CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS & JUDICIARY ROLE

1. Article 14 – Equality before the law and equal protection of the law has been
granted under article 14 of the Constitution. This fundamental right
impliedly casts a duty upon the state to be fair while taking actions
regarding environmental protection and thus, cannot infringe article 14. In
cases of exercise of arbitrary powers on behalf of the state authorities, the
judiciary has played a strict role in disallowing the arbitrary sanction. Use
of discretionary powers without measuring the interest of the public
violates the fundamental right of equality of the people.
In the case Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa (1991), the
government had planned to develop a park in Bangalore as part of a city
improvement project. However, under political influence, the land meant
for the park was instead allocated for building a hospital. When
construction began, local residents went to court, arguing that this change
was unfair.
The High Court agreed with the residents and stopped the construction. But
the government appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that they had full
authority to decide how to use the land.
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, stated that the open spaces,
recreation, playing grounds and protection of ecology are the matters of vital
importance in the interest of public and crucial for the development.
Keeping open spaces for the interest of the public is justified cannot be sold
or given on lease to any private person solely for the sake of monetary gains.
2. Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of speech and expression.
There have been a number of cases where people have approached the court
through the way of speech and expressing themselves by writing letters like
that in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v.
State of Uttar Pradesh where they have expressed the violation of their
right to have a clean and safe environment and a right to livelihood.
In India, the media has been playing a crucial role in moulding the
perception of people in issues relating to the environment. Thus, Article
19(1)(a) is interpreted to include the freedom of the press as well.
3. Article 19(1)(g) – Right to practice any profession or to carry on any
occupation, trade, or business. And Article 19(6) – Reasonable restrictions
on the right to trade and business.
All the citizens of India have a fundamental right to carry on any profession
or business, trade or commerce at any place within the territory of India
under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution. But this is not an absolute right
and thus, has reasonable restrictions to it. Article 19(6) of the Constitution
lays down the reasonable restriction to this fundamental right to avoid the
environmental hazards.
The purpose is to avoid the ecological imbalance and degradation of the
atmosphere in the name of carrying on a trade, business, occupation or
carrying on any profession. Thus, in the name of business or profession, one
cannot cause harm to the environment.
In M.C Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037 certain tanneries were
discharging effluents in the holy river Ganga which was causing water
pollution. Further, no primary treatment plant was being set up despite the
constant reminders. It was held by the court to stop the tanneries from
working because the effluents drained were ten times more noxious as
compared to the ordinary sewage water which flows into the river.
The court ordered while directing tanneries to be stopped from working
which have failed to take necessary steps as required for the primary
treatment of effluents from the industries. The court while passing this
order contended that, though the court is conscious about the
unemployment that might usher due to the closure of the tanneries but
health, life and ecology holds greater importance in the eyes of law.
In M.C Mehta v. Union of India, 1994, it was directed by the Supreme Court
that the industries who did not comply or adhere to, with the prior direction
of the Hon’ble court regarding the installation of air pollution controlling
system should be closed. In this case, the supreme court laid down its
greater emphasis on Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
4. Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty.
It states that no person shall be deprived of his right to life or personal
liberty except in accordance with procedures established by law. The words
“except in accordance with procedures established by law” can be
interpreted to mean that this provision is subject to exception and is
regulated by law which varies from case to case.
Right to life includes the right to have a dignified life and also the bare
necessities of life like food, shelter, clean water and clothes. The right to live
extends to having a decent and clean environment in which individuals can
live safely without any threat to their lives. An environment shall be free
from diseases and all sorts of infections.
This is crucial because the right to life can be fulfilled only when one lives
in a clean, safe and disease-free environment, otherwise granting such right
would prove to be meaningless. This aspect of Article 21 has been evidently
discussed in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra,
Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the petitioner along with the
other citizens wrote to the supreme court expressing their views against the
progressive mining which denuded the Mussoorie hills of trees and forests
and soil erosion. This lead to having an adverse effect on the environment
and resulted in landslides along with blockage of underground water
channels.
The registry was ordered by the Hon’ble supreme court to consider this
letter as a writ filed under article 32 of the Constitution.
An expert committee was appointed in this behalf by the Supreme Court to
