vendata case compiled

Case 8.3: Vedanta and Bauxite Mining in Niyamgiri Hills, Odisha

Study the case assigned to you from the fifteen cases included in Handouts 06-10. Update the case with your findings from past and current developments, and clearly document your sources (5 Marks).

24 August 2010 | After five long years of court hearings, violent public protests, Centre-state wrangling and media coverage, the government denied permission for bauxite mining at Niyamgiri in Orissa, settling the dispute in favour of the tribe that’s indigenous to the area.

23 August 2010 | Orissa chief minister Naveen Patnaik met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and raised concerns over the delay in environment clearances to projects like the Posco steel project and Vedanta bauxite mining initiative.

17 August 2010 | $9.6 billion deal requires approval from government; ONGC has not raised concerns on the deal yet, says oil secretary; ONGC will continue to remain a partner assured Vendanta chairman; Cairn India edge up, Cairn Energy shares dip.

16 August 2010| Allowing Vedanta mining in the proposed area in Orissa by depriving tribals of their rights may have serious consequences, the government panel said.

13 August 2010 | Deal likely to be announced by Monday, says source; Cairn India shares up 4.8%; Vedanta down 6.8%; deal will need India govt approval, says petroleum secretary.

02 July 2010 | Ministers to meet 22 July on mining law

Plan aims for 26% equity for affected people; Bill to face several panels before reaching parliament; analyst feel that proposal too big, may put off miners.

30 June 2010 | A new panel would investigate the “specific impact on the livelihood, culture and material welfare” of a local tribal group in Orissa.

24 June 2010 | The minister wants to protect and expand India’s remaining forest land as part of a strategy to fight climate change, but that could mean giving up mining about a quarter of the country’s mineral reserves.

16 March 2010 | Vedanta wants to mine bauxite for its alumina refinery in Orissa, but the project, bogged down since 2005, is opposed by tribes people who fear losing their homes and livelihood.

14 march 2010 | In two separate letters to officials of the Union ministry of environment and forests, Orissa’s forest and environment department special secretary B P Singh said the proposed mining by Vedanta Resources jointly with Orissa Mining Corporation is not in violation of ‘any Act’.

22 February 2010 | Bigger compensation could boost govt’s rural support base; mines minister not in favour of iron ore export duty hike; large mines may see costs up but quick start to projects.

09 February 2010 | Amnesty calls for halt to Vedanta’s mine plans

The government should not allow the mining to go ahead until the 8,000-strong Dongria Kondh give their permission.

09 February 2010 | Amnesty rejected our offer for engagement: Vedanta

The Amnesty report had alleged that Alumina mining in Orissa by Vedanta has affected the communities living around and led to violations of human rights.

03 February 2010 | Sterlite’s project may face another setback

The documents highlight the inadequacies of the process by which industrial projects are given clearance.

12 November 2009 | While some say that the amendments would not have been beneficial for the environment, others claim that continuing the clearance process for such projects will deter India from achieving its 10% economic growth target.

14 July 2009 | Anil Agarwal, chairman, Vedanta Resources Plc. talks about his outlook on commodities and his strategy for mergers and acquisitions.

10 July 2009 | The start of the mining to feed the alumina refinery in Orissa has been delayed for at least four years by protests from indigenous people, who consider the area that will be mined as sacred ground.

27 June 2009 | The ministry of environment and forests would like to see a higher rejection rate in environmental and forest clearances, said Jairam Ramesh, who holds independent charge of the ministry.

12 June 2009 | The NRI billionaire Anil Agarwal-led firm has launched the $1 billion convertible bond issue due 2016 and said its size could be further increased by up to $250 million.

05 June 2009 | The company is in dialogue with a syndicate of banks to arrange the debt, which would be used for expanding its aluminium production capacity in Orissa.

09 March 2009 | Vedanta Resources has lined up a whopping Rs. 70,000 crore investment in its aluminium, copper, zinc and iron ore businesses in India by 2011-12.

03 March 2009 | The metal and mining major saw prices of all its major products dip by about 60% in the past six months due to the slackening demand amid the global industrial downturn.

25 September 2008 | Vedanta, which says it will consider going ahead with attempts to “simplify” the structure of the group at a more conducive time, has all along maintained that the restructuring is neutral to all shareholders.

