant because the CBI is an “independent agency” not controlled by the Centre.
- After reviewing the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, under which the CBI operates, the Bench determined that the establishment, exercise of powers, extension of jurisdiction, and superintendence of the DSPE all lie with the Government of India.
- Consequently, the Court ruled that the suit has a valid cause of action and should be heard on its merits, scheduling the next hearing for August 13.
What is General Consent?
- Under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, the CBI must obtain consent from the concerned state government before initiating an investigation within its jurisdiction.
- This requirement is crucial because “police” and “public order” fall under the State List in the Constitution’s seventh schedule.
- However, no such prior consent is needed in Union territories or railway areas. General consent is typically given by states to facilitate the CBI’s investigation into corruption charges against Central government employees within their territories.
- Since 2015, several states, including Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Mizoram, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana, Meghalaya, and West Bengal, have revoked their general consent, accusing the Centre of misusing the federal agency to unfairly target the Opposition.
- Without this general consent, the CBI cannot register new cases in these states without explicit permission from the respective state governments, according to P.D.T. Achary, former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha.
What does the Case Filed by the West Bengal Government Allege?
- In August 2021, the West Bengal government filed an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution, arguing that the actions of the Union government and the CBI’s involvement in the State infringed on its sovereignty.
- The suit noted that despite the Trinamool Congress government withdrawing general consent for CBI investigations on November 16, 2018, the agency went on to register 12 new cases.
- The State viewed this as “constitutional overreach” and sought to annul these cases and prevent the CBI from filing any further cases.
- The Constitution’s framers anticipated such conflicts between the Centre and States due to the quasi-federal structure and dual polity, granting original and exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to resolve these disputes under Article 131.
- For a suit to be maintainable under this provision, two conditions must be met: it must involve a dispute between the Government of India and one or more State Governments, or between multiple State Governments, and it must concern a legal question crucial to determining legal rights.
- In the State of Karnataka vs. Union of India (1977), the Supreme Court noted that Article 131 is a federalism feature and should be “widely and generously interpreted” to advance the intended remedy. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Union of India (1977), the Court cautioned against a “restrictive or hyper-technical view of the State’s rights.”
What was the Union Government’s Argument?
- Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, urged the Court to dismiss West Bengal’s suit, raising preliminary objections to its maintainability. He argued that original suits under Article 131 exclusively involve the Union and States as parties.
- Mehta contended that since the CBI registered the cases in question and was not a defendant in the suit, it couldn’t be included because it is not a ‘State’ under Article 131.
- He further claimed that the CBI is an “independent agency” and does not function under the Union government’s direct control, stating that the Union does not supervise the registration of offenses, investigations, closures, filing of chargesheets, or the outcomes of cases handled by the CBI.
- However, Mehta later conceded that the CBI cannot initiate any investigation without express authorization from the Union government under Section 5 of the DSPE Act.
- On the other hand, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the case went beyond the Centre’s control over the CBI to the fundamental issue of whether the agency could ignore a specific notification issued by the West Bengal government in 2018, withdrawing its consent.
- Sibal asserted that once a State grants and then withdraws its consent, the CBI lacks jurisdiction to exercise its powers within that State.
What did the Verdict State?
- The Court noted that a straightforward reading of the DSPE Act provisions reveals that the Central government is significantly involved with the CBI, from its formation to its administration and the types of offenses it investigates.
- The author of the verdict, pointed out that under Section 4 of the DSPE Act, except for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act (where the Central Vigilance Commission has superintendence), the Central government holds superintendence over the DSPE in all other matters.
- He also reminded the Centre that Section 6 of the DSPE Act requires the State government’s prior consent for a CBI probe within its jurisdiction.
- While the Court acknowledged the CBI’s right to independently investigate offenses, it emphasized that this autonomy does not diminish the Centre’s administrative control and superintendence over the CBI. Consequently, the Court rejected the Solicitor General’s argument that the CBI is an “independent agency.”
- However, the verdict clarified that these observations were only made to address the Union government’s preliminary objections and would not affect the merits of the suit.
Conclusion:
According to P.D.T. Achary, allowing the CBI to initiate investigations in States that have revoked their general consent would undermine federalism, as policing is a State subject under the Constitution. This could strain Centre-State relations, as it would effectively grant the CBI the same powers as State police forces. While the Supreme Court has only addressed the preliminary objections to the maintainability of West Bengal’s suit, the final ruling on its merits will significantly impact other similar pending cases.
