Aryan Grover
The past decade or so has seen a marked increase in people’s knowledge of the subject of “Environment”. In any discourse, the mention of this word is likely to bring people together over collective concern for aspects like climate change and global warming. However, the discussion on environment is much larger than saving the oceans and preventing pollution. After all, the environment is what sustains life itself as we know it. Although people are probably more aware than ever about the issues that put the sustenance of the environment in jeopardy, mere awareness does not translate into action. In this regard, the Indian judiciary has been playing a proactive role in preserving and promoting the protection of the environment.
In the constitution, various amendments have been made to further this goal, such as the addition of Article 48A of the Directive Principle of State Policy, which necessitates the protection and improvement of the environment, as well as the safeguarding of forests and wildlife of the country. Another such addition is article 51A(g) to the Constitution, which imposes a fundamental duty on all the citizens of the country to protect and improve the natural environment and to have compassion for living creatures.
In recent times, the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the protection of life and liberty, has also been broadened to include living in a safe and clean environment as a fundamental right.
Many judgements passed by the judiciary in the last few decades have also highlighted a similar view and have changed the landscape of environmental protection in the country.
Landmark Judgements
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1986)
The development of environmental jurisprudence in India cannot be discussed without the contribution of the public-spirited lawyer, who filed four separate cases before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the constitution and helped India make great strides in the field of environmental conservation. The four cases were as follows:
The Taj Mahal Case: The Taj Mahal is one of the finest specimens of Mughal architecture to exist in India. However, it stood in a pitiable state, with the marble having turned yellow and deteriorating because of the chemical pollutants from the nearby industries. In public interest, a petition was filed before the Supreme Court.
Judgement Analysis: The Court recognised the need for the protection of the Taj Mahal, and found the industries guilty of the condition that the monument was in. The Court relied on the precautionary principle and held that environmental measures must “anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation”. It also placed the onus of proof on an industry to show that it operates in a manner that is environmentally benign. This case thus broadened the definition of the right to live and was able to limit industrial practices that were harmful so as to protect people’s right to live in a safe environment.
The Ganga Pollution Case: The Ganga is one of the most sacred rivers to the Hindus, but its pollution due to the tanneries and shop factories that were on the banks of the river in Kanpur were a major cause of concern for the people who relied on the river for drinking and bathing. Thus, a petition was filed.
Judgement Analysis: The tanneries were ordered to establish primary treatment plants as the bare minimum if not secondary plants. Moreover, it held that the financial capacity of the tanneries is irrelevant when it comes to the establishment of primary treatment plants. A commendable analogy was drawn by the court, where it commented that the way in which an industry that does not pay minimum wages can’t be allowed to exist, a tannery that does not set up a primary treatment plant should not be allowed to exist either.
The adverse effect that such a tannery would have on the public at large because of the discharge of effluents would outweigh any inconvenience that the management and labour rendered unemployed by the closure of such a tannery would face. This case also imposed a duty on the central government to ensure that all educational institutions impart education on protection and improvement of the natural environment and distribute text books for the said purpose free of cost to educational institutions.
Oleum Gas Leak Case: This case, which came to light after the Bhopal gas tragedy which had grabbed the attention of the community. The petition was filed against Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, which was located in one of the most populous areas of the city and the emissions from it were hazardous to the general public. There also occurred a leak in the Shriram industrial units during the pendency of this case, where oleum gas escaped and led to the death of a few people.
Judgement Analysis: This judgement is looked up to as one of the most important ruling sin the field of environmental law in our country since it took up various new situations and ways of interpretation of different laws and fundamental rights. It established the principle of absolute liability, which is an irrevocable liability to the person carrying out inherently dangerous activity anywhere. The principle of deeper pockets was also set out in the case, as well as the Central Pollution Control Board to appoint an inspector to check the compliance of emission levels with those laid down.
Vehicular Pollution Case: It comes as no surprise that the population of Delhi has exploded since independence. This case was filed, requesting the court to pass appropriate orders for the reduction of Vehicular Pollution in Delhi.