08 August 2008 | The Supreme Court has finally gave approval for Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd and Posco-India Pvt. Ltd to start projects delayed over protests and land disputes in Orissa.

26 October 2007 | SC nears decision on Vedanta mine

Tribals say the mine will destroy hills they consider sacred, force them from their homes and destroy their livelihoods.

09 September 2007 | British mining giant Vedanta Resources faces fresh delays in its battle to mine an Indian forest considered sacred by tribals after the nation’s top court ordered a sweeping impact study. Vedanta Resources Plc’s legal fight to mine the area is being seen in India as a test case, pitting industrial development interests against those of indigenous peoples and the environment.

Answer the questions provided at the end of the FIRST case you have been assigned. Answer them in the order given. Be sure your answers are based on the concepts,

models, theories and strategies covered in that handout as well as from additional sources you have collected (Marks 15).

Discuss the legality, ethicality and morality of the 12-village gram sabha strategy in stalling the Niyamgiri bauxite-mining project of national importance.

Legal Eye –

1) Environmental laws such as Forest Conservation Act, the Forest Rights Act and the Environment Protection Act are not taken seriously by industries and therefore the enforcers of these laws also started adopting a benign approach towards its implementation.

2) Supreme Court stressed the importance of Gram Sabhas in the democratic approach towards the problem of industries trying to extract natural resources from lands that are also livelihoods of villages

3) Vedanta already had violated laws in Odisha when it expanded its factory even before the necessary clearance was obtained

Ethical Perspective –

1) Vedanta during disposing with the CEC took a different stand than it took in the Supreme Court where it tried to delink the refinery project from mining. Clearly, ethics were violated.

2) The Supreme Court, in a controversial decision, had allowed the operation of the refinery in the foothills of Niyamgiri without taking into consideration the hidden agenda of Vedanta. Ethically, Supreme Court should not have given a verdict without taking into consideration the plight of all the parties involved.

Moral Issues –

1) It is not only the legal obligation but also the moral duty of the government of India and the Odisha state government to cater to the needs of the 10,000 odd tribals who struggle for meeting even their basic daily needs, which the successive governments have failed to fulfill.

2) Connivance between the state and Vedanta is a blatant violation of the moral code of conduct set by the society as a whole

Do you suspect self-serving, vested, vote-bank-driven political interest groups mobilizing otherwise quiet and peace-loving Niyamgiri and vicinity villages to block a national bauxite project? Discuss the ethics and morality of such blocking.

Government rejected the bauxite mining plans of Vedanta after the 12 gram sabhas unanimously rejected the proposal of the UK company to mine bauxite from the Niyamgiri Hills that hold religious and economic importance for the tribals. Clearly, the changed stand of the government after the long protests by the villagers also supported by rights activists and several NGOs and thereafter its escalation into a national issue, forced the government to drop its industrial plans. The sheer neglect of the tribal people and connivance with the Vedanta are grave ethical and moral issues by the political parties.

What are the deontological, distributive justice and corrective justice issues involved in the Niyamgiri bauxite-mining project?

Deontological justice:

o According to this analysis, the judgment is given as to whether an action was ethical

based on the adherence to guidelines and rules. o Niyamgiri mines were earmarked for bauxite mining project and government could have

simply acquired the land without prior consultation from villages. But it followed the principle of natural justice and took the feedback of every village and hence we think government was ethically right from deontological justice point of view

Distributive justice

o According to this principle, the benefits obtained should be distributed equitably among

the recipients. In social psychology, distributive justice is defined as perceived fairness of how rewards and costs are shared by group members

o Here though no benefits eventually accrued to anyone from materialistic point of view

but then the villagers were not required to leave the village which inherently was distributed equally to all villagers by the very nature of their occupation of the village houses. Thus according to distributive justice is served.

Corrective justice

o The idea of corrective justice is that the liability rectifies the injustice inflicted by one

person on the sufferer.o When initially government tried to force the land acquisition, the protests led by political

parties started which took the shape of big public protests. This public protests being a tool for voicing public opinion in a democracy is the liability on government which resulted in government forcing the VAL to fall back. Thus corrective justice ensured people were heard and people got back what they deserved. Hence corrective justice is given.

