Bridging the Gap: Environmental Law & Science – Interview with Prof. (Dr.) Abhiroop Chowdhury
The nuances of creating effective, mindful environmental policy necessitates dialogue between various actors and stakeholders, including legal professionals, scientists, government and other organizations. The Final Stand has been committed to creating a space for such dialogue, and keeping with this ethos, we interviewed Prof. (Dr.) Abhiroop Chowdhury, Dean at Jindal School of Environment and Sustainability (JSES) on the necessity of interdisciplinary perspectives in environmental and climate change policy formation.
Prof. Chowdhury earned his PhD degree from the Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines) and has since extensively researched the impact of environmental stressors on semi-arid mangrove ecology in Kachch, Gujarat as well as deltaic mangrove habitat of Indian Sundarbans and has been actively involved in mangrove restoration initiatives. He has been involved in an assessment project with IISc, Bangalore, regarding mangrove biodiversity along India’s eastern coastline in addition to exploring various biodiversity conservation sites (Kutch Biosphere Reserve in Gujarat, Sundarban Biosphere Reserve in West Bengal), river systems (Subarnarekha and Damodar) and mining regions (Sukinda Chromite mine and Jharia coal fields).
The first question we would like to ask you is - What is the need to integrate environmental sciences and law-making in the formation of environmental policy? Why does it matter, and how can we ensure meaningful collaboration between scientists, lawmakers, and policy practitioners?
I believe that the act of dividing science and law is very artificial in itself as nature, which is the primary subject both fields are concerned with defies these boundaries.
For example, a policy like the polluters’ pay principle requires precise scientific definitions to identify what constitutes pollution and how much damage is occurring. Unless we know where, how and through what nexus (water, soil, air) the environment is polluted in definite and quantifiable terms, legal frameworks can’t meaningfully penalize polluters or enforce standards.
When I was working with different environmental firms across India, I found that there was a big gap in the way environmental reporting was conducted. Reports such as EIA play an important role in defining the baselines on which a policy like PPP is implemented.
A huge loophole with EIA Reporting is that the assessee industry or factory commissions the report, thereby highlighting a major conflict of interest. This leads to evasion tactics within the EIA report. Scientists sometimes use as much jargon as possible so that the report becomes inaccessible and inconsistencies become difficult to identify.
If data is being manipulated or misinterpreted, it is very difficult to know until there is some disaster. For example, the Stylene Gas Leakage in Vishakhapatnam was traced to several flaws in its cooling operations. The joint committee report was submitted to NGT (O.A. No. 73 of 2020), indicating that the concentration of the lethal gas may be high but was not measured during the incident. Despite Stylene gas being one of the most poisonous, this factory was allowed to continue its operation for a long time despite discrepancies in its EIA/EMP compliance reporting. This very much undermines the environmental vision of the EIA report.
From my perspective, if scientists and lawyers remain siloed, each group operates with blind spots. Lawyers might know a statute’s intent but do not have the knowledge to understand the interactions that make up environmental processes. Scientists, on the other hand, can conduct complex risk assessments, however, these are meaningless without the backing of the law. The two spheres are inevitably linked: thorough monitoring ensures we know what is in our air, water, and soil, and comprehensive legal frameworks guarantee accountability for industries or agencies that ignore their environmental responsibilities. To me, this synergy is about strengthening checks and balances.
Science-law integration means bridging the gap between discovery and practice. When we refine policies based on peer-reviewed research, and scientists understand the law’s constraints, we can develop more flexible, responsive regulations that protect ecosystems, public health, and economic interests.
You've highlighted the existence of these very apparent gaps in knowledge between environmental sciences and legal practitioners – what would be your opinion on reconciling these two entities to make sure there is more dialogue?
I’ve long believed that we need a multi-stakeholder approach to detect inaccuracies in EIA reports. Too often, the same firm that commissioned an EIA also arranges its review, inviting conflicts of interest that underreport pollutant levels. To counter this, I suggest panels with independent scientists, NGOs, health experts, and community voices. This diversity lessens the risk of a single narrative dominating the evaluation process.
In my experience, I have seen that most people who sit on these policy-making and assessment benches which are responsible for approving projects are from public institutions, and therefore often amenable to external pressures to portray certain outcomes. A person under such influence cannot use their scientific acumen to the greatest extent because they are also liable to answer to the party that is essentially employing them.
Stakeholders like NGOs, and independent practitioners are often in a better position to safely give feedback on an unviable project as their positions and jobs are insulated to a higher degree than those associated with public institutions.
In my view, the key is transparency. All methodologies – how data was collected, what models were used, and the baselines for comparison – must be clear and replicable. If some group wants to challenge the findings, the underlying raw data should be accessible so that any discrepancies can be flagged early.
