This piece is in response to Catch News' article: Bank Guarantees: a new art of payment by the Art of Living Foundation
The National Green Tribunal had made it amply clear in its order of March 11, 2016 that the sum of Rs. 5 crores being imposed is not a penalty but an environmental compensation. Please note the difference between the two as both are governed by different acts.
The Art of Living had put in an application seeking to assist the court in determining whether and to what extent there has been any environmental impact of our event, particularly since the directions issued by the Tribunal on March 9 and 11, 2016 were strictly complied with prior to, during and after the event.
The Art of Living asked for a just and reasonable opportunity to arrive at a fair conclusion that was based on detailed scientific assessment. We also sought perusal of the Principal Committee's reports on which the NGTs order was based. The Principal Committee's report was merely based on a visual examination of the site. We are asking for a fair trial by giving all concerned parties an opportunity to respond with credible scientific and legal evidence.
Therefore considering that the environmental compensation has to be paid based on the impact which is yet to be assessed by proper scientific methodology and parameters laid by the Tribunal itself. The Art of Living has requested for a modification to the modality of the payment by allowing submission of security through a bank guarantee as the impact and the compensation are still to be decided.
Just for the writers reference, a bank guarantee is an "undertaking given by the bank on behalf of an applicant (in this case The Art of Living) or its customer" to make a payment in case the applicant defaults. So hope you can see that in fact we are offering a very secure option for payment.
Nowhere has it been suggested or said by the organization’s lawyers that, "We have no objection to pay penalty if at all any damage has been done to the floodplains. We have just informed the NGT that we may like to pay in the form of a bank guarantee than cash in this case."
This is irresponsibly misquoted and twisted, the article seeks to malign the organization and create media pressure on the Tribunal.
The March 9 order has to be read fully which says that it's an 'interim order' based on the NGT's Principal Committee reports which was done merely on a visual observation of the ground (with no sampling, or scientific assessment).
Kindly note that the Tribunal wrote in its March 9 order that: it's the consistent view of the experts (the Principal Committee) and not a "final finding or decision" of the experts. The final finding has to be based on credible scientific and legal evidence. Please understand that the assessment of the alleged impact is yet to be determined and only then will the restoration and cost thereof be defined and not vice versa.
The views expressed by the writer are in absolute poor taste, distorting the facts with no understanding of the essence of the Tribunal's order or the basis of the request made by the organization.
We would suggest that the writer first do his homework right, understand the subject he wants to write about before being reckless with words and misuse the power of the pen.
The article is very damaging to our organization and we expect that you will be fair enough to publish this rebuttal in the same space as the published article, giving it the same prominence.