How would you bring about deontological, distributive and corrective justice to all stakeholders concerned?

The very nature in which the scheme of things unfolded ensured that each of this justice prevailed as explained in the last question. Though, predominantly the 3 justices prevailed from the villager’s point of view, justice to VAL can be debated. In all of this, VAL couldn’t gain anything and perhaps lost from all fronts despite initial project costs. Here it is absolutely not possible for VAL to win some share of land and hence the deal and at the same time villagers also winning because of the same because of the very nature of such kind of events.

In this case, the land is tribal which makes it more difficult for people to be shifted to a newer place as it takes a long time for a tribal to be rehabilitated. Along with rehabilitation, lot of education has to be provided to tribal people to help them with adjusting to the other life. Easier said than done, most companies shy away from these activities and hence there is no option for tribal people than to stay put at the current place in order to ensure their well being.

Thus taking cue from this situation and event in mind and eventually generalizing aftermaths of such events to whole of India, it is either the corporate way or the village way.

Critical Judgment: It could not be clearly claimed which party was right and which one wrong in this case. Yes, Vedanta flouted some rules here and there and that too with the help of the state which is undeniably wrong ethically and morally. Also, the gram sabhas rejecting the mining proposal on the basis of just religious reasons is not harmonious to the overall development of the country. Always a trade-off lies between economic development and environmental depletion. However, this should not become a complete hindrance to the industries that are critical to mankind and its growth. An AOL 5 analysis follows:

In a situation like this when multiple parties have legitimate rights and duties, how would you bring about teleological, deontological, distributive and corrective justice to all stakeholders concerned?

The given case poses a problem that is not solved even till today. The tribal, Vedanta and other stakeholders like Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC) have been continuously fighting legal, political and financial battles since past several years. If we look at the case from teleological justice point of view, we find that solving the problem towards a definite end goal would have been much better than what it is now. The tribal have every right to protect their livelihood and spiritual interests but at the same time, there must a logic angle to their views. They can keep their place of worship and demand their right to fair compensation and relocation etc. But they are not right in their demand of retaining entire hill area which is full of rich minerals like bauxite on which there is a right of every Indian for a rightful share.

The deontological point of view sheds a new direction to the given case. If the rules of justice and rightly enforced and followed, there is no chance for stalemates like those in the given case. The Government on its part must have thought well in advance in 2010 before assuring Vedanta the supply of bauxite thought mining the hill. It must have played efficiently the role of a facilitator between the tribal and Vedanta and see that each one’s demands are fairly met. The tribal could have placed fair demands like mentioned above and Vedanta could have built trust and live through the assurances. Achieving a deal following a process would set an example and create a sustainable model for industry – Government – civilian collaboration

(Distributive Justice) I would like to quote a saying of Mahatma Gandhi namely “The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed.” Everyone has a right for his/her share but has the responsibility in seeing through that the rights of people of other people are also met. Vedanta has bad track record in meeting its assurances given to civilians and government authorities in many projects. The government failed in its duty to strictly enforce rules and see that justice is meted out to all stakeholders.

Corrective justice concept enables us to place liabilities on different stakeholders like Governments, Orissa Mining Corporation and Vedanta. This liability will be that correction that one has to work on to ensure justice to others. It can be treated strictly like any other liability on a balance sheet and brings quantitative value to moral justice. It will also help the stakeholders to show progress and measure success/failure.

Is there a better solution to this problem based on the ethical theories of virtue, and those of trust, and why?

Diversion of forest land for industry should be compensated through payment of Net Present Value; separate funds must be earmarked for compensatory afforestation and wildlife management; designated pre-tax profits should be allocated for development of scheduled areas. Unfortunately, such basic

requirements are often portrayed as impediments to economic growth, and environmental losses stand ignored. Moreover, a transparent, independent assessment mechanism to monitor implementation of conditions set for grant of clearance does not exist. In Odisha, for instance, environmental rules and conditions were brazenly violated by Vedanta Alumina when it launched the expansion of its project before clearance was given, a fact recorded by the Saxena committee of the Environment Ministry. Now that the gram sabhas, and thereafter the MoEF have another opportunity to revisit the Niyamgiri project, they must ensure that tribal rights are recognised. The Supreme Court order is a good precedent for all projects that have environmental and social consequences. Development is a natural aspiration, but it must be genuine and not result in the loss of even the existing quality of life.