advise the Hon’ble court with some technical issue. On the basis of the
report provided by the expert committee, the court provided the limestone
quarries to be closed because it was infringing the right to life and personal
liberty. Quarrying operations lead to ecological degradation and air and
water pollution, which affected the lives of the people to a great extent.
In M.C Mehta v. Union of India, due to stone crushing activities in and
around Delhi was causing a huge problem of pollution in the environment.
The court was conscious of the inevitable consequences and the ecological
problems caused due to the industrial activities in the country. In the name
 of environmental development, it cannot be permitted to degrade the
quality of the ecology and increase different forms of pollution to the extent
that it becomes a health hazard to the lives of all the citizens. It was further
held that citizens have a right to fresh air and have a pollution-free
environment in which they live.
5. Article 47 – Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard
of living and to improve public health.
The authorities are under the obligation to follow the law and regularize
the conduct for the benefit of the people who have elected them. Article 47
puts an obligation on the state that it shall regard the raising level of
nutrition and standard of living of its people. Also, the primary duty of the
state shall be to improve public health. It is the responsibility of the state
to prohibit except for medicinal purposes, the consumption of alcohol and
drugs which can be injurious to the health of the living beings and pose a
great threat to their lives.
In the case of Hamid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the state was
negligent to supply water from the handpumps, colossal damage was caused
to the citizens, which affected their health massively. Hence, due to this
gross negligence on the part of the state, it was held that the state failed to
perform its basic duty.
6. Article 48-A – Protection and improvement of the environment and
safeguarding of forests and wildlife.
In the year 1976, the constitution was amended. With this amendment,
Article 48-A was inserted in the constitution with the aim to afford better
provisions to preserve and protect the environment. The provision of this
article imposes the duty on the state to protect and improve the
environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. The word
“Environment” has been interpreted widely in this article. The state shall
not only play a role of being protectionists but also enact adequate measures
for improvement of the environment.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985)
– Environmental protection and mining restrictions
7. Article 51(c) – The State shall endeavor to foster respect for international
law and treaty obligations.
A plethora of international agreements dealing with environmental
protection have been made and India has been a signatory to it. Because at
the Stockholm declaration in 1972, it was held that the world has one
environment. India being a signatory to such international pacts is under
an obligation to translate those provisions and follow them in the country.
This has been clearly stated in Article 51(c) of the Indian constitution that
state shall foster respect for international law and the obligations of the
treaties
8. Article 51-A(g) – Fundamental duty of citizens to protect and improve the
natural environment.
Part IV-A of the constitution deals with Fundamental Duties. Article 51-
A(g) specifically deals with the fundamental duty of the citizens to protect
and improve the natural environment which includes forests, rivers, lakes,
wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. Like the duty of the
state, it is the duty of all the citizens of not only protecting the environment
but also taking measures which are adequate enough to improve the
environment.
In Kinkeri Devi v. State, Himachal High Court that in Article 48-A and
Article 51-A(g) it was held that it is both constitutional pointer to the state
and the constitutional duty of the citizens not only protect the environment
but also improve it and to preserve and safeguard the forests, the flora and
the fauna, the rivers and the lakes and all other water resources of the
country.
In L.K Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors, the municipality of Jaipur
was being negligent in carrying on its basic duty of maintaining the hygiene
of the state. This caused acute sanitation problem thereby leading to the to
have hazardous effects on the lives of the people of the state. Mr Koolwal
along with other residents moved an application under article 226 of the
Indian constitution before the high court highlighting the gross negligence
of the municipality.
 9. Article 253 – Empowers Parliament to make laws for implementing
international agreements.
Another essential provision dealing in protecting the environment is Article
253 of the Constitution which empowers the Parliament of our country to
make laws which can be applicable to the whole or any territory of the
country for implementing any agreement or convention signed with the
other country or countries.
Parliament can further legislate to implement decisions taken at any
conference on an international level. Any provision made in the context of
environmental protection in accordance with Article 253 read with articles
13 and 14 cannot be questioned before the court of law on the grounds of no
legislative competence.
In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the supreme court
held that it is essential to incorporate the international customary laws in
the municipal laws, provided they are not contrary to them. It is an accepted
principle of law. Thus, it was considered essential to follow international
laws by the domestic courts of law.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

