Seven judgments that shaped Environmental Law in India

Source:- barandbench.com

The global movement to protect the environment began to show signs of life in the 1980s, at a time when the Supreme Court of India was having an awakening of its own. This period coincided with the growth of the concept of Public Interest Litigation, and marked a time when the courts were increasingly taking on issues which affect the people on a larger scale.

A slew of matters came to be heard by the apex court, which seemed adamant to grant relief in cases where the environment was at stake. Judgements in these matters came to be adopted as law, and hold good to this day.

On World Environment Day, we look at seven judgments that shaped environmental jurisprudence in India.

1. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State Of Uttar Pradesh

The case that set things in motion. NGO Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK), had approached the Supreme Court with a petition seeking directions to prohibit limestone quarrying in the Doon valley. The Bench of Justices PN Bhagwati and Ranganath Misra would ultimately cancel the licenses of over 100 quarries in the area. The judgment introduced to Indian jurisprudence the concept of sustainable development.

“We are not oblivious of the fact that natural resources have got to be tapped for the purposes of social development but one cannot forget at the same time that tapping of resources have to be done with requisite attention and care so that ecology and environment may not be affected in any serious way…It has always to be remembered that these are permanent assets of mankind and are not intended to be exhausted in one generation.”

2. MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors.

In 1996, the Supreme Court passed a judgment that would hold the state more responsible for maintaining natural resources. Back then, the Himachal Pradesh state government had leased out a protected forest area on the bank of the river Beas to motels, for commercial purpose.

The Bench of Justices Kuldip Singh and Saghir Ahmed held that the government violated the Doctrine of Public Trust, a Common Law concept that was yet to be used as a principle for deciding cases. The Bench held,

“Our legal system – based on English Common Law – includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea- shore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership…

…in the absence of any legislation, the executive acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resources and convert them into private ownership or for commercial use…”

3. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India & Ors

This petition was filed to bring to the Supreme Court’s notice the plight of people living in the vicinity of chemical industrial plants in India. It was in this case that the Court adopted the Polluter Pays principle. Justice Jeevan Reddy held,

“The polluter pays principle demands that the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage caused by pollution should lie with the undertakings which cause the pollution, or produce the goods which cause the pollution.

Under the principle it is not the role of government to meet the costs involved in either prevention of such damage, or in carrying out remedial action, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial burden of the pollution incident to the taxpayer…”

The Court also passed a number of directions, including deeming some polluting companies as “rogue industries” and allowing individuals to approach civil courts against them for compensation.

4. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India

In this case, the Supreme Court held that both the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays principle should be part of the law of the land. The petitioners approached the Court against as many as 900 tanneries in Tamil Nadu that were indiscriminately emitting effluents. Granting relief, the Court directed the Centre to constitute an authority which would,

“…with the help of expert opinion and after giving opportunity to the concerned polluters assess the loss to the ecology/environment in the affected areas and shall also identify the individuals/families who have suffered because of the pollution and shall assess the compensation to be paid to the said individuals/families. The authority shall further determine the compensation to be recovered from the polluters as cost of reversing the damaged environment…”

5. MC Mehta v. Union of India

Better known as the Oleum gas leak case, this judgement marked a watershed moment for environmental jurisprudence in India. In this case, the Court developed the concept of absolute liability, wherein enterprises which operate hazardous industries owed an absolute duty of care to people living in and around the area.

The Court also held that it has the power to award compensation to victims whose fundamental rights have been violated, in appropriate cases.

6. TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors.

In this case, the petitioner highlighted the unchecked destruction of forests in the Nilgiris region in Tamil Nadu, affecting the livelihood of forest dwellers. The Court passed a series of directions since 1995, till the final judgment in 2014.

Among the directions was the setting up of a Compensatory Afforestation Funds Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) to monitor the afforestation efforts, to oversee the compensation doled out to those who suffered on account of deforestation, and to accelerate activities for preservation of natural forests.

7. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar

In this case, the right to environment was declared to be a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Though the Court eventually dismissed the petition on account of the fact that it was filed in personal interest, it held,

“Right to live is a fundamental right under Art 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of 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 right to have recourse to Art, 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life…”