Apply the theory of “eminent domain” in resolving the stalemate of Niyamgiri Hills. In relation to major mineral mines (such as iron, bauxite, manganese, uranium) that belong to the nation than to any given state, whose rights should prevail, those of the nation, the OMI, Vedanta Aluminum Ltd (VAL) or of the 12 villages in the vicinity of the mines, and why?

As of now, the track records of both the central and state Governments, Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC) and Vedanta are not good and they couldn’t an atmosphere of confidence in people of Orissa especially the tribal. Vedanta failed in fulfilling its assurances given to people in return for its various projects and the Government failed in its role as a facilitator and regulator. Under these circumstances, Supreme Court played the role of an insurer of justice and make the acceptance of the project to the 12 gram Sabha compulsory. Even though the deadlock didn’t end in a satisfactory way, it at least helped in preventing the situation to become worse. Today Governments need to turn up with meaningful reforms taking into account the various factors and perform its role as a strict implementer of our legislations. Industries need to create confidence that their practices are moral and ethical and must stand by their assurances and show social responsibility.

AOL 5 Framework: Reverse Moral Justification for Case 8.3

Step Reverse Moral Justification Assessment of JustificationE Specific Moral Judgement:

Stand of the villages: The unanimous opposition of the 12 Gram Sabhas to the bauxite mining operation in the Hills cited religious reasons. However, the seat of the tribal deity Niyam Raja is at Hundaljali, which is about 10km from the proposed mining site, thereby making the summary opposition somewhat unreasonable and exaggerated. The Sabhas did not leave scope for any mutual settlement, and the opportunity of future economic gains and progress in the area was nullified. This knee-jerk opposition was ethically & morally unjustifiable. Stand of Vedanta: To pursue the consensus of the hill community (as a stakeholder). This was, if not noble,

How is the moral judgement critical and important for the understanding and analysis of the case:It is common knowledge that in a faceoff between two parties –one strong and one weak – public moral support tends to run in the direction of the weak party, causing us to promote and protect their interests.In this case, the two parties are the tribal community on one hand and Vedanta and the Government of Odisha on the other. Here, both the parties whether the weaker or the stronger, stand to lose in the current outcome of the case, where Vedanta has been denied mining rights. Not only is it detrimental to these 2 parties, but it also has far reaching consequences in that it would impact the ease of doing business ratings of India, and would prevent industrial development in full swing in India.Also, only Vedanta should not be the baddie in here as the state was equally responsible since the leagislature also adopts a benign approach in enforcement of forest and environmental protection laws that give a leeway to industries to go forth and not respect such laws.

at least morally & ethically benign. However, Vedanta has no rights to flout the forest rules set by the state.Stand of government: Now, the government might have rejected Vedanta’s proposal, but where was it when the rules were being transcended. The government is the only party that stands in a complete wrong ethical side.

D Specific Moral Rules:Utilitarianism: Equal access to the goods of life such that public utility is maximized

How the Moral Rules Justify the Moral Judgment:If Vedanta could have bagged mining rights in the hills, the case does not suggest at all that they would have not have given employment to the local communities. In fact, it may have led to the economic development of the communities, maximizing public utility. Thus, the outright rejection of Vedanta’s proposal by the gram sabhas, on the basis of mainly religious reasons, is unjustified.

Egalitarianism: All people are equal, and must be treated as such by the state.

The state government initially showed no care towards the tribals that suffered daily for meeting their basic needs. It even collided with the industry to deny the people their basic democratic rights. The government’s stand is clearly ethically unjustified.

Fair Opportunism: No person should be granted social benefits on undeserved advantage or disadvantage

Clearly, in this case the national issue that was created out of it, was due to the opportunistic attitude of many parties especially the political ones that according to its whims and fancies changed its sides just to gain vote bank. Vedanta was also given undeserved advantage by the state as they brought big economic investment.

C Specific Moral Standards:Teleological (End justifies the means): If the moral standards relate to social costs and benefits

How the Moral Standards justify the Moral Judgement:Socially and economically the tribals might have benefitted more if Vedanta was allowed to mine. However, due to non availability of environmental impact data, it can’t be clearly said if people would not have any health issues. However, the power of democracy the case exerts, is definitely valuable to the development of the society as a whole.