1. Sovereignty and responsibility

In the 1992 Rio Declaration, it was stated that:
“States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the
principles of the international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own
resources pursuant to their own environmental and development policies,
and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or
control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or areas
beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.”
This shows that sovereign power is not absolute. It is subjected to certain
restrictions. Therefore, here in this principle though the state enjoys a
sovereign power over its natural resources its responsibility to not cause
any damage to the environment is mandatory and not contradictory.
 Over time, the duty to not cause any damage to the environment has been
accepted worldwide and it has also been backed by international treaties
and laws. There are certain areas that are not under any jurisdiction of
states like the high sea. It is stated that here the principle of sovereignty
may not apply but the principle of responsibility should always prevail.
States should protect and conserve such environmental areas as common
heritage.
2. Principle of good neighbourliness and international cooperation
The principle of good neighbourliness denotes the duty of states in view of
not damaging the environment. The principle of international cooperation
means that there should be an obligation where one cannot perform any
such activities which are contrary to other states’ rights, or which might
harm their environment. The principle of good neighbourliness also states
the duty of cooperation in identifying, investigating any damages.
Some other benefits of the principle of good neighbourliness and
international cooperation are the functions of prior notification and
consultation. Due to prior notification and consultation, other states might
provide some vital information about the environment. For example, in
times of natural calamities and emergencies. Other states on request can
also provide consultation in times of need.
3. Principle of preventive action
Under this principle, the states remain under the obligation of not causing any damage
to the environment within their own territory. However, this principle should be
differentiated from the duty to avoid environmental harm. This principle mainly states
that there should be some preventive action in the state regarding reducing wastes,
reducing liability, and increasing efficiency. Discharge of toxic substances which
exceed the reasonable limit should be stopped, it should rather be stopped at an early
stage so that irreversible damage to the environment is not inflicted upon. There are
certain ways in which the states have tried to implement preventive action. The ways
are:
- Use of penalties
- Authorities established to particularly look into these preventive actions
- Establishing environmental standards
 It is believed that these ways are the golden ways in which irreversible damage can be
stopped. This principle is recognised by various international instruments, treaties, etc.
4. Precautionary principle
This principle was first codified in the fifteen Rio Declaration. It was stated that “In
order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied
by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
This principle was mainly carved out because there are certain elements present in our
environment which can cause certain extreme damages. However, at times waiting for
scientific clarity and proper judgment regarding the burden of proof, the damage on the
other hand can become irreversible.
Whenever any states adopt any protective measures, the state has to prove beyond doubt
that a specific substance or substances have caused damage, therefore states have to
wait. But because of the precautionary principle, now states do not have to wait for
proof of harm before taking any action. The first treaty to embody this principle was
the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. Subsequently, it
was widely addressed in various other instruments. However, it should be noted that
the precautionary principle is always changing based on its circumstances, therefore,
there is no precise formulae in its regard.
5. Principle of common but differentiated responsibility
The meaning of common but differentiated responsibility is that the common aim of all
states should be protecting the environment, but having said that, certain states owing
to their different ecological systems, physical appearances, geographical features might
have to take more responsibility than other states. The basic idea of this principle is that
all states should follow and obey international laws on the basis of equity and in
accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective
capacities. Two major principles of this principle are:
- Common responsibility
It signifies that all the states must aim to conserve the environment together. They
should not disregard their responsibility at any cost. They should not take advantage
of their fellow states and not perform their own duty,
- Differentiated responsibility
 States comprised of heavy industries, factories have to bear more precautionary
measures or perform actions compared to a state which is filled with flaura and
fauna. But each state has to keep in mind that while performing their differentiated
responsibility, they cannot perform or form any such policies which are harmful or
derogatory to their own state or other states.
6. The principle of sustainable development
The 1987 Brundtland Report first discussed the principle of sustainable development.
It stated that the principle of sustainable development means a kind of development
where the essential needs of especially the poor are met in the present without
compromising the future generation’s ability to meet their needs. The primary focus of
sustainable development in this regard is environmental protection. This principle has
been accepted regionally as well as globally. There are three elements of sustainable
development. The three elements are:
- Integrational Equity- This means that each person must leave some kind of wealth
(in this regard natural resources) for future generations, not less than what they have
enjoyed in their lifetime so that the future generation can enjoy natural resources.
- Sustainable use of natural resources- This aims at judicious, wise, careful, or
rational use of natural resources.
- Integration of environment and development- It is believed that without the
integration of environment and development, the aim of sustainable development
cannot be achieved. Thus, while making any environmental obligations, ecological
and sociological development should also be taken into consideration. For example,
in microeconomics, sustainable development would require the cost of
environmental damage on the state which caused the damage.
In the case of MC Mehta v Union of India and others (2001), the Supreme Court was
analysing the case of vehicle pollution and it was held that non-CNG vehicles would
be stopped and the country should enhance the use of CNG vehicles. In this case, the
Supreme Court also stated that the principle of sustainable development is an important
feature of environmental law.
7. The principle of absolute liability
The principle of absolute liability is implemented in a legal aspect in environmental
law. It is applied in the environmental law to assess the risks of environmental law, and
thereby the liability can be given to the person for unlawful acts. In a lot of states, the
procedure of lawsuits regarding environmental cases or how one should file cases are
 not properly stated. In such cases compensation for the damage is hard to get. However,
the application of absolute responsibility in the environmental law system makes it
easier to get compensation.
8. Polluter Pays principle
The basic meaning of this principle is that those who commence the act of pollution
shall bear the cost of its management and prevention so that it does not harm the
environment and human beings. The 1992 Rio Declaration has recognised the polluter
pays principle. The primary arena of this principle is land, air, and water. We all know
how much greenhouse gases have affected our environment. This principle can be
applied to greenhouse gases. The principle can be implemented through a carbon price.
The carbon price is a small charge which is paid by greenhouse gas emitters equivalent
to the corresponding potential cost caused through future climate change, thus forcing
emitters to internalize the cost of pollution. The carbon price can be paid in two ways:
- In form of the carbon tax (direct method).
- In the form of quota, here a certain limit is set and beyond it, the price has
to be paid.
In the landmark case of MC Mehta v Kamal Nath (1996), the Court established the
polluter pays principle in India. It was observed that the Motel Company encroached
upon 27.12 bighas of land which also included forest land. This encroachment caused
huge problems as there was constant movement of bulldozers and earthmovers to turn
the course of the river for almost 5 months. This caused floods in the river and property
worth 105 crores was destroyed. The Court held that the Motel Company should pay
compensation for the destruction of the environment, thereby establishing the polluter
pays principle.
9. Ecocentrism
Traditionally and even from a religious point of view, it has been observed that some
people or groups of people believe that they are in dominion over the environment.
Therefore, they can do whatever they like towards it. However, ecocentrism denotes a
nature-cantered concept. Here, it is stated that the human species are the consumers of
almost everything in nature. They have the responsibility of conserving nature
irrespective of the fact that they are getting any benefit from it or not. The ill-treatment
of humans towards the environment is very dangerous as they can harm the
environment in such a way that the damage becomes irreversible. Thus, humans should
take care, protect and conserve the environment.
UNCBD – OBJECTIVES, KEY PROVISIONS & PROTOCOLS

