Juni Khyat ISSN: 2278-4632

(UGC Care Group I Listed Journal) Vol-10 Issue-6 No. 6 June 2020
Role of Indian Judiciary in the Arena of Environmental Protection & Sustainable
Development: An Overview
Dr. Bharat G. Kaurani
Assistant Professor
N.B. Thakur Law College, Nashik – 5
Affiliated to Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune
[email protected]
Abstract
Environmental law has seen considerable development in the last two decades in India. Most of
the principles under which environmental law works in India come within this period. The
development of the laws in this area is due to initiative taken by the Indian judiciary, particularly
the Supreme Court and High Courts.1 No doubt that legislature of India has enacted number of
laws for the protection and preservation of natural environment. But due to lack of application
and effective implementation of Constitutional as well as legislative provisions, problems of
environmental pollution could not be controlled. Therefore it became necessary for judiciary to
adopt some effective remedial measures to protect environmental pollution. It has brought about
remarkable changes in Indian legal system by promoting public interest litigation as a useful
tool for redressal of public grievances arising out of environmental pollution. In this paper the
researcher has analyse the role of Indian judiciary in protecting environment and promoting
sustainable development. The paper also covers judicial contribution in the development of
Environmental Jurisprudence in India.
Key words: Environmental Protection, Sustainable Development, Role of Judiciary,
Environmental Jurisprudence.
Introduction
In India, like any other developing country, there has been environmental degradation due to
industrialisation, urbanization, population explosion, poverty, over exploitation of resources,
depletion of traditional resources of energy and raw materials and the research for new sources
of energy and raw materials. 2 While the scientific and technological progress of man has
invested him with immense power over nature, it has also resulted in the unthinking use of the
power, encroaching endlessly on nature.3
Though, India has enacted various laws at almost regular intervals to deal with the problems of
environmental degradation. However, neither the law nor the environment can remain static as
both are dynamic in nature. The changing pace of the environment is so fast that in order to keep
the law on the same wave-length either laws have to be amended quite frequently to meet the
new challenges or it has to be given new direction by the judicial interpretation. This becomes

Page | 173 www.junikhyat.com Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Juni Khyat ISSN: 2278-4632
(UGC Care Group I Listed Journal) Vol-10 Issue-6 No. 6 June 2020
all the more important in view of the ever increasing scientific and technological development
and advancement which man has made. To overcome this challenge the judiciary in India has
played a pivotal role in interpreting the laws in such a manner which not only helped in
protecting environment but also in promoting sustainable development. In fact, the judiciary in
India has created a new “environmental jurisprudence.”4
However, the courts are required to balance development needs with the protection of the
environment and ecology. It is the duty of the State under our Constitution to devise and
implement a coherent and co-ordinated programme to meet its obligation of sustainable
development based on inter-generational equity.5 It is true that in a developing country there
shall have to be developments, but that development shall have to be in closest possible
harmony with environment, as otherwise there would be development but no environment,
which would result in total devastation. So, there has to be a proper balance between the
development and environment so that both can co-exist without affecting the other. 6 The
judiciary in India has played a very important role in the environmental protection and has
applied the principles of sustainable development while deciding the cases mostly through
Public Interest Litigation as per the provisions Constitution of India.7
Constitutional Perspective of Environmental Protection
Indian Constitution is perhaps one of the rare constitutions of the world which contains specific
provisions relating to environment protection. It puts duty on the “State” as well as “Citizens” to
protect and improve the environment.8 The judicial grammar of interpretation has made the right
to live in healthy environment as sanctum sanctorum of human rights. Now it is considered as
an integral part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 32 and 226 of the
Constitution empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts, respectively to issue directions,
orders or writs for environmental Protection.
The Indian judiciary has made an extensive use of these constitutional provisions and developed
a new “environmental jurisprudence” of India. It is worthwhile to note that, most of the
environmental matters have been brought before the judiciary through “Public Interest
Litigation” The Supreme Court while developing a new environmental jurisprudence has held
that the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32 are not restricted and it could award
damages in public interest litigation or writ petition in those cases where there has been any
harm or damage to the environment due to pollution. In addition to damages, the person guilty
of causing pollution can also be held liable to pay exemplary damages so that it may act as
deterrent for others not to cause pollution in any manner. The said approach of the Supreme
Court is based on “Polluter Pays Principle” 9 and has imposed exemplary damages on