Deontological (Rights and duties): If the moral standards uphold rights and duties

As an industry, Vedanta has got rights to mine if it has a sustainable plan and the affected society concurs. However, due to too much emotional angle given to this case by the media and activists, it was denied of having a fair platform to play. Also, the tribals’ rights were upheld by the SC in its judgement that said that the decision would be based on the outcome of the gram sabhas.

Distributive: If the moral standards deal with issues of fairness and justice

Justice was delivered by the SC in its judgement that said the gram sabhas will decide the fate of Vedanta and its proposal. However, the utter disregard shown by the state towards the plights of the villagers denies them their basic legislative protection.

B Specific Moral PrinciplesTeleological Principle: relating to

How the Moral principles justify the Moral Judgement:The whole nation opposed Vedanta vehemently, however, if we

social welfare: the society cannot progress without its industries

keep on doing this to our industries, how is the nation supposed to develop, since GDP is the measure of development.

Distributive Justice Principle: Justice should equally be served to all the parties and it should be free of emotional content

Justice was delivered by the SC in its judgement that said the gram sabhas will decide the fate of Vedanta and its proposal. However, the utter disregard shown by the state towards the plights of the villagers denies them their basic legislative protection.

A Specific Moral or Ethical Theories:Proportionalism: It is not right to go against a stand without proportionate reason

How the Moral or Ethical Theories justify the Moral Judgement:The main apprehension of villagers was that their God resided in

the hills. However, it is clearly known that the site of mining is 10 kms away from the place where the deity is thought to reside. So, the villagers’ stand was not proportional to the loss of 1200 crores Vedanta would incur due to it.

Pragmatic ethics: Ethicality is linked to progress in science and technology

Vedanta needs bauxite for its alumina refinery and was in fact promised the delivery of bauxite by the state owned OMC. Why the state made such a promise without considering the tribals is the real issue. Both Vedanta and the villagers appear as the victims of the state’s foolishness.

Ethical Realism (Objective ethics): An action is judged as ethical considering the objective realities of the world.

Vedanta needs bauxite for its alumina refinery and was in fact promised the delivery of bauxite by the state owned OMC. Why the state made such a promise without considering the tribals is the real issue. Both Vedanta and the villagers appear as the victims of the state’s foolishness.

Steps

A-E

Learnings from iterative Moral Reasoning & Backward Judgement & process:One must look at long term gains to the larger community while making a critical decision. Not everything can be called unethical simply because it has been voted against. Also, the state stands undeniably wrong here and both Vedanta and villagers are the victims.

How the Moral Judgement is morally justifiable to the greatest number of affected persons in the case:The villagers’ fears are understandable, but they must be made aware of what they stand to gain once they give up their tunnel vision. The villagers should understand that the point in the bauxite initiative was NOT to encroach upon their religious freedom, and that industrial development is necessary for the nation’s growth. If every village near every mining site starts taking such cultural stand, then there might be no industries at all.

AOL 5 Framework: Forward Moral Justification for Case 8.3

Step Forward moral justification Assessment of justificationA Problem defining the undergirds

of the caseConflicting interests of Vedanta and the tribal people, both

gaining nothing from the issue escalationA SOPE and why SOPE is

answered holistically in our answer to Reverse moral justification.

Subject: Vedanta Groups refineryObject: Tribal community in and around NiyamgiriProperty: The mining operation for bauxite.Events:

Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Odisha in 2004 to establish a bauxite mine on Niyamgiri hills.

The Gram Sabhas of all the stakeholder villages, following the Supreme Court directive held a referendum and decided to prevent the mining operations in the hills.

The government finally rejected Vedantas’s proposal to mine in the hills

A Ethical Theories to understand, characterize and define the problem

The domain of equality in this case is significant to understand as the Niyamgiri Hills is a natural resource. On one hand we have the Vedanta group which is focused at the opportunity for welfare and access to advantage and on the other hand the tribal community have fixated their equality definition on the view that they own the hill completely since their cultures are rooted there. However, the first three theories of justice namely Teleological, Deontological, and Distributive justice based on moral reasoning are not sufficient in this case as they all emphasize on the consequences part. Here, the consequences are ambiguous. Hence the doctrine of correlativity needs to be exercised and Corrective justice and distributive justice have to be applied. This helps in defining the problem holistically, as both parties in this case are claiming foul play on each other.