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) is a

United Nations treaty that is responsible for the conservation of Biological
Diversity around the world. The UNCBD is one of the important parts of
international environment conventions and protocols particularly covering
the environment, ecology and biodiversity.

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, informally known

as the Biodiversity Convention, is a multilateral treaty opened for signature
at the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992 with the objective of
protecting biological and natural resources for future generations. It is a
key document regarding sustainable development. It comes under the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

The goals of the Convention are listed below:

• Conservation of Biological Diversity

• Sustainable use of the components of the Biodiversity

• Fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the genetic

resources

Having recognised the interplay between IPR and biological diversity, CBD
enlists certain provisions to manifest this relationship positively.

It enlists the concept of “prior informed consent” in terms of accessibility

towards the biological resources of a particular nation. It mandates
corporations to acquire prior informed consent from the member nations
and the local indigenous communities before granting access to any
traditional knowledge or biological material associated with the country or
originating from the country. This provision tries to ensure that every
nation has the utmost sovereignty over its natural resources and can enact
provisions to prevent registration of any form of IPR that could potentially
have an adverse effect on the biological diversity and the local communities
of the nation. This has caused many nations to modify their patent laws in
such a way that they incorporate provisions highlighting the requirements
and the process to gain prior informed consent from the local communities
and biodiversity boards for gaining access to research and inventing
innovations using the genetic resources of plants and animal species.

The most significant effect of CBD has been the creation of a robust “Access
and Benefit Sharing Model,” which mandates entities to share equitably
any benefit arising from an invention or innovation utilising natural
resources of a particular community with the particular indigenous or local
community of a member nation. It recognises the interdependence that local
communities and biological resources have with each other and therefore
requires the entities to fairly and equitably compensate the communities
for gaining access to and commercialising the flora and fauna or the
traditional knowledge of the community. It mandates disclosure of the
origin of the natural resources so as to ensure that the patent applicants
have an access and benefit sharing agreement with the local community
and are abiding by the provisions secured by CBD.

In terms of provisions, Article 8(j) of the CBD recognises the significance of

traditional knowledge and requires member nations to create a repository
for the same so as to ensure strict protection of the same and consequently
achieve implementation of the ABS (Access and Benefit Sharing Model) for
the local communities. Article 15(7) lays out the ABS model in intricate
detail as a mandate for member nations to include in their domestic
legislation.

Nagoya Protocol

Its objective is the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the
utilization of genetic resources, thereby contributing to the conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity.

The Nagoya Protocol was adopted in 2010 and is a legally binding protocol.
It addresses the problem source countries of genetic resources by
recognizing their right to get a share in benefits reaped by foreign
bioprospectors.

Right of parties to Nagoya protocol

A source country has right to benefit from any commercial application of its
bioresources. Such benefits may include:

• Share in Cash profits

• Sample of what was collected

• Participation or training of national researchers.

• Transfer of biotechnology

The Nagoya Protocol reaffirms that a sovereign country has full rights on
its genetic resources and use of its bioresources should be done only by
mutual consent.

It provides legal certainty and transparency and also covers Traditional

Knowledge.

Obligations of parties to Nagoya protocol

Under the Nagoya Protocol, there are certain requirements or obligations,

which each country is required to fulfill:

• Every country should create clear and unambiguous legal framework

around access of its genetic sources. This framework should have clear laws,
rules, procedures etc.

