Mains Practice Questions for the Day
- Q. Discuss the concept of ecocide and examine the limitations of existing international law in addressing large-scale environmental destruction during armed conflicts. (15 M)
- Q. Increasing the number of judges alone cannot solve the problem of judicial pendency in India. Discuss in the context of the recent proposal to expand the strength of the Supreme Court. (15 M)
Q. Discuss the concept of ecocide and examine the limitations of existing international law in addressing large-scale environmental destruction during armed conflicts. (15 M)
(GS Paper II – International Relations | International Institutions | GS Paper III – Environment | Security)
Introduction:
Ecocide refers to large-scale, long-term, or irreversible destruction of ecosystems caused by human activities such as war, industrial disasters, deforestation, or pollution. Growing instances of environmental devastation during armed conflicts have intensified demands for recognising ecocide as an international crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Body
1. Concept and Evolution of Ecocide
- The term “ecocide” was coined in 1970 by biologist Arthur W. Galston during criticism of environmental destruction caused by the Vietnam War. • It emerged in response to the ecological devastation caused by chemical defoliants such as Agent Orange, which destroyed forests, biodiversity, and agricultural systems.
- Over time, the concept expanded beyond wartime destruction to include industrial pollution, oil spills, mining, and large-scale ecosystem degradation during peacetime.
- Ecocide reflects an ecocentric approach, recognising ecosystems and nature as deserving independent legal protection rather than viewing them merely as resources for human use
2.Environmental Damage During Armed Conflicts
- Modern warfare increasingly causes ecological destruction through oil spills, toxic contamination, destruction of forests, and damage to agricultural systems
- Burning fuel depots and industrial facilities generate severe air pollution and toxic emissions affecting public health
- Soil degradation, radioactive contamination, and biodiversity loss create long-term ecological consequences
- Environmental destruction during conflicts also threatens food security, water availability, and livelihoods of vulnerable populations.
3.Current Position under International Law
- Existing international law provides only limited protection against environmental destruction during war.
- Article 8 of the Rome Statute treats environmental destruction as a war crime only under strict conditions where damage is intentional, widespread, long-term, severe, and clearly excessive compared to military advantage.
- The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) prohibits hostile environmental modification techniques such as deliberate manipulation of climate or ecosystems for military purposes.
- However, most legal frameworks remain anthropocentric, focusing more on human suffering than ecological harm itself.
4.Limitations of Existing International Law
- High Legal Threshold: Proving that damage is simultaneously widespread, long-term, and severe is extremely difficult.
- Wartime Limitation: Existing provisions mainly apply during armed conflict and do not adequately address peacetime ecological destruction.
- Weak Enforcement: Many international environmental agreements lack criminal liability and enforcement mechanisms.
- Jurisdictional Constraints: Countries not party to the ICC cannot easily be prosecuted under the Rome Statute.
- Attribution Problems: Determining responsibility for environmental destruction during conflicts is often politically and legally complex
- Definitional Ambiguity: There is no universally accepted legal definition of ecocide, leading to inconsistencies in interpretation.
5.Emerging Global Developments
- Countries such as Vietnam, France, Belgium, Chile, Russia, and Ukraine have introduced domestic legal provisions relating to ecocide or severe environmental destruction.
- In 2025, the Council of Europe adopted a convention criminalising severe environmental destruction, indicating growing international concern.
- International organisations such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature continue advocating stronger environmental governance and accountability mechanisms.
6.Significance of Recognising Ecocide
- Recognition of ecocide would create legal accountability for states, corporations, and individuals causing irreversible ecological destruction.
- It would strengthen deterrence against environmentally destructive military and industrial practices.
- It promotes climate justice by protecting vulnerable communities dependent on ecosystems for survival.
- It integrates environmental protection with international humanitarian law and global governance frameworks.
7.Way Forward
- Develop a universally accepted legal definition of ecocide under international law
- Expand the scope of environmental criminal liability beyond wartime situations.
- Strengthen international cooperation in environmental monitoring, evidence collection, and prosecution mechanisms.
