Mr. Satyajit Boolell SC opens us about the practice of administrative law in Mauritius, specifically with regards to Environmental Law.
He fleshes out the question of locus standi in the context of section 54(2) of the Environment Protection Act, and the notion of remoteness of the prejudice suffered. In his analysis he draws a reference to the outcome of the case of Ecosud & Ors v Minister of Environment & Anor [2024 ] UKPC 19
Translation in English:
Good morning and welcome to the Temple Podcast, a production of Temple Law.
I present myself as Satyajit Boolell. Mount Taranaki may not be considered as noteworthy by the majority of Mauritians, but it is a mountain in New Zealand that is venerated by the Maori community, just as it was by their ancestors.
In February that year, the Parliament of New Zealand promulgated/passed the Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Act 2025, granting legal personhood to Taranaki Maunga (Mount Taranaki), which means the associated peaks are now recognized as legal entities with rights, powers, duties, and responsibilities akin to those of a human being.
The voice of this mountain, the face of this mountain, will be through an entity composed of representatives of the Maori and environmental activists. Based on similar cases, it can be inferred that this entity has the authority to initiate legal proceedings to protect the mountain from all environmental dangers.
The question of Locus Standi means that you need to demonstrate that you have a personal prejudice, a prejudice that directly affects you. This question has not been raised, and it is an important step towards the protection of the environment in court.
In Mauritius, for a long time, the environmental court interpreted the law, the old law, the Environmental Protection Act 2002, which has now been replaced by the Environmental Act 2024. In this context, the issue of Locus Standi was reproduced textually from the previous law, where it was necessary to demonstrate a personal economic prejudice in order to proceed with a case before the court. This approach was adopted by the Tribunal.
Fortunately, the Privy Council, in a recent judgement, Ecosud, as everyone knows, Ecosud against the Minister of Environment, dated 20th, with the reference 2024 UK PC 19, adopted a much more flexible approach. It called for the interpretation of Section 54(2) of the Environment Protection Act, which addresses the issue of Locus Standi. According to the approach adopted by the Privy Council, the protection of the environment is not limited to the conservation of nature; it goes much further than that. It promotes social justice because it guarantees a clean and healthy environment for all citizens, but especially for future generations, ensuring that we all have a better quality of life.
It is in this context that we need to interpret the notion of prejudice when it comes to environmental protection. It is not limited to just economic prejudice, nor to a harm that directly affects an individual personally, but it also concerns all individuals who are affected by issues impacting the environment. Therefore, the doors of the court are wide open to all environment activists, and this is the approach we will adopt following the Privy Council’s Judgement from now on.
However, it will be interesting to see in the future if the Supreme Court will adopt the same approach. In Judicial review cases, we will find the orthodox approach versus the liberal approach.
On this note, I thank you for your attention. See you at the next Temple Podcast.
Thank you.