• Every country should make clear that its consent is taken while
accessing its bioresources and terms on which monetary or non-monetary
benefits are to be shared. The terms should be mutually agreed and both
the contracting parties must have access to justice.

Cartagena protocol on biosafety

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety of the Convention, also known as the

Biosafety Protocol, was adopted in January 2000. The Biosafety Protocol
 seeks to protect biological diversity from the potential risks posed by living
modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology. It is a legally
binding protocol as part of CBD and is related to “Biosafety measures” i.e.
Biosafety concerns related to import & export of Living Modified Organisms
(LMOs) and commodities made from them. There are two major components
of Cartagena Protocol viz. Advanced Informed Agreement (AIA) Procedure
and Biosafety Clearing House. i) Advanced Informed Agreement (AIA) AIA
under the Cartagena Protocol ensures that the countries are provided with
the information necessary to make informed decisions before agreeing to
the import of Living Modified Organisms into their territory. ii) Biosafety
Clearing House Biosafety Clearing-House facilitates the exchange of
information on living modified organisms and to assist countries in the
implementation of the Protocol. iii) Rights of parties of Cartagena Protocol
Every country, which is a party to Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety as the
following rights: iv) • To be told in advance if they are importing something
that contains LMOs or commodities made of LMOs. This is done via the
Advanced Informed Agreement. If they don’t want to accept such imports,
they will inform the world community via communicating the Biosafety
Clearing House. v) • All commodities which may contain LMO elements
should be clearly labelled by exporters. vi) • The exporter of such commodity
must inform the importing country in advance the shipment will contain
LMOs. The importer must authorize such shipment

VELLORE CITIZEN CASE

Facts of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India

The Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, an NGO, filed a PIL under Article 32
of the Indian Constitution, highlighting the pollution caused by untreated
sewage discharged by tanneries and industries in Tamil Nadu. This sewage,
dumped into agricultural and open lands, ultimately flows into the Palar
River, the main water source for the region.

The pollution has rendered the entire surface and subsoil water of the river
unfit for use, leading to water scarcity for the population. A survey by the
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre found that over
35,000 hectares of agricultural land in the tanneries belt have become
unsuitable for cultivation due to chemical and dye contamination, affecting
soil quality and groundwater. Out of 467 wells surveyed, 350 were found
contaminated.

Additionally, only 443 out of 584 tanneries had sought approval for their
operations from the board, indicating non-compliance with regulations.

Issue Raised

Whether the tanneries should be permitted to keep on working at the

expense of environment and health & lives of lakhs of individuals?

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments (Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum)

1. Severe Water Pollution: Tanneries discharged untreated effluents,

contaminating the Palar River, making water unsafe for drinking
and irrigation.

2. Survey Findings:

o 350 out of 467 drinking and irrigation wells in 13 towns were

polluted.

o 35,000 hectares of agricultural land became unsuitable for

cultivation due to chemical contamination.

3. Health and Livelihood Impact: Residents, especially women and

children, had to travel long distances for clean drinking water.

4. Lack of Compliance: Most tanneries ignored government directives

to install treatment plants, despite subsidies.

5. High Pollution Levels: Reports found 176 harmful compounds in

tannery effluents, and the leather tanning process used excessive
water, generating toxic waste.
Respondent’s Arguments (Tanneries & Industries)

1. Unreasonable Pollution Standards: They argued that the Total

Dissolved Solids (TDS) limits set by the Tamil Nadu Pollution
Control Board (TNPCB) were too strict.

2. Lack of National Guidelines: The Ministry of Environment and

Forests (MEF) had not issued clear national rules for TDS, sulphates,
and chlorides in inland surface water.

3. State Authority: Each State Pollution Control Board had the power
to set pollution limits based on local conditions.

4. Compliance Possible: The TNPCB’s pollution limits could be met with

proper wastewater treatment methods, including Effluent Treatment
Plants (ETPs) and Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs).

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India Judgement

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Vellore Citizens Forum v.

Union of India and others, Writ Petition (C) No. 914 of 1991, was a
landmark decision addressing the pollution caused by tanneries and other
industries in Tamil Nadu. The court recognised the severity of the pollution
and the urgent need for action to protect the environment and the health of
the residents. Here is a summary of the key points of the judgment:

