Asked univs to include Env Studies in curricula: Govt to SC

The Centre today told the Supreme Court that it has asked universities across the country to include 'Environment Studies" in the college curricula as directed in a judgement delivered in 1991.
A bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justices D Y Chandrachud and S K Kaul considered the response of the Human Resources Development Ministry that the University Grants Commission (UGC) committee is looking into the matter and the needful will be done.
The court then disposed of the interim application filed by environmentalist M C Mehta seeking a direction to the Centre and others to include 'Environment Studies" as one of the subjects in college and school curricula.

Additional Solicitor General P S Patwalia, appearing for the Centre, said that some universities have included the subject in the curriculum and efforts are on to persuade the others.
He said that 306 universities are yet to include the subject in their curriculum.
So far as the inclusion of the subject in schools are concerned, the Centre has no role as the states have their own examination boards and only they can take a decision, he said.

Earlier, the apex court had rapped the central government for not implementing its 1991 directions including making 'Environment Studies' a compulsory subject in college and school curricula.

Prior to this, the Centre had apprised the court that it has constituted a Core Committee comprising a Chairman and four Members to monitor and review matters relating to the implementation of directions issued in its order passed on November 22, 1991 on Mehta's PIL.
In the 1991 verdict, a bench headed by then Chief Justice
Rangnath Misra had said "the UGC will take appropriate steps immediately to give effect to what we have said, i.E. requiring the Universities to prescribe a course on environment. They would consider the feasibility of making this a compulsory subject at every level in college education.

"So far as education up to college level is concerned, we would require every state Government and every Education Board connected with education up to matriculation or even intermediate colleges to immediately take steps to enforce compulsory education on environment in a graded way. This should be so done that in the next academic year, there would be compliance of this requirement."
Besides making 'Environment Science' a compulsory subject, it had then passed a slew of directions including an order to "cinema halls, touring cinemas and video parlours to exhibit free of cost at least two slides/messages on environment in each show undertaken by them".

Disposing of the PIL in 1991, the bench had asked the Centre to issue appropriate directions to state governments and Union Territories to "invariably enforce as a condition of license of all cinema hails, touring cinemas and video parlours" to show slides on environment free of cost.
"The Ministry of Environment should within two months from now come out with appropriate slide material which would be brief ... To efficiently carry the message home on various aspects of environment and pollution."
It had said that the materials to be shown by exhibitors, would be given to the District Collectors, the licensing authorities for the cinema exhibition halls, for compliance.

"Failure to comply with our order should be treated as a ground for cancellation of the licence by the appropriate authorities. The material for the slides should be such that it would at once be impressive, striking and leave as impact on every one who sees the slide," it had said then.
The Information and Broadcasting Ministry should start without delay producing information films of short duration on various aspects of environment and pollution bringing out the benefits for society on the environment being protected and the hazards involved in the environment being polluted, it said.
It had asked the then Attorney General to have a dialogue with the Ministry as to the manner the All India Radio and Doordarshan could assist this process of education.

Environmentalist Mehta, in his fresh plea, alleged that the directions have not been complied with in letter and spirit even after the lapse of so many years.