Page | 174 www.junikhyat.com Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Juni Khyat ISSN: 2278-4632
(UGC Care Group I Listed Journal) Vol-10 Issue-6 No. 6 June 2020
multinational companies such as Coca Cola and Pepsi for damaging the ecology in the States of
Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir by painting advertisements on the rocks and also
directed them to remove these advertisements without further polluting the environment.
International Perspectives of Environmental Protection & Sustainable Development
The U.N. Conference on Human Environment and Development at Stockholm in 1972 is
considered to be the Magna Carta of international concern for environment protection and
sustainable development. It was for the first time that the world community got together to
deliberate seriously on an important issue of environment protection and sustainable
development. This conference resulted in the “Stockholm Declaration on the Human
Environment”. The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue
which affects the well-being of people and economic development throughout the world.
Again in 1987 the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development not only
provided impetus to sustainable development but also brought into focus the common concerns
of the people, common challenges which we face the world over and the common endeavours
which we need for peace, security development and environment. Earth Summit of 1992 at Rio
de Janeiro, through Rio Declaration and Agenda 21, has further concretised the concept of
environment protection and sustainable development. In 1997, the World Climate Conference
was held at Kyoto (Japan) where a historic accord was signed by the participating countries for
mandatory cuts in emission of green house gases particularly by the industrialized nations to
help in saving the planets from global warming.
Again in 2002 the World Summit on Sustainable Development was held in Johannesburg, South
Africa and reaffirmed their commitment to sustainable development and to build a humane,
equitable and caring global society cognizant of the need for human dignity for all. The United
Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), also known as Rio 2012 or Earth
Summit 2012, was the third international conference on sustainable development aimed at
reconciling the economic and environmental goals of the global community.
Judicial Contribution in the Development of Environmental Jurisprudence in India
No doubt that legislature of India has enacted number of laws for the protection and preservation
of natural environment. But due to lack of application and effective implementation of
Constitutional as well as legislative provisions, problems of environmental pollution could not
be controlled. Therefore it became necessary for judiciary to adopt some effective remedial
measures to protect environmental pollution. It has brought about remarkable changes in Indian
legal system by promoting public interest litigation as a useful tool for redressal of public
grievances arising out of environmental pollution.10

Page | 175 www.junikhyat.com Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Juni Khyat ISSN: 2278-4632
(UGC Care Group I Listed Journal) Vol-10 Issue-6 No. 6 June 2020
The Hon’ble Supreme Court and also various High Courts have taken innumerable measures in
a series of their landmark judgments. Over the year the Supreme Court has been paying special
attention for the protection of environment by giving effective directions to all the persons
concerned with the matter by invoking its powers under the Article 32. Following are some of
the major contributions of judiciary in the development of environmental jurisprudence in India
Judicial Interpretation of Doctrine of Sustainable Development
The concept of sustainable development is one of the international principle on which the
judiciary has relied upon to sustain the growth of environmental jurisprudence. Many
environmental principles and remedies not covered by existing environmental legislations have
been called from the concept of sustainable development. 11 The World Commission on
Environment and Development, established by a UN General Assembly resolution, in its Report
called for the global adoption of a strategy of sustainable development. It seeks to meet the
needs and aspirations of the people of the present without compromising the ability to meet
those of the future.12 The concept demands that all nations must aim at a type of development
that integrates production with resource conservation and enhancement, and that links both to
the provision for all of an adequate livelihood base and equitable access to resources.
In India, Public interest litigation has played a significant role in the judicial implementation of
sustainable development which insists on the balanced synthesis of developmental and
environmental imperative.13 While hearing public interest litigations filed with a view to protect
the environment, the Supreme Court of India embraced judicial activism and has consistently
held that sustainable development is a part of the environmental law in India.14
In Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. Union of India15, the Supreme Court emphatically held
that sustainable development as a balancing concept between ecology and development has been
accepted as a part of customary international law. The Supreme Court further held that the
“precautionary principle” and “polluter pays principle” constituted fundamental principles of the
international environmental law and stated that the “precautionary principle”, the “polluter pays
principle” and the special concept of onus of proof have merged and govern the law of our
country as is clear from Article 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution and that, in fact, in
various environmental statutes, such a Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution ) Act, 1974,
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and other statutes, these concepts are implied.
The above cases demonstrate that the Supreme Court became so active in public interest
litigation that the fundamental principles of international environmental jurisprudence, namely
“sustainable development”, “precautionary principle” and “polluter pays principle”, inter
generational equity, conservation of natural resources, environment protection, eradication of