During my fieldwork, I often encountered overly broad ranges of contaminants. Reporting them is an important step. For example, lead concentration levels in water may be reported to range between 0-100 milligrams per litre, in a hypothetical industrial site. Now, this can create confusion in times of litigation as 0 milligrams of lead indicates no pollution. However, 100 milligrams indicate extreme, detrimental levels of pollution. Such generalised ranges and figures hide the precise extent of pollution and can skew policy decisions. Greater precision, standardised testing protocols, and publicly available results can mitigate these issues. However, evaluators of such reports need to know the premises and must have basic knowledge of Environmental chemistry so that they can point out this discrepancy during the submission of the draft itself and ask the consultant to report the true values with statistically significant datasets. This requires science knowledge for social science/policy experts and vice versa.
I also think real dialogue happens when people from different disciplines actually speak to each other regularly. I recall situations where legal experts I have spoken to have been unaware of methods used to quantify pollutants, and could therefore not comprehend ways in which such data could be manipulated. Conversely, scientists who manipulate such data have little idea how these results get interpreted in policy decisions and cannot fathom the long-term cost of such discrepancies. By establishing ongoing committees that convene regularly, we can identify problems proactively rather than waiting for catastrophic events to spark legal battles. Environmental education should include both law and science, as learning both together provides a deeper understanding and is more beneficial than studying either in isolation.
To bridge this gap between science and law, how can skills and competencies be developed so that there is this a cross disciplinary approach, like what you have alluded to? How can educational programs help those interested in working in the field of environment and sustainability?
I strongly advocate for curricula that dismantle the artificial divide between science and the humanities. Knowledge has no divisions and interdisciplinarity should be a norm. This is a need that the The New Education Policy has also identified, and now students are allowed to opt for minors which can enable them to have alternative skill sets. In JGU, we have access to a great number of schools, faculty, courses and academic advisers who are in a position to guide students towards a particular outcome. However, it is important to be cognizant of the fact that the bulk of the legal education in India occurs in public universities where these kinds of opportunities are far more limited.
In my own teaching, I’ve seen how students initially hesitate to explore disciplines outside their comfort zone. Some law students assume environmental science is beyond their grasp, and many science students think they’ll never need policy courses. Yet the moment we expose them to real-world issues – like analyzing pollution data in a legal context – they realize themselves how these fields intersect, and knowledge is needed in both areas in order to fully understand the complexities of the situations they will encounter in their careers. School education often tends to shut a lot of students off from certain subjects, but by exposing students in ways that are meaningful and relevant to already pre-existing interests and showing them the interdisciplinarity that exists in their chosen field, you can foster interest and truly engage in the creation of more informed future professionals and citizenry.
Ultimately, I see education as the most promising route to bridging the science-law divide. If future environmental lawyers understand how data is gathered, and scientists appreciate how regulations function, we create professionals who can negotiate solutions without succumbing to disciplinary blind spots.
Scientific research evolves quickly while creating or amending laws can be slow. How do you think policymakers can keep pace with new environmental findings? Should laws be periodically updated, or do you envision a different model for swiftly integrating emerging scientific evidence?
I do acknowledge that legislation and judicial processes often move at a measured pace, and there’s a logic to that deliberation. We want laws to be thorough, reflecting diverse perspectives than hastily formed. I think it’s essential to design laws with built-in mechanisms for timely updates. For example, I envision statutes that mandate regular reviews, perhaps every few years, where panels of scientists, economists, and policy analysts reassess regulations in light of new research. If we discover a previously unknown pollutant or realize that an industry has advanced technology to reduce emissions more efficiently, we should not have to wait a decade to incorporate those findings. By structuring legal frameworks to incorporate incremental amendments, we can ensure that scientific progress translates into real-world impact faster.
India has no dearth of good scientists or environmental laws. However, we constantly emerge as one of the least environmentally compliant countries in the world – at least five Indian cities are among the most polluted in the world. This is because several biases exist and political considerations take precedence over people. Often, only scientists with certain political leanings are included in such decision-making. Investments need to be made in the policy review process – such as getting scientists from reputed foreign universities to comment on Environmental Bills – because the footprint of these laws will endure for decades to come. While I acknowledge the difficulty in finding opinions that are unbiased and formulating comprehensive policies takes a great amount of time, I believe it is better to make these investments so that we can put forth our best attempt at saving mankind.
If we formalize the role of subject matter experts – giving them a seat at the table during drafting and periodic revisions – we can spot outdated assumptions before they become entrenched. This also helps policymakers weigh economic and social considerations alongside purely scientific data. The goal is to remain flexible: if research uncovers a better standard for acceptable emissions or reveals a new hazard, the law should adapt without needing a complete overhaul.
This interview was conducted and transcribed by Jade da Silva, a third-year law student and Team Leader of Editorial, The Final Stand
Comments