B Specific Moral Principle from set B

Applying the Libertarian theory of justice to this problem situation seems adept to explain the situation

Since both the parties are claiming which originally doesn’t belong to anyone of them but mother nature. We can utilize this theory proposed by Nozick (1974), which has the following three principles

A) The principle of justice in acquisition: the originally unheld things have been devised to be appropriated to Vedanta and the Tribal community.

B)The principle of justice in transfer: The process in which both the parties are claiming the resources are questionable and hence principle three could be applied

C)The principle or rectification in acquisitions: if the any party is proved to be holding on to the resources unjustly then the resources should be distributed among the parties but by utilising the Theory of Well-being by due care. And this distribution should be proportionate to the rights of the parties involved.

C Special Moral StandardsCorrective: Equal spread of cost

and benefits across all the people affected by the action

Distributive: Some measure of the benefits must be distributed to all the interested parties

The importance of the derived Moral Standards in understanding the case:

Both these moral standards are important in understanding the case. The case is very interesting from the point of ethics. As fairness and equity is complicated to arrive at. The two parties are affected by each other’s moral dilemma. Yet both are not trying to be ethically correct.

D Specific moral rulesFair Opportunism: Everyone

in a country should be provided equal opportunity for life.

Utilitarianism: An action will

Here it is imperative to state that the tribal communities are holding argument based on Cultural relativism and the Vedanta groups is approaching the situation from Epistemic relativism. Hence, individual arguments in isolation are fortes for the parties but when the argument is approached from contextual relativism point it becomes confusing on the moral

be said to be “right” as long as it satisfactorily causes good consequences compared to alternative actions, and it will be “wrong” if it doesn’t.

Egalitarianism: This rule states that people should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in all possible respects by the state.

fronts.

E Specific Moral Judgement:It can be ascertained from the

application of the moral theories and rules that both the parties are lacking a strong justification for the persistence they have showcased.

We could state that there is no right or wrong in this case and there is no simple solution. Although concurring to our previous assessment in case analysis that the tribes are not justified morally in claiming the entire hill range to be their deity by following the principles of utilitarianism or egalitarianism they do have some grounds in claiming Hundaljali from cultural and social principles only. However, on the other side the Vedanta group might also arrange for alternate sources extra cost of investment. They are trying to prevent their expenses, which is justified from developmental and economic perspective because ultimately any money is generated from the consumption of natural resources and money waste is resource waste.

A-E Learnings from this iterative Moral Reasoning and Forward Judgemental and justification process:

It is a step by step detailed diagnosis of the problem situation. This is done with critical attention on the intricacies of the theories, principles and rules of moral judgement in a forward approach

Although it is highlighted that the Vedanta group can neglect the process of appeasing the tribal communities by referring to the clause set by the supreme court. Stating that the clearance from the local communities should be sought after only in case of minor minerals. Vedanta is persevering in the faith shown in the legal system. However, the moral judgement deduced by our group may go against popular belief as we initially considered tribes to be at fault by taking up a morally unjustifiable position. But later it is evident that based on forward judgement we can see that both parties are not in a strong position claim right over the resources. One has a legal advantage and the other a cultural advantage.

AOL 6: Applying Deontological Justice Rules to Justifying Supreme Court’s Judgement to halt the Vedanta Bauxite Mining project

Justice Rules

Ethical Theory of Deontological Justice

Ethical Rule based on the Ethical Theory of Deontological Justice:

Did the judgement create a negative environment for development projects in India?

Did the judgement effectively protect the rights of different stakeholders like the tribal?

R01 Kantian Formalism: Act inasmuch as your act is motivated by a law that can apply to all.

It is difficult to comment on whether Vedanta knew the good, but they certainly did not exhibit the will to do “good” with their actions.

Mining Corporations do make promises which are intended to benefit the displaced communities, but in this case Vedanta failed to “be good”. Their actions reflect a lack of the will to do

good, and hence a lack of moral goodness.

R02 Kantian Formalism: Act inasmuch as your act is grounded on moral reasons that convince all.

Vedanta’s actions seems to disregard all four cardinal virtues.

Vedanta’s failure to adopt sustainable mining practices and their annexure of forest land goes on to show their failure to be good and to consider all the values and factors that pertain to moral life

R03 Principle of Deontological Justice: Safeguard economic and social rights and duties of the marginalized

Mining, if practiced sustainably, is indeed a good activity. The aim should be to garner the support of the local communities and to preserve the ecological resources. Vedanta, on the basis of the available information, cannot be called “good” and virtuous.

If Vedanta seeks to become rightly ordered or virtuous, it needs to exercise virtuous acts. Their actions, such as annexing forest land and unsustainable mining reflect a lack of encouragement to be virtuous.

R04 Prince of Deontological Justice: Also safeguard rights and duties of corporate executives

Vedanta does not verify this definition since they have failed to manifest virtue in their actions.

Vedanta, unfortunately, lacks an informed behaviour based on all four cardinal virtues, namely temperance, courage, justice, prudence, and moral philosophy. Limiting ourselves to the context of the case, a lack of charity can also be observed.

R05 Situationalism: When rights/duties conflict, the actual situation should determine the decision ad judgment but one must own the act and its consequences.

Sustainable mining can be called an intellectual virtue, although Vedanta’s practices hardly qualify as a moral and intellectual virtue.

Vedanta’s actions, as previously mentioned, violate the principles of the four cardinal virtues and the fifth conditioning virtue.

R06 Existentialism: When amidst uncertainty, risk and ambiguity, right or wrong, truth or falsehood, and good or evil cannot be clearly distinguished, then act in the midst of doubt.

Vedanta’s actions cannot be said to be motivated by any categorical imperatives, but may be a hypothetical imperative in a bid to satisfy industrial needs.


R07 Legalism: Legitimacy of government laws and industry ordinances

Vedanta’s actions are virtuous to the extent that they seek to aid industrial growth.


R08 Contractualism: Binding capacity of freely agreed on contracts.

Vedanta’s actions are not virtuous in this sense


R09 Parenesis: A Code of ethics that counsels and exhorts action. The obligation is parenetic or hortatory.

Vedanta has been embroiled in similar controversies in the past. This exhibits a lack of a habitual behaviour dictated by moral virtues.


AOL 6: Applying Teleological Justice Rules to Justifying Judgement of Supreme court

Justice Rules

Ethical Theory of Teleological Justice

Ethical Rule based on the Ethical Theory of Teleological Justice:



R10 Hedonism: Satisfaction and Pleasure of all (Jeremy Bentham)

Vedanta, by constructing a refinery before getting an approval, clearly exhibits a lack of prudence. Hence, they have failed to achieve a balance between the two extremes.


R11a Utilitarianism (J. S. Mill): Maximize utility of all

Their choices do not seem to ruled by prudence or practical reason, but by a motive to maximize profit. There is nothing wrong in trying to achieve this objective as long as it does not adversely affect the other stakeholders. In this case, their actions do negatively impact the interests


of the other stakeholders.

R11b Consequentialism (E. Anscombe 1920-2001): Maximally reduce harmful consequences to all.

Vedanta’vision statement, like most vision statements, makes a virtuous claim. Their actions fail to reflect the stated virtues though, hence a failure to make the right choice and a failure to exercise virtuous actions.


R12 Eudemonism (Aristotle): Principle of happiness of the maximum

CFP is a contextual perception, reaction and assessment that might have hit the right persons at the right time and for the right reasons.


AOL 6: Assessing the Morality of Supreme Court’s judgement Outcomes by Applying Moral Rules Based on Distributive Justice Ethical Theories

Distri-butive Justice Rules

Ethical Theory of Distributive Justice (DJ)

Ethical Rule based on the Ethical Theory of Distributive Justice:



R13 Formal Justice: Egalitarianism

Vedanta’s actions point to a strategy of satisfying the need to make profits. The ultimate objective is not happiness for all stakeholders.


R14 Socialist Justice Vedanta’s actions merely benefit the company but not all its stakeholders as human beings and in a permanent way. Hence they cannot be called virtuous.