- Establishment of an Authority: The central government in Vellore

Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India was directed to establish an
authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act,
1986. This authority would have the necessary powers to deal with
issues concerning tanneries and other polluting industries in Tamil
Nadu.
- Guidelines for the Authority: The authority was instructed to apply
the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle. It was
also tasked with dividing compensation into two categories:
payments to individuals and reversing the ecosystem. A detailed
statement showing the amount of compensation, the names of
 polluters and affected families and the total amount to be deposited
with the district magistrate/collector for reimbursement to the
affected parties was required.
- Pollution Fines: The court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union
of India imposed a pollution fine of Rs. 10,000 each on all tanneries
in specified areas and ordered them to pay before October 31, 1996.
The amount was to be collected under the head of the environment
protection fund and used for reimbursement to the affected people
and restoration of the damaged environment.
- Common Treatment Facilities: The establishment of common
treatment facilities or individual pollution control devices was
mandated, along with obtaining board approval for continuing
operation.
- Closure of Non-Compliant Tanneries: Tanneries that had failed to
acquire approval from the board were directed to be immediately
closed or moved by the superintendent of police and the
collector/magistrate of specified areas.
- Compliance with TDS Guidelines: The court affirmed that the Tamil
Nadu Pollution Control Board’s Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
guidelines were in effect and must be followed by all companies and
tanneries in Tamil Nadu.
- Creation of a “Green Bench”: The Madras High Court was directed to
form a special bench known as the “Green Bench” to handle
environmental matters, including the implementation of the court’s
orders in this case.
- Legal Fees: The state of Tamil Nadu in Vellore Citizens Welfare
Forum v Union of India was ordered to pay MC Mehta Rs. 50,000 in
legal fees and other expenditures, recognizing his active engagement
in the case.

Conclusion
 Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India was a landmark case
concerning pollution from tanneries and industries in Tamil Nadu. The
petition highlighted the contamination of the Palar River and its impact on
the region’s water supply.

The Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India

directed the central government to establish an authority under the
Environment Protection Act, applying the precautionary and polluter pays
principles. It imposed fines on tanneries, mandated common treatment
facilities and ordered the closure of non-compliant units.

The court also affirmed the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board’s
guidelines and directed the formation of a “Green Bench” in the Madras
High Court. The case set important precedents for environmental protection
and enforcement in India.

HISTORY – ANCIENT, MEDIVAL, COLONIAL

Ancient India: A Tradition of Environmental Conservation

Environmental protection in ancient India was deeply rooted in its religious

and philosophical traditions. The Vedic texts, particularly the Rigveda,
Yajurveda, Samaveda, and Atharvaveda, emphasized living in harmony
with nature. Various hymns in these scriptures warned against ecological
imbalances and encouraged the conservation of forests, rivers, and wildlife.
The Upanishads further reinforced the belief that all living beings are
interconnected and that nature should be revered and preserved.

The Indus Valley Civilization (2600 BCE – 1900 BCE) demonstrated early
environmental consciousness through well-planned urban settlements,
efficient drainage systems, and water conservation techniques. Their cities,
such as Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, had public baths, underground
drainage systems, and waste disposal mechanisms, showcasing a
sophisticated understanding of hygiene and environmental sustainability.
Hindu texts like the Manusmriti prescribed strict penalties for harming
nature. The Arthashastra by Kautilya (3rd century BCE) laid down laws to
prevent deforestation, protect wildlife, and regulate pollution. The Charaka
Samhita (900 BCE), a major medical text, stressed the importance of clean
water and afforestation for medicinal purposes. Jainism and Buddhism also
played a significant role in fostering ecological awareness. Lord Mahavira
advocated non-violence towards all living beings, while Buddha encouraged
tree planting and harmonious coexistence with nature. Emperor Ashoka
(268–232 BCE), influenced by Buddhist teachings, prohibited animal
sacrifices and promoted afforestation and wildlife protection.

Medieval India: Limited Environmental Protection

The medieval period (8th – 18th century) saw a decline in structured

environmental conservation due to increasing warfare, deforestation for
agriculture, and large-scale hunting. While early medieval rulers focused
on land expansion, the Mughals, who dominated India from the 16th to the
18th century, viewed forests primarily as hunting grounds rather than
ecosystems needing protection.

Emperor Babur, in his memoir Babarnama, documented India's rich

biodiversity in great detail. His grandson Akbar was among the few rulers
who imposed restrictions on cutting certain "royal trees." Emperor
Jahangir, fascinated by nature, commissioned artists to paint detailed
portraits of birds, animals, and plants. However, these efforts were more
about aesthetic appreciation than systematic conservation. Hunting was
largely unrestricted, except for royal game reserves meant for exclusive use
by the nobility.

The absence of legal frameworks for environmental protection during this

period led to steady deforestation and the decline of several species. The
increasing demand for timber for palace construction and weapon
manufacturing further depleted natural resources. Unlike ancient India,
where religious texts promoted ecological balance, medieval India saw
environmental degradation largely ignored in favor of military and
economic expansion.