Page | 176 www.junikhyat.com Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Juni Khyat ISSN: 2278-4632
(UGC Care Group I Listed Journal) Vol-10 Issue-6 No. 6 June 2020
poverty and financial assistance to the developing countries have been treated by the Supreme
Court as part of the Constitution of India as well as the environmental statutes and were applied
to make the development process ecologically sound and sustainable.
Judicial Approach towards Polluter Pays Principle
The polluter pays principle basically means that the producer of goods or other items should be
responsible for the cost of preventing or dealing with any pollution that the process causes. This
includes environmental cost as well as direct cost to the people or property; it also covers cost
incurred in avoiding pollution and not just those related to remedying any damage. It will
include full environmental cost and not just those which are immediately tangible. The principle
also does not mean that the polluter can pollute and pay for it. The nature and extent of cost and
the circumstances in which the principle will apply may differ from case to case.16
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and others17 the court laid emphasis on the
principle of Polluter-pays and said that, “pollution is a civil wrong. It is a tort committed against
the community as a whole. A person, therefore, who is guilty of causing pollution, has to pay
damages or compensation for restoration of the environment and ecology”. The Compensation
so collected to be kept under a separate Environment Protection Fund to be utilized to
compensate the affected persons.
Judicial Response to Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle emphasised by the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro in the year 1992, signifies a preventive
approach. It states:
“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.”18
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. UOI 1 case, the Supreme Court accepted that the
Precautionary Principle is part of the environmental law of the country and shifted the burden of
proof on the developer or industrialist who is proposing to alter the status. They found that it is
“necessary to explain the meaning of the principles in more detail so that courts and
environmental authorities can properly apply the said principles in the matters which come
before them. In this case petition was filed against the pollution caused by tanneries and other
industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Court held that “though the leather industry is of vital
importance to the country as it generates foreign exchange and provides employment avenues it

1
AIR 1996 SC 2715
Page | 177 www.junikhyat.com Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors
 Juni Khyat ISSN: 2278-4632
(UGC Care Group I Listed Journal) Vol-10 Issue-6 No. 6 June 2020
has no right to destroy the ecology, degrade the environment and pose as a health hazard”. The
Court recognized that a balance must be struck between the economy and the environment. 19
Relaxation of Rule of Locus Standi
The Public Interest Litigations (PIL) in India initiated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court emerged
through human rights jurisprudence and environmental jurisprudence. The traditional concept of
Locus Standi is no longer a bar for the community oriented Public Interest Litigations. Though
not an aggrieved party, environmentally conscious individuals, groups or NGOs may have
access to the Supreme Court or High Courts by way of PIL. The Courts have also relaxed the
requirement of a formal writ to seek redressal before the Court. Any citizen can invoke the
jurisdiction of the Court, especially in human rights and environmental matters even by writing
a simple postcard. 20
The efforts of the Apex Court in environment pollution control through public interest litigation
is indeed laudable particularly when the legislature is lagging behind in bridging the lacuna in
the existing legal system and administration is not well equipped to meet the challenge. 21 But
judiciary is failed until and unless the people’s vision would be changed. Therefore, necessary
action should be taken by the government in mitigating environment pollution.
Judicial Recognition of Right to Environmental Protection
Judicial activism in India is playing leading role in interpreting various un-enumerated rights in
Part III of the Constitution. It may be pointed out that though specific provisions for the
protection of environment have been made in Part IV dealing with Directive Principles and Part
VIA dealing with fundamental duties, even then right to live in a healthy environment has been
interpreted by the judiciary in several provisions of Part III relating to Fundamental Rights. In
this way judiciary in India played leading role in providing impetus to the human rights
approach for the protection of environment. 22
One of the major premises of sustainable development is that all human beings have a
fundamental right to an environment adequate for their health and well being. The Indian
judiciary has expanded the scope of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed
in Article 21 of the Constitution to include environmental protection.
In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar23 the Supreme Court held that right to life is a fundamental
right guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right to enjoyment of
pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. Thus, the judiciary being aware that the
right to environment is a basic principle of sustainable development has recognised the right to
environment and environment protection. As the right to environment is a fundamental right
under Article 21, it has become easier to enlarge the scope and boundaries of environment

