Australian Government To Legally Challenge Indian-Origin Teen Climate Activist

Climate Activist Anjali Sharma Case: The Australian government entered a legal battle on Monday against the Federal Court's ruling that said that the government has a responsibility to protect children from future personal injury caused by the climate crisis, as per reports.

The ruling had come after an Indian-origin girl from Melbourne, Anjali Sharma and seven other teenage environmental activists went against the Australian government. The 17-year-old activist along with her group had argued in court that the carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere would bring about bushfires, cyclones, floods and storms leaving the children vulnerable to sickness, injury, economic loss and death by the end of the century.

The environmentalists had asked the court to stop Sussan Ley, Environment Minister of Australia from approving the Vickery coal mine in northern New South Wales. Justice Mordecai Bromberg who heard the case allowed Ley to approve the extension of coal mine project but he acknowledged that the minister had a duty to care for the children.

The judge had ruled that the Minister Ley had " a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing personal injury" to children when she decided on the project extension under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC Act), as per a report. The landmark ruling was celebrated as a significant victory for the Australian teenagers who moved to the court and all the climate activists around the globe.

The Environment Minister of Australia gave her nod for the extension of the coal mine project. On Monday, her lawyers argued in Federal court that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999 was not a valid ground for the "novel duty of care" like Justice Bromberg ruled. The minister's legal counsel said that the judge had made a mistake when he said that the object of the act is not just about protecting the environment but also about the protection of human beings living in the environment.

Her lawyers argued that the 'duty of care' is not in coherence with the EPBC act and troubles her capacity as minister. In addition to that, they claimed that there is no proof that the expanded coal mine would increase the risk of global warming beyond two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures, as per a report by the Associated Press.

The activist at the centre of the case, Anjali Sharma reportedly moved to Australia when she was 10-months-old. She originally belongs to Lucknow and her relatives are farmers.

In a report, Sharma was quoted saying. "Growing up in Australia I consider myself really fortunate. I got an education that helped me make sense of what was happening." She gave her statement in favour of the Federal court judgement and said, "We will proudly defend the historic ruling that all Australian children are owed a duty of care by our government, and fight to protect my generation from the increasing risks of climate change."