ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND PIL

• Importance of healthy environment and sustainable development

• Protection of Environment and PIL: PIL is powerful tool for social, criminal and
environmental justice in India especially after 1980. PILs ensure the sustainable
development. PIL has opened the path for significant decisions and policy reforms.
Public interest litigation in India has enabled a dynamic and proactive approach to
environmental justice. It has given the courts the authority to interpret and enforce
the Right to Life in a way that encompasses the right to a safe and sustainable
environment. Expanded the scope of Article 21

• Statutory provisions:
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
-The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
It also establishes the Central Pollution Control Board to regulate and control pollution
-The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980:
-The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
-The Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989
-Noise Polllution (Regulation and control) Rules 2000

Constitutional Provisions:

Article 48A: “The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the
forests and wildlife of the country.” •

Article 51A (g) which deals with Fundamental Duties of the citizens states: “It shall be the duty of every
citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife
and to have compassion for living creatures.”
• Article 253: Article 253 states that ‘Parliament has power to make any law for the
whole or any part of the country for implementing any treaty, agreement or
convention with any other country.
• Article 21 right to life

Landmark Judgements regarding protection of environment---

• First time SC addressed environmental degradation through PIL in Rural
Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985), the
Supreme Court intervened to stop illegal limestone mining in the Mussoorie hills,
the purpose of this PIL was to resolve the ecological imbalances created by lime-
stone crushers units.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) known as Ganga Pollution Case (1987), he filed a PIL
seeking to control the 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

• A perfect example is the case of M. C. Mehta v. UOI,(AIR 1987 SC 1086) known as Oleum gas
leak case. The Oleum gas leak at an industrial plant in Delhi in 1985,resulting the death of a
person and had raised serious health issues in the general populous. In this case, the
Supreme Court had introduced the doctrine of ‘Absolute Liability’ on the user of hazardous
material. This rule was evolved from the established principle of ‘strict liability’. The Supreme
Court's ruling strengthened protections for the right to breathe clean air as right to life.
• M. C. Mehta v. UIO, 1987, known as Taj Trapezium Case

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against all the industries surrounding the Taj Mahal that were
seriously polluting the air, making the iconic monument look all dingy and gross. The Supreme Court’s
ruling was super important because it made those companies move to less polluted areas, set up the Taj
Trapezium Zone, and tighten up environmental regulations. The Supreme Court ruled that no vehicles,
including VIP cars, were permitted within 500 meters of the Taj Mahal and also directed that all licensed
brick kilns within 20 kilometers of the Taj Mahel.

• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) This case serves as the basis for two strong
environmental principles: the “precautionary principle” and the “polluter pays” principle. It decreed
that industries responsible for pollution be made to absorb the cost of damage to the environment
and implement cleaner technologies. The court also held that the state should act preventively and
avoid environmental damage even when conclusive scientific evidence of harm was lacking.
• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1995) This case referred to as the Forest
Conservation Case, was a watershed moment in environmental protection. The Supreme
Court took a proactive action 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.

• Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000)

This PIL dealt with the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River, which
was threatening the living of thousands and ecological balance of the region.
• The Court examined the environmental and social impacts of the dam and ordered
appropriate rehabilitation measures to safeguard and protect the affected communities and
environment.
• MC Mehta v. Union of India, 1991 known as The Vehicular Pollution Case: In this case, the
Supreme Court addressed Delhi's air pollution from vehicle emissions. Compressed Natural
Gas (CNG) was introduced for public transportation as a result of the court's decision, along
with other pollution-reduction initiatives.
• In K.M. Chinnappa v. Union of India, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that "sustainable
development is basically a policy and strategy for continued economic and social
development without detriment to the environment and natural resources on which
additional development and continued activity depend." The future must not be overlooked
when considering the present. Future wants and requirements must be taken into
consideration since we owe it to them. The Supreme Court emphasized the significance of the
Doctrine of Sustainable Development in the Indian Council for Environment -Legal Action v.
Union of India case, 1996 also known as the Coastal Zone Protection case. The court stated
that while economic development should not be permitted at the expense of ecology.
Challenges and Criticism:
• 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.
• The courts have imposed restrictions on industries or development projects, there are
concerns about the economic consequences of such decisions.
• 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 on
ground impact
Concluding remarks:
• PILs have established important concepts such as the “Polluter Pays”, “Precautionary
Principle”, and “Public Trust Doctrine” “Absolute liability” via historic cases.
• Acknowledgement of right to a healthy environment as a fundamental component of the
constitutional right to life under 21.
• The Indian judiciary has shown itself to be a valuable ally in advancing environmental
governance, maintaining the rule of law and guaranteeing a just balance between
environmental preservation, social obligations, and national growth.
• PIL can continue to have a significant impact on India's environmental policies and build a
better future for all if we continue to do our best job and care about the environment.

______________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU!
HAVE A NICE DAY!!