- Reform existing treaties such as the Rome Statute to include ecological destruction as a standalone international crime.
- Integrate environmental protection into humanitarian, security, and climate governance frameworks.
Conclusion:
The growing demand for recognition of ecocide reflects the evolving understanding that environmental destruction threatens not only ecosystems but also global peace, public health, and human survival. While current international law remains inadequate, emerging global initiatives indicate a gradual shift toward ecological accountability. Recognising ecocide as an international crime would mark a major step toward integrating environmental justice with international governance and humanitarian principles.
Q. Increasing the number of judges alone cannot solve the problem of judicial pendency in India. Discuss in the context of the recent proposal to expand the strength of the Supreme Court. (15 M)
(GS Paper II – Judiciary | Governance | Constitutional Provisions)
Introduction:
The Union Cabinet recently approved a proposal to increase the sanctioned strength of judges in the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 through an amendment to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act 1956. The decision comes amid rising pendency of cases exceeding 92,000 and reflects the need to strengthen judicial capacity. However, judicial pendency is a structural issue that requires broader systemic reforms beyond merely increasing the number of judges.
Body
1.Constitutional Basis for Increasing Supreme Court Strength
- Article 124(1) of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and empowers Parliament to determine the number of judges by law.
- The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 regulates the sanctioned strength of the Court and has been amended multiple times in response to rising litigation.
- The recent proposal seeks to increase the number of judges from 34 to 38, including the Chief Justice of India.
2.Why the Number of Judges is Being Increased
- Rising Pendency: The Supreme Court currently has more than 92,000 pending cases, reflecting increasing litigation and pressure on the judiciary.
- Judicial Vacancies and Retirements: Existing vacancies and upcoming retirements of judges have increased the workload on sitting judges.
- Expansion of Litigation: The Court now deals with constitutional matters, PILs, election disputes, commercial cases, and appeals from across the country.
- Digital Accessibility: E-filing and virtual access have increased the inflow of cases, improving accessibility but also increasing pressure on the institution.
3. Significance of Increasing Judicial Strength
- More judges can improve disposal rates and reduce pendency in the short term.
- It reduces the excessive burden on existing judges, enabling more effective adjudication.
- Constitutional benches can function more efficiently, improving constitutional governance and interpretation.
- Faster hearings strengthen citizens’ access to justice and public confidence in the judiciary.
4.Why Increasing Judges Alone is Insufficient
- Infrastructure Constraints: Courtrooms, staff, research support, and digital infrastructure remain inadequate. Additional judges without corresponding infrastructure may reduce efficiency.
- Procedural Delays: Frequent adjournments, lengthy oral arguments, and procedural complexities contribute significantly to delays.
- Vacancy Delays: Sanctioned posts often remain vacant due to delays in appointments through the Collegium system and executive approvals.
- Lower Judiciary Crisis: Most pendency exists in subordinate courts, where shortages of judges, staff, and infrastructure are severe.
- Case Management Deficits: Absence of scientific case management systems and limited use of technology affect judicial efficiency.
- Increasing Litigation Culture: Rising socio-economic complexity and expanding rights jurisprudence continue to increase the volume of litigation.
5.Wider Judicial Reform Measures Required
- Strengthen judicial infrastructure through modern court complexes, digital systems, and trained support staff.
- Ensure timely appointment of judges and reduce vacancies at all levels of the judiciary.
- Expand use of technology such as AI-assisted case listing, e-filing, and virtual hearings. • Introduce effective case management practices and discourage unnecessary adjournments.
- Promote alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration to reduce court burden.
- Increase focus on strengthening subordinate courts where the bulk of pendency exists.
Conclusion:
Increasing the strength of the Supreme Court is an important step toward improving judicial efficiency and reducing case backlog. However, pendency is rooted in deeper structural and procedural challenges within the justice delivery system. Sustainable judicial reform requires a holistic approach combining infrastructure development, technological modernization, timely appointments, and systemic procedural reforms to ensure accessible and effective justice delivery.