R15 Naturalist Justice

Vedanta’s approach to this situation seems to be dictated by profit-motives. Their inability to involve the local community in their activity shows a lack of focus on creating a “good life”.


R16 Retributive Justice

Vedanta’s purpose and business should ideally have been a community activity as defined here, but it is not so in real life. Hence, the


failure to make a “good life” possible for all its stakeholders.

R17 Capitalist Justice

Vedanta’s “internal practices” or “internal goods” seem to be based on “external goods” such as profits and revenues. Their failure to improve the community’s standards of living it can be credited to this.

Vedanta has been embroiled in similar controversies in the past. This exhibits a lack of a habitual behaviour dictated by moral virtues.

R18 Libertarian Justice

Vedanta’s actions derive fulfillment for the investors and the employees in the short term (profit-motive), but it cannot be considered to a part of human and moral life.



Vedanta seems to be emotionally detached from the act of mining, which is clearly exhibited by their approach to preservation of ecological resources. Hence, their inability to determine what is morally relevant and required.


R20 Individual Justice

Their actions do not qualify as moral business management. A knowledge of the kind of organization they would become by doing these actions should have ideally affected their strategy.


R21 Fair Opportunist Justice

Vedanta has neither done “things” rights, nor have they done the “right things” rightly. Hence a lack of moral virtue.


R22 Libertarian Egalitarian Justice

Vedanta cannot be termed as a good organization since they did not strive to realize the right. Since their actions did not satisfactorily fulfill the demands of protecting and promoting values, they cannot be termed to be right.



Vedanta cannot be called “good”, since their actions do not seem to be driven by the resolve to do good. They did not strive to realize rightness.

Their choices do not seem to ruled by prudence or practical reason, but by a motive to maximize profit. There is nothing wrong in trying to achieve this objective as long as it

does not adversely affect the other stakeholders. In this case, their actions do negatively impact the interests of the other stakeholders.

R24 Non-malfeasance Justice

Vedanta, indeed, failed to perform what was right. Although, one might say that since their actions were motivated by selfishness, they are “bad”, but it is their failure to strive for rightness which qualifies their actions as “bad”

Vedanta’vision statement, like most vision statements, makes a virtuous claim. Their actions fail to reflect the stated virtues though, hence a failure to make the right choice and a failure to exercise virtuous actions.

R25 Preemptive Justice

Vedanta did not lack the capability to realize the right activity and goodness. On the face of it, it seems as a conscious choice to adopt a virtuous approach.

CFP is a contextual perception, reaction and assessment that might have hit the right persons at the right time and for the right reasons.

R26 Protective Justice

An analysis of Vedanta’s actions should factor this while passing any value judgments. Their inclination to do right or wrong is a function of their strengths and weaknesses.


R27RR27 Procedural Justice; Corrective Justice

Vedanta should seek to practice sustainable mining and at the same time ensure that the local community’s interests are being safeguarded or nurtured. Only then would their actions be considered to be rightly ordered.

Vedanta’s “internal practices” or “internal goods” seem to be based on “external goods” such as profits and revenues. Their failure to improve the community’s standards of living it can be credited to this.

R28 Beneficent Justice

Vedanta’s actions have resulted in a loss of ecological resources. Bauxite mining will aid industrial production, but through their actions, Vedanta have failed to realize the right.

Vedanta’s actions derive fulfillment for the investors and the employees in the short term (profit-motive), but it cannot be considered to a part of human and moral life.

Synthesize your findings from answers to questions (1) to (5). (Marks 5).

Synthesis:

The case (Vedanta) brings to the forefront how certain powerful organizations are able to mould the truth by hiding the most important aspects of information which have to be mandatorily disclosed. There are serious deontological, distributive justice and corrective justice issues embedded in this case. However, we also get to see certain positives – how the Government had genuinely given the Adivasis their right to

protest for their own property and how certain NGOs had been brave enough to stand beside the tribals in their times of need. ‘Eminent Domain’ is the power to usurp somebody else’s private property by the state or the national government. Here, the government had not given permission to VAL to deplete the natural resources like the forests, which had not been disclosed to the government in the first place. With no second thoughts, the rights of the villagers should prevail over the greed of such organizations.

vendata case compiled

Documents