Page | 178 www.junikhyat.com Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Juni Khyat ISSN: 2278-4632
(UGC Care Group I Listed Journal) Vol-10 Issue-6 No. 6 June 2020
protection helping in the development of environmental jurisprudence in India. Environmental
PIL has emerged because of the court’s interpretation of Article 21 and 32 along with Directive
Principles of the State in the Constitution.
Inter-generational Equity and Public Trust Doctrine
Inter-generational equity emanating from the principle of sustainable development imposes a
duty on the present generation not to use the natural environment in a manner degrading the
environment. We hold the earth in trust for future generations. This theory of trust under inter-
generational equity and sustainable development to certain extent can be equated with the
‘public trust doctrine’ that exists within the municipal systems which is another judicial
innovation for the protection of natural resources.
Public trust doctrine has been read into our environmental jurisprudence in M.C. Mehta v.
Kamal Nath.24 In this case, the Supreme Court referred to the ‘Public Trust’ doctrine and stated
that it extends to natural resources such as rivers, forests, seashores, air, etc. for the purpose of
protecting the ecosystem. It held that by granting a lease to a motel located at the bank of the
river Beas which resulted in interference by the Motel, of the natural flow of the water, the State
Government had breached the above doctrine. The Court held that the State as a trustee of all
natural resources has a legal obligation and duty to protect them as the resources were of public
good and for the benefit of the general public, the same cannot transfer to private parties. In this
case the government sanction to the deviation of the river was held to be violating the trust
conferred on the state to protect natural resources.
The Onus of Proof Principle
The Supreme court explained the principle of onus of proof that ‘when there is a state of
uncertainty due to lack of data or material about the extent of damage or pollution likely to
caused than, in order to maintain the ecology balance, the burden of proof that the said balance
will be maintained must necessarily be on the industry or the unit which is likely to cause
pollution.25 The Court declared these principles as silent features of sustainable development
and as part of the environmental law of the country.
Principle of Absolute Liability
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,26 the Apex Court was of the view that the rule laid down in
Ryland v. Fletcher, 27 has become obsolete in the context of environmental jurisprudence. The
Court evolved new principle of Absolute liability for the industries engaged in hazardous or
inherently dangerous activities. The principle of absolute liability is not subjected to any
exceptions which operate in the tort principle of strict liability under the rule of Ryland v.

