Environment Law

Unit -2

Introduction-

Environment and life are interrelated. The existence of life on earth depends
on the harmonious relationship between the ecosystem and the environment.
The Constitution of India, though not originally drafted with express
provisions for environmental protection, provides a strong framework
through legislative powers and subsequent amendments. Under the Seventh
Schedule, environment appears across the Union, State, and Concurrent
Lists. Subjects such as industries and mines fall under the Union List, while
agriculture, public health, and sanitation are in the State List, and forests and
wildlife are placed in the Concurrent List. This distribution reflects that
environment is a shared responsibility.
Further, Article 253 empowers Parliament to legislate on matters necessary
to implement international treaties, agreements, and conventions, even on
subjects within the State List. This power enabled the enactment of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 after India’s commitment at the
Stockholm Conference of 1972. On the other hand, Article 254 deals with
inconsistency between Union and State laws on concurrent matters. If a State
law conflicts with a Union law, the latter prevails, unless the State law has
received Presidential assent. Together, these provisions ensure environmental
issues can be tackled nationally without being obstructed by federal
distribution of powers.

Environment Protection & DPSP-

Part IV of the Constitution of India lays down Directive Principles of State
Policy. They lay down the socio-economic goals of the nation. While DPSPs
are not enforceable in courts, they shape government policies and influence
judicial interpretation of fundamental rights.. Before 42nd Amendment, there
was no specific provision in Part IV dealing exclusively with environment.

Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 inserted an express

provision pertaining to environmental protection in Part IV in the form of
Article 48A. It reads as under:

The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.

After insertion of an express provision in Part IV alongwith other provision

in other parts of the Constitution, it became incumbent on the part of the
State to protect the environment and to promote clean environment. In
addition, Article 47, which focuses on improving public health and nutrition,
indirectly relates to environmental protection because health depends upon a
clean and sustainable environment.

Protection of Environment as Fundamental Duty-

Apart from State obligations, the Constitution also places responsibility on

citizens through Article 51A(g), a Fundamental Duty introduced by the 42nd
Amendment. It requires every citizen “to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have
compassion for living creatures.” Although Fundamental Duties are not
legally enforceable, they carry moral weight and often guide judicial
decisions. Courts have used this duty as an interpretative aid in
environmental cases, reminding citizens that protection of the environment is
 not only the responsibility of the government but also of individuals. In the
Taj Trapezium Case (1997), the Supreme Court cited Article 51A(g) to
emphasize the duty of citizens in protecting the heritage and environment of
the Taj Mahal region.

Case-

In T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors., a three-

Judge Bench of this Court read Article 48-A and Article 51-A together as
laying down the foundation for a jurisprudence of environmental protection
and held that:
Today, the State and the citizens are under a fundamental obligation to
protect and improve the environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, wild
life and to have compassion for living creatures.

Protection of environment and fundamental right-

The Part III of the Indian constitution has dealt with the fundamental rights
granted to the citizens. While the Constitution does not explicitly list the
“right to environment” as a Fundamental Right, the Supreme Court has
expanded the interpretation of existing rights to include ecological concerns.

1. Article 14

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws.
Though it does not expressly mention the environment, the courts have
invoked it where state action or inaction relating to environmental matters is
arbitrary, unfair, or discriminatory.

Bangalore Medical Trust V. B.S Muddappa-By explaining the importance

of open spaces and parks in the development of urban areas, the supreme
 court rejected the appeal. The Hon'ble court further 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)(g) – Freedom of Trade, Occupation 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.

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.

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.
 In S. Jagannath v. Union of India , 1996 sea beaches and sea coasts were
considered to be the gifts of nature, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and any
such activity which pollutes these natural resources or the gift of nature
cannot be permitted to function. In this case, a shrimp farming culture
industry by modern method causing degradation to the ecosystem, discharge
of polluting effluents, is polluting the potable ground-water and depletion of
the plantation. All of these activities were held to be violative of
constitutional provisions and other legislation dealing with environmental
matters.

3. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 states that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Over time, the
judiciary has expanded its scope beyond mere existence to include the right
to live with dignity, health, and in a wholesome environment. The
Supreme Court has expansively interpreted Article 21 to include the right to
a clean and healthy environment as an integral part of the right to life. This
interpretation has been a landmark development, providing a powerful legal
tool for citizens to seek redress against environmental damage. The court has
declared that the right to life includes the right to:

 A pollution-free environment.
 Clean air.
 Clean water.
 Protection from noise pollution.

In Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1991 -it was held that right to live is
fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution and it includes the right
to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If
anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a
citizen has a right to have recourse to Article 32 of the constitution for
removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the
quality of life.

In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, 1996-The court

discussed Precautionary Principle and concluded that right against
environmental pollution is implicit in right to life enshrined in Article 21 of
the constitution. After having so concluded, the court proceeded to direct the
closure of industries which are not complying with the directions of the
Pollution Control Board and NEERI. (National Environmental Engineering
Research Institute)

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1997 -where a petition was filed for
preventing the degradation of the Taj Mahal due to pollution caused by coal
using industries via Trapezium, the Apex Court issued directions to 292
industries located in Agra to change over within a time schedule to Natural
Gas as industrial fuel or stop functioning with coal/coke and to apply for
relocation or otherwise stop functioning w.e.f. 30-04-1997 on account of
violation of Articles 21, 48A, 51A and 47 of the Constitution.
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath-The court after holding it to be a violation of
article 21 proceeded to observe that in these cases polluter pays principle and
principle of Public Trust Doctrine applies.

M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath ( Oleum Gas leakage case) the supreme court
once again impliedly treated the right to live in pollotion free environment as
a part of fundamental right to life under article 21 of the constitution.
 F.K. Hussian v. Union of India , the Kerala high court pointed out that the
right to sweet water and the right to free air are attributes of the right of life ,
those are the basic elements which sustain the life itself.

4. Article 25-Freedom of Religion

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees that:

“All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right
freely to profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order,
morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part.”

This means the right to religious freedom is not absolute, it is subject to

reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, and health.
Religion and environment often intersect in India, given the role of rituals,
festivals, and religious practices in public life. However, when such practices
cause environmental harm (pollution, ecological imbalance, or threats to
public health), Article 25 cannot be used as a shield. Courts have consistently
held that religious freedom must yield when it clashes with environmental
protection and the health of the community.

In a case, Supreme Court ruled that the right to religious freedom does not
extend to creating noise pollution through loudspeakers, firecrackers, or other
devices. It held that no religion prescribes using loudspeakers or amplifiers,
and since noise pollution affects the health and tranquility of others,
restrictions are valid under “public health” in Article 25.

Courts have also dealt with the issue of immersion of idols painted with
chemicals and harmful materials in rivers and lakes. The National Green
 Tribunal (NGT) and Supreme Court have restricted such practices,
emphasizing eco-friendly materials

Public Interest Litigation

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has emerged as a key instrument in ensuring

environmental protection in India. Since the 1980s, PIL has provided citizens,
activists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) a means to directly
approach the judiciary on behalf of public causes, bypassing the limitations of
traditional legal standing. The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court and various
High Courts, has played a proactive role in expanding the scope of environmental
laws through PILs, ensuring that the principles of sustainable development and
environmental justice are upheld.

1. The Concept of Public Interest Litigation

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a judicial innovation that allows

individuals or groups to file a case in court on behalf of the general public,
even if they are not directly affected by the issue at hand. In the Indian legal
system, the concept of locus standi traditionally restricted the ability to sue
only to those directly affected by a law or action. However, PIL has relaxed
this principle, allowing public-spirited individuals and organizations to
represent the interests of those who may not have the means or awareness to
seek legal redress.

PIL emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s, during a period of growing
judicial activism, particularly under the leadership of Justice P.N. Bhagwati
and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer. Initially, PIL was used to address issues of
human rights and social justice. However, over time, it became a crucial tool
 for environmental protection, enabling the judiciary to address the
degradation of natural resources and the violation of environmental laws.

2. Evolution of Environmental Protection through PIL

Environmental protection in India gained momentum through PILs filed by
environmental activists, NGOs, and concerned citizens. The judiciary’s
intervention in environmental matters has expanded the scope of the
constitutional right to life (Article 21), which has been interpreted to include
the right to a clean and healthy environment.
In the landmark case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State
of Uttar Pradesh (1985), the Supreme Court intervened to stop illegal
limestone mining in the Mussoorie hills, marking one of the first instances
where the court addressed environmental degradation through PIL. This case
set a precedent for future environmental litigation, with the judiciary
asserting its role in balancing economic development and environmental
protection.

3. Landmark Environmental Cases in India

Several landmark PIL cases have significantly contributed to the
development of environmental jurisprudence in India:

a. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

M.C. Mehta, a prominent environmental lawyer, has been at the forefront of

many significant PILs aimed at environmental protection. In the Ganga
Pollution Case (1987), he filed a PIL seeking to control pollution in the
Ganges River caused by industrial effluents and municipal waste. The
Supreme Court ordered the closure of tanneries and other industries that were
polluting the river, underscoring the need for stringent enforcement of
environmental laws.

b. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1995)

This case, often referred to as the Forest Conservation Case, was a watershed
moment in environmental protection. The Supreme Court took a proactive
stance to ensure the implementation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. It
passed several interim orders, which included a complete ban on the felling
of trees in forest areas without prior approval from the central government.
The court’s intervention helped curb deforestation and emphasized the
importance of protecting India’s natural resources.

c. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)

In this case, the Supreme Court applied the “polluter pays” principle and the
principle of sustainable development for the first time. The court ordered the
closure of several tanneries in Tamil Nadu that were discharging untreated
effluents into the water, causing environmental harm. The judgment
reinforced the need for industries to bear the cost of pollution and highlighted
the balance between economic growth and environmental sustainability.

d. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997)

In this case, the Supreme Court developed the public trust doctrine, which
holds that certain resources such as air, water, and forests are held in trust by
the state for the benefit of the public. The court ruled that the government
cannot allow private interests to exploit or degrade these resources for
commercial purposes. The case was a significant step in ensuring that
environmental resources are preserved for future generations.
4. The Role of the Judiciary in Environmental Protection
The judiciary has played a pivotal role in shaping environmental
jurisprudence in India through PILs. The proactive stance taken by the
courts has not only ensured the enforcement of existing environmental laws
but has also led to the creation of new legal principles aimed at
environmental protection. Concepts such as the “precautionary principle,”
the “polluter pays” principle, and the public trust doctrine have become
integral to environmental law in India. Moreover, the judiciary has often
stepped in when government agencies have failed to enforce environmental
regulations. By issuing directives to central and state governments, as well
as regulatory bodies like the Pollution Control Boards, the courts have
ensured compliance with environmental standards.

5. Criticisms and Challenges of PIL in Environmental Protection

While PIL has been instrumental in advancing environmental protection in
India, it is not without criticism. Some of the main challenges and criticisms
include:
a. Judicial Overreach
Critics argue that the judiciary’s intervention in environmental matters
often amounts to judicial overreach, with courts making decisions that
should be within the purview of the executive or legislative branches. In
cases where courts have imposed restrictions on industries or
development projects, there are concerns about the economic
consequences of such decisions.
b. Delayed Implementation
Even though courts have passed several landmark judgments through
PIL, the implementation of these decisions remains a challenge. Many of
 the directives issued by the judiciary are not followed or are delayed by
government authorities, leading to limited onground impact.
c. Overburdened Judiciary
With the increasing use of PILs for environmental matters, the judiciary
has become overburdened with cases. This often leads to delays in the
resolution of important environmental disputes, diminishing the
effectiveness of judicial intervention.
d. Misuse of PIL
There have been instances where PILs have been misused by individuals
for personal or political gains, rather than for genuine public interest.
Such misuse undermines the credibility of PILs as a tool for
environmental protection.
Examples-
Ganga Pollution Case: A landmark PIL where the court intervened to
control industrial pollution of the Ganges River, highlighting the role of
judicial activism in environmental protection.
Forest Conservation Case: The Supreme Court's interim orders
protecting forests emphasized the importance of the judiciary in
enforcing environmental laws.