Judgement Analysis: A four member committee, comprising of a retired supreme court judge was formed to recommend measures to control vehicular pollution nationwide. Orders were passed for the supply of lead-free petrol and use of natural gas and other fuels as substitutes for conventional fuels and also carried out. Lead-free fuel had been introduced within four metropolitan cities from April 1995 and all new cars that were registered from April 1995 onwards are fitted with chemical action convertors.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985)
This case is famously known as the ‘Dehradun Valley Litigation’. A writ petition was filed regarding the operation of lime-stone quarries in the Mussoorie Hill range of India. The contention was that the quarries present a hazard to the healthy environment and affect the perennial water springs. It also resulted in adverse effects on vegetation, the occurrence of landslides which killed villagers and destroyed homes, cattle and agricultural lands. This judgement was the genesis of the idea of sustained development in India.
Judgement Analysis: The Valley was designated as an ecologically fragile are as under the Environment Protection Act. A Doon Valley Board was appointed under the chairmanship of the Minister for Environment and Forests, which was tasked with conserving and restoring the degraded areas of the Valley. A Working Group was also appointed to inspect the limestone quarries in the area. However, the most important part of the judgement remains that the use of natural resources should be practised with necessary consideration and attention so that environment and climate are not affected in a severe manner.
The doctrine of sustainable development envisions a balance between development and ecology, so that the socio-economic needs of the country are served while reducing the adverse impact on the environment, and administrative and legislative measures for harmonizing environmental and developmental values should be formulated.
Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraj and Ors.
Jallikattu is a traditional, ritualistic sport of bullock cart racing in Tamil Nadu where men try to establish a claim over a bundle of coin tied to the horn of a raging bull. This act is synonymous with valour and pride for the people who do it, however, it inflicts suffering and unnecessary infliction of pain on animals. Thus, a writ petition was filed to check the practice of this act.
Judgement Analysis: The Supreme Court held in the case that Jallikattu is not an exception under the Protection of Animals from Cruelty Act on the account of human necessities since the pain, suffering and anxiety inflicted to bulls during Jallikattu events is primarily for the pleasure of humans and can be easily avoided. The act was held unconstitutional and void, and the Court held the Bombay HC judgement, validating the 2011 notification which prohibited animals from being exhibited and trained.
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal (1987)
The Taj Group was leased 4 acres of land belonging to Calcutta Zoological Garden for the construction of hotels by the Government of West Bengal. The grant of this land was challenged by the Secretary of the union of workmen of the zoological garden. An appeal was made before the Supreme Court that the construction of such a hotel would disturb the animals of the zoo and the ecology.
Judgement Analysis: It was declared that the courts are obliged to take into consideration Article 48A of the Directive Principles of State Policy and Article 51A(g) of the Fundamental Duties whenever a case linked to Environmental difficulty is to be heard. The decision was made in the favour of the respondent, and the prayers of the appellant Secretary were rejected. The Court found that the Government of West Bengal acted in a bona fide manner in issuing the lease of the land to the Taj Group, which has done a thorough investigation and has given all necessary assurances to preserve the zoo.
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India (1996)
The petitioner in this case, the Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action brought an action against several chemical industrial plans in Bichhri village, Udaipur District of Rajasthan. The action was brought to prohibit and remedy the pollution caused by the heavy industrial plants, which produced chemicals such as oleum, single super phosphate and the highly toxic “H” acid. These plants were operated without permits, and the toxic waste was left untreated, resulting in large scale pollution.
Judgement Analysis: The judges imposed a penalty upon the industries, which was to be paid with compound interest since the industries had intentionally failed to comply with the court’s directions, which had seriously impacted the lives of a significant number of residents in the vicinity of the plants. This judgement was the famous implementation of the “polluter pays” principle, where as per the court, if an activity of harmful nature is carried out, then the individuals conducting these activities will be required to compensate those affected to make up for the damage that is caused, irrespective of the fact that precautionary measures were taken in carrying out the activity.