Page | 179 www.junikhyat.com Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Juni Khyat ISSN: 2278-4632
(UGC Care Group I Listed Journal) Vol-10 Issue-6 No. 6 June 2020
Fletcher. The Supreme Court by upholding the principle of absolute liability has significantly
contributed to the jurisprudence of compensation regarding the quantification of damages.
Promoting Environmental Awareness and Education
The directives of the Supreme Court went to the extent of spreading environmental awareness
and literacy, as well as launching environmental education. In M.C. Mehta v. UOI, 28 the
Supreme Court stressed the need for introducing such schemes in the following words:
“In order for the human conduct to be in accordance with the presentation of law it is necessary
that there should be appropriate awareness about what the law requires. This should be possible
only when steps are taken in the adequate measure to make people aware of the indispensable
necessity of their conduct being oriented in accordance with the requirements of law.”
The directions of the Court to All India Radio and Doordarshan, to focus their programmes on
various aspects of the environment, have been immediately complied with. The Court also
required every state government and education board to take steps for environmental education.
Further, tune with these directions, various authorities have taken up meaningful schemes of
environmental education.29
Judicial efforts for an Alternative Forum
The inherent limitations of the judicial system to review substantive questions relating to the
environment make it desirable to establish an alternative forum, with an alternative strategy.
Conferring environmental decisions-making power entirely on scientists and administrators is
untenable in a rule of law society. Fusion of diverse expertise in planning, science, technology,
environment, law and public policy into a new institution for environmental decision-making is
essential for integrating environmental values with development issues.30
The Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. UOI 31said:
Since cases involving issues of environmental pollution, ecological destruction and conflicts
over natural resources are increasingly coming up for adjudication and these cases involve
assessment and evaluation of scientific and technical data, it might be desirable to set up
Environment Courts on the regional basis with one professional Judge and two experts drawn
from the Ecological Science Research Group keeping in view the nature of the case and the
expertise required for its adjudication. Again in Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v.
M.V. Nayudu,32 the Apex Court suggested amendments to the existing laws and constitution of
environment courts consisting of judicial and technical personnel.
This led the Law Commission of India to seriously consider the matter and make a proposal to
constitute environment courts.33 The alternate strategy would develop the law independently and
help reducing the burden on the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Finally the National Green

Page | 180 www.junikhyat.com Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Juni Khyat ISSN: 2278-4632
(UGC Care Group I Listed Journal) Vol-10 Issue-6 No. 6 June 2020
Tribunal (NGT) Act 2010 had repealed the NEAA Act 1997 and is designed to be a potent and
efficacious alternative forum to decide all questions of protection and improvement of
environment.
Conclusion
Thus we can conclude that environmental jurisprudence in India has been enormously enriched
by the courts while hearing public interest litigations. The Indian judiciary has realised that the
failure to give effect to the constitutional mandate of environmental protection would result in
breach of its constitutional duty. In order to comply with the constitutional duty, the judiciary
has demonstrated exemplary activism and has further liberalised the concept of “locus standi” in
the public interest litigation filed with the objective of environmental protection. The Supreme
Court has also laid down innovative principles of environmental jurisprudence which have
introduced new dimensions in it.34 For instance, under Article 21, the court has created new
rights including the right to health and pollution free environment. Of course the initiative for
the protection of environment came from the legislature but the failure of the executive to
implement the environmental laws in India created the ground for the intervention of the
judiciary. The wide range of cases on various issues related to environment decided by the
Supreme Court to bring environ-justice is worth appreciating.35.
However, in spite of the high ideals put forth by the judiciary and the legislature, in actual
practice Indian pollution control laws are crammed with flaws. There is no flexibility in the
standards as they are more prescriptive and define uniform standards without taking into account
the type or size of the industry or the cost of pollution abatement. The current method of
environment regulation has failed to monitor industrial pollution in India. In spite of various
provision in the constitution, legislative enactments, decisions and court’s monitoring, the
situation is not encouraging and conducive for the protection and the preservation of the
environment because many provisions in the air, water and Environment Protection Act as well
as other laws are not being applied and implemented in a true spirit, to regulate pollution
disseminated by industries and to fix individual and collective liberty.36
Therefore, there is need to protect the mankind against the growing menace of environmental
pollution and to secure clean and unpolluted environment which can be achieved through public
awareness, regular inspection and environmental education. The problem of environmental
degradation is a social problem and considering its impact on the society, law courts should also
rise up to the occasion to deal with the situation as it demands in the present day context.
However, it is suggested that, law courts ought not to put an embargo to any development
project which may be in the offing.37 The courts are required to strike a balance between the

Page | 181 www.junikhyat.com Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Juni Khyat ISSN: 2278-4632
(UGC Care Group I Listed Journal) Vol-10 Issue-6 No. 6 June 2020
development and ecology and there should be no compromise with each other. 38 In other words,
the courts, while dealing with the problem of environmental degradation, must apply the
principles of sustainable development.