Colonial India: Environmental Exploitation and Early Conservation Laws

The arrival of the British (1757–1947) marked a significant turning point

in India’s environmental history. Unlike earlier rulers who coexisted with
nature, the British saw forests as a source of revenue and raw materials for
their industries. Large-scale deforestation occurred for railway expansion,
shipbuilding, and plantation agriculture (tea, coffee, and indigo).
Additionally, invasive species like Eucalyptus were introduced, disrupting
native ecosystems.

Recognizing that unchecked exploitation would lead to resource depletion,

the British introduced the first environmental protection laws. The Indian
Forest Act of 1865 gave the government control over forests, while the
Indian Forest Act of 1878 classified forests into Reserved, Protected, and
Village categories. Reserved forests were under strict governmental control,
and local communities were often barred from using these resources.
Despite these laws, British conservation efforts were largely motivated by
economic interests rather than genuine concern for the environment.

During the World Wars, deforestation intensified as timber was extracted

to support military operations. By the early 20th century, the impact of this
exploitation was visible, leading to greater awareness of environmental
degradation. The Government of India Act of 1935 transferred some
environmental regulations to provincial governments, but enforcement
remained weak.

Amid growing concerns, Indian conservation movements started emerging.

The Chipko Movement, though widely recognized in the 1970s, had its early
origins in the 1920s when villagers in Uttarakhand protested against
deforestation. Mahatma Gandhi was a strong advocate of sustainable living,
promoting a return to village economies and opposing industrial
 exploitation that harmed the environment. His philosophy of “Sarvodaya”
(welfare of all) included protecting natural resources for future generations.

Conclusion

The history of environmental protection in India reflects a transition from

deep-rooted ecological reverence in ancient times to neglect during the
medieval period and finally, systematic exploitation under British rule.
Ancient India prioritized environmental conservation through religious
teachings and sustainable practices. The medieval period, dominated by
warfare and expansionist policies, saw a decline in conservation efforts. The
colonial era marked the most severe environmental degradation but also
saw the first legal attempts to regulate resource exploitation.

As India gained independence, the environmental damage caused by

centuries of neglect and exploitation became evident. Today, modern
policies and judicial interventions seek to address these challenges, drawing
lessons from India's ancient traditions of sustainability while confronting
contemporary environmental crises.

GLOBAL COMMONS

'Global commons' can be understood from two perspectives: geopolitical and

economic. Geopolitically, global commons are areas and resources beyond
national jurisdiction, such as the atmosphere, the high seas, Antarctica, and
outer space. Recently tropical rain forests and biodiversity have been
included in the global commons as well. Economically, the term refers to
shared resources that can be overused by some at the expense of others,
regardless of national boundaries. Both perspectives highlight the
international interest in their governance and protection. This essay will
explore how these areas are crucial due to their universal significance and
susceptibility to exploitation and environmental harm.

Significance of the Commons

The global commons contribute effectively to the planet in varied ways. The
High Seas, beyond national jurisdiction and outside the Exclusive Economic
 Zone, are crucial for marine biodiversity and global climate regulation. The
atmosphere, essential for climate regulation and life support, plays a key
role in weather patterns and air quality. Antarctica, governed by the
Antarctic Treaty System, is dedicated to peace and scientific research,
offering invaluable insights into climate change and earth sciences. Outer
space, encompassing celestial bodies and orbital environments around
Earth, is vital for communication, navigation, and scientific exploration.
Biodiversity, encompassing the variety of ecosystems, species, and genes,
underpins ecosystem services, food security, and resilience against
environmental changes, making it indispensable for global sustainability.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENT & DEVELOPMENT TO

ENVIRONMENT

The Right to Environment and Development to Environment are two

distinct yet interconnected concepts in environmental law and sustainable
development. While both focus on environmental concerns, they differ in
their objectives, legal standing, and impact on human activities.

The Right to Environment is a fundamental human right that ensures

individuals have access to a clean, safe, and healthy environment. It is
recognized as essential for the well-being, dignity, and survival of present
and future generations. This right is often linked to the right to life and
right to health, as environmental degradation directly affects human
survival. Many international treaties, such as the Stockholm Declaration
(1972) and the Rio Declaration (1992), emphasize this right, urging
governments to take measures to protect natural resources, prevent
pollution, and promote ecological balance. Courts in several countries have
also upheld the right to a healthy environment as part of constitutional or
fundamental rights.

On the other hand, Development to Environment refers to the need for

economic and infrastructural growth while ensuring environmental
sustainability. It highlights the balance between industrial progress and
ecological conservation. This concept is closely associated with sustainable
 development, which seeks to meet the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The
Brundtland Report (1987) and the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) emphasize that development should not come
at the cost of environmental destruction. Instead, policies should promote
cleaner technologies, renewable energy, and eco-friendly practices in
industries and urban planning.

The key difference between the two concepts is their focus: the Right to
Environment prioritizes environmental protection as a basic human right,
whereas Development to Environment focuses on integrating economic
growth with environmental sustainability. While the former seeks strict
regulations to prevent environmental harm, the latter advocates for policies
that allow responsible development without degrading natural ecosystems.
Both principles must work together to achieve a just and sustainable future,
ensuring that economic progress does not compromise environmental
integrity.

ROLE OF LOCAL BODIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Local Government Organisations, represented by the Local Authority Major

Group, have an important role in environmental matters and can help to
implement global agreements, influence policy and also contribute to
safeguarding global common goods. Local Authorities or local governments
can act at local level and when united through global Local Government
Organisations, the collective impact can be significant. Local Authorities
are often close to people and their local issues including matters as they
relate to energy, waste, water, sanitation, land use, etc. which are of direct
relevance to the local environment and health and well-being of people.

The following examples are only a small part of UNEP’s numerous

partnerships with Local Authorities at the global, regional and local level.

Side event at Rio+20

 On June 18, 2012, UNEP and ICLEI organized a side event at the Rio+20
summit entitled “Cities and Sustainable Development: Contributions of
Local Authorities and Businesses to Achieving Sustainable Development -
Special Focus on China”. The event presented challenges and solutions to
the rapid urbanization, showing in particular examples from China, within
a global sustainable development context, looking at how the Green
Economy concept can contribute to Sustainable Development at the local
level.

Participants discussed issues relating to:

Innovation in building/city design to accommodate the massive urban

growth in the country;

Policy measures (incentives/disincentives) taken at the national and

city level to address the problem of urban growth;

Urban environmental management, including air pollution and

public transport.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

It is a process of evaluating the likely environmental impacts of a proposed

project or development, taking into account inter-related socio-economic,
cultural, and human-health impacts, both beneficial and adverse. EIA is a
tool used to assess the positive and negative environmental, economic, and
social impacts of a project. This is used to predict the environmental impacts
of a project in the pre-planning stage itself so that decisions can be taken to
reduce the adverse impacts.

Evolution & History of EIA

EIA is termed as one of the best policy innovations in the 1900s. The main
aim of EIA is to conserve the environment and bring out the best
combination of economic and environmental costs and benefits. Read the
below-mentioned points to understand the Environmental Impact
Assessment evolution and history:
 - The birth of EIA is dated back to the 1970s. In 1969, The USA had
brought its first National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) 1969.
- The EIA was initially practised by developed nations but slowly it
was also introduced in developing nations including India.
- Columbia and the Philippines are the earliest examples of developing
nations who introduced EIA in their policies. Columbia brought it in
1974 while the Philippines in 1978.
- Worldwide, EIA is now practised in more than 100 countries. By the
mid-1990s, some 110 countries applied EIA as a major environmental
policy.
- In 1989, EIA was adopted as the major development project by the
World Bank.

Objectives of Environmental Impact Assessment

1. Identifying, predicting, and evaluating economic, environmental, and

social impacts of development activities.

2. Providing information on the environmental consequences for decision

making.

3. Promoting environmentally sound and suitable development by

identifying appropriate alternatives and mitigation measures.

KYOTO PROTOCOL

The Kyoto Protocol was an international treaty which extended the 1992
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that
commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the
scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that human-made
CO2 emissions are driving it. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto,
Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005.
There were 192 parties (Canada withdrew from the protocol, effective
December 2012) to the Protocol in 2020.

The Protocol was based on the principle of common but differentiated

responsibilities: it acknowledged that individual countries have different
 capabilities in combating climate change, owing to economic development,
and therefore placed the obligation to reduce current emissions on
developed countries on the basis that they are historically responsible for
the current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The first phase of the agreement ran from 2008 to 2012. All 36 participating
countries followed the rules, though nine had to invest in emission reduction
projects in other countries because they exceeded their limits. The 2007–
2008 financial crisis and the collapse of the Soviet Union helped some
countries reduce emissions. However, despite these efforts, global emissions
still increased by 32% between 1990 and 2010.

A second phase of the treaty, known as the Doha Amendment, was agreed
upon in 2012 to extend commitments until 2020. 37 countries, including the
European Union, Australia, and Norway, accepted new targets. However,
Japan, New Zealand, and Russia chose not to participate in this phase,
while Canada withdrew to avoid a $14 billion fine for exceeding emission
limits. The United States never ratified the Kyoto Protocol. By October
2020, 147 countries had approved the amendment, and it officially became
valid on December 31, 2020, though it expired on the same day.

Since the second phase ended in 2020, countries worked on a new climate
agreement. This led to the 2015 Paris Agreement, which replaced the Kyoto
Protocol and took a different approach to tackling climate change.

NEW CHALLENGES CIVIL LIABILITIES

IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE – SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, CULTURAL