References:

1
Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, “Role of Judiciary in Environmental Protection”, available at legaldesire.com
2
Dr. Paramjit S. Jaswal, “Environmental Law” Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad Haryana, Fourth Edn. 2019
3
Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109.
4
Paramjit S Jaswal, “Directive Principles Jurisprudence and Socio-Economic Justice in India”, 543 (1996).
5
(2008) 2 SCC 222.
6
People United for Better Living in Calcutta v. State of W.B., AIR 1993 Cal. 215 at 217.
7
P Leelakrishnan, “Environmental Law in India”, Lexis Nexis, Haryana, Fifth Edn, 2019.
8
See Article 48-A & Article 51-A (g )of the Constitution of India.
9
See M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (2000) 3 SCC 745.
10
Dr. Priti Saxena & Dr. Sudarshan Verma, “Judicial Sensitivity Towards Environmental Issues And Public Interest
Litigation”, Chapter I Edited Book by Dr. Rathin Bandopadhyay & Dr. Rajendra Dhar Dubey, “An Introduction
to Environmental Rights” Central Law Publications. Allahabad, First Edn. 2010.
11
Kohinoor Roy, “Meandering Development of Environment Protection Laws”, Central Law publications,
Allahabad, First Edn. 2010, at p-76.
12
Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, “Our Common Future”, Oxford University
Press, New Delhi, 1987, p 40. The Brundtland Report.
13
Gurdip Singh, “Legal Status of Sustainable Development” (1996) I National Capital Law Journal 93.
14
Gurdip Singh, “Environmental Law”, Eastern Book Company, Luckow, Second Edn., 2016..
15
(1996) 5 SCC 647.
16
P Leelakrishnan, “Environmental Law in India”, Lexis Nexis, Haryana, Fifth Edn. 2019,.
17
(1996) 5 SCC 647. See also Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281.
18
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: Principle 15.
19
https://thefactfactor.com/facts/law/civil_law/environmental_laws/precautionary-principle/1498/
20
Dr. Anand Kumar Tripathi, “Environmental Protection Under Indian Constitutional Framework: A Critique”
Edited Book by Dr. Rathin Bandopadhyay & Dr. Rajendra Dhar Dubey, “An Introduction to Environmental
Rights” Central Law Publications. Allahabad First Edn. 2010.
21
Dr. J.N. Pandey, “Constitutional Law of India”, 44th ed. CLA, Allahabad, p. 245.
22
Dr. Rajendra Dhar Dubey , “Right to live in healthy environment: an Analysis in Constitutional Perspective”.
Central Law Publications, Allahabad, First Edn. 2010.
23
AIR 1991 SC 420. See also Murli S. Deora v. Union of India & Others, AIR 2002, SC. 40
24
(1997) 1 SCC 413.
25
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10, SC, 664.
26
AIR 1987 SC 1086. See also The Bhopal Case: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 965..
27
(1886) LR & HL 330.
28
AIR 1992 SC 382.
29
The fact that Bar Council of India decided to introduce environmental law as a compulsory paper for legal
education at graduate level, is one of the most notable steps in recent times.
30
Patrick Auslan, “The Role of Courts and other Judicial Bodies in Environmental Management” in Journal of
Environmental Law, 1991, pp 195, 206.
31
MC Mehta v. UOI AIR 1987 SC 965.
32
AIR 1999 SC 812.
33
The Law Commission of India, 186th Report on Proposal to Constitute Environment Courts 2003’.
34
Gurdip Singh, “Environmental Law”, Eastern Book Company, Luckow, Second Edn. 2016.
35
Some of these cases are Taj Pollution case, Ganga Pollution case, Vehicular Pollution case in Delhi, Pollution by
Industries in Delhi, Pollution in River Yamuna, Noise Pollution, Protection to Wild Life, Preservation of Forests,
Environment Impact Assessment, Rehabilitation of Displaced Person, etc.
36
Dr. Rajendra Dhar Dubey, “Right to live in healthy environment: an Analysis in Constitutional Perspective”
Central Law Publications, Allahabad, First Edn. 2010.
37
Dr. Paramjit S. Jaswal, “Environmental Law” Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, Haryana, Fourth Edn. 2019
38
See People United for Better Living in Calcutta v. State of W.B. AIR 1993 Cal. 215 at p 228.

Page | 182 www.junikhyat.com Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors