Published On: August 29th 2025
Authored By: Tanishq Chaudhary
JIMS, GGSIPU
Abstract
The Indian judiciary has played an immense and proactive role in protecting the environment. Over the years, courts have treated the environment not just as a legal issue but as an important aspect of life and survival. With various judgments, courts have expanded the meaning of Article 21 and included the right to a clean and healthy environment in it.
This article will let us know about the key roles played by the judiciary in shaping environmental laws in India, specially highlighting major cases such as MC Mehta, Vellore Citizen Forum, and the Godavarman case, and also examines important legal principles such as the Polluter Pays Principle and the Public Trust Doctrine. This paper will also reflect on how courts have tried to balance environmental concerns with development needs, with several challenges paved along the way.
By reviewing this case, the article aims to show how the Indian judiciary has emerged as a crucial protector of nature and public interest.
Keywords: Doctrines, PIL, Environment, Pollution, Judiciary
Introduction
Environmental issues often involve complex content and questions of constitutional rights, human survival, and intergenerational equity, which naturally brings this under the domain of judicial scrutiny. The Indian judiciary has increasingly stepped in as a key protector for environmental protection, particularly when legislative and executive actions failed to do so. Our Indian Constitution does not contain any specific chapter on environmental rights, yet judicial interpretation has filled this gap with remarkable foresight. The effects of climate change and pollution are visible in everyday life, from urban smog to drying rivers. Article 21 of the Constitution has been judicially interpreted to include the right to live in a clean and healthy environment[1]. The judiciary has invoked directive principles, such as Article 48A and 51A(g), to support a constitutional commitment to environmental protection[2].
Public interest litigation became a critical tool in the 20s, enabling the courts to entertain environmental concerns raised by citizens, activists, and NGOs. Judicial intervention in India has gone through various orders and created binding principles such as the Polluter Pays Principle and the Precautionary Principle[3]. Many of the landmark environmental cases originated from urban industrial disasters, forest encroachment, and river pollution that continue to threaten India’s ecological stability. The judiciary’s role in environment-related matters is not only supervisory, but it often turns it into policymaker in areas lacking regulatory clarity. Judicial action is needed to hold polluters accountable for the violation act when regulation alone fails. Rising industrialization has increased the rate of ecological degradation. Environmental harm disproportionately affects vulnerable communities who often suffer and lack legal voice for their rights violations. Despite criticisms of judicial overreach, environmental protection till now has remained a field where judicial activism has been widely welcomed by both the legal community and the general public.
Public Interest Litigation: A people’s weapon for the environment
PIL reshaped the way of justice in India and became the most powerful democratic tool for environmental protection, giving voice to those whose legal voice never reaches the court. PIL emerged in the late 1970s, and so it allows people with no direct personal harm to file petitions for broader public causes such as pollution, deforestation, and poor waste management. For marginalized communities that live near toxic industries and polluted rivers, PIL became their only way of holding authorities accountable for their acts. Many of India’s landmark environmental judgments, including those on air pollution, forest conservation, and industrial regulations, all originated from PILs filed by NGOs. Nowadays, Court stated treating newspapers, letters, and even telegrams as petitions, which shows that PILs became accessible.
PIL was filed by MC Mehta in the landmark case of the Ganga Pollution case[4], which led to the cleaning orders and strict industrial regulation along the river. PILs enabled environmental litigation without the burden of expensive legal procedures, making justice inclusive. Students, journalists, activists, farmers, and tribal communities all used PILs to challenge development projects harmful to ecology. Cases like Dehradun Quarrying, Delhi Vehicle Pollution, and forest encroachment in the Northeast were all initiated by PILs. This also helped bring environmental issues from remote villages and small tribal lands into the national spotlight. Environmental activists were no longer dismissed as outsiders; rather, the court acknowledged them as defenders of public health.
In the traditional period, only people directly affected by an issue could approach the court, which was a barrier for the public. Judges like Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer relaxed this rule in the 1980s[5] and stated that anyone can file the matter regarding environmental degradation and represent public interest. Even people with no property or personal property were allowed to file a PIL against forest deforestation, animal cruelty, and polluted rivers. This transformation allowed constitutional remedies under Articles 32 and 226 to be used for environmental protection. The change in locus standi helped environmental cases evolve into a larger fight for social and ecological justice. This generally marked a cultural shift where courts began looking beyond the individual harm to collaborate on well-being. The Supreme Court warned against PIL misuse multiple times. In State of Uttarakhand v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010), guidelines were laid down in this case to prevent PIL misuse[6]. Courts also noticed that every PIL was not genuine; some of these were filed to harass businesses or settle political scores. Now, many high courts dismissed the insincere PILs with heavy costs, stating to others about misuse-prone petitioners. Despite these challenges to the Court, the importance of PILs in protecting the environment remains undisputed.
Landmark Judgments That Changed the Environmental Landscape
Indian environmental jurisprudence has been shaped by a series of landmark Supreme Court judgments, which laid down principles, enforced state accountability, and a strong foundation for ecological justice. These landmark judgments gave life and meaning to constitutional provisions such as Article 21, which includes the right to a healthy environment. The judiciary introduced globally recognized doctrines into Indian law, such as the Polluter Pays Principle and the Precautionary Principle. Real-life problems such as river pollution, air quality, illegal mining, and deforestation were brought under legal scrutiny by the judiciary.
MC Mehta, a public interest lawyer, filed a series of PILs that led to some of the most important environmental rulings in Indian history. In the case of the Oleum Gas Leak (1987), the Supreme Court established the principle of ‘absolute liability’[7] for hazardous industries. In this case, it involved a gas leak from a Delhi-based fertilizer plant that injured residents in that territory. So, the court held that industries dealing with hazardous substances must compensate victims during negligence or fault. This case expanded the scope of Article 21 to include protection from industrial hazards. In the Ganga Pollution case, tanneries were ordered to shut down to stop dumping waste into the river. This judgment acknowledged the ecological importance of rivers and imposed strict timelines for industrial compliance.
In the Taj Trapezium case, the court directed the relocation of industries[8] emitting sulphur dioxide that damaged the Taj Mahal’s marble. These cases formed the judicial backbone of India’s environmental liability framework. MC Mehta’s efforts turned legal petitions into national environmental policy shifts.
In the Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum case, the PIL was filed by a citizen’s group in Tamil Nadu, which challenged pollution caused by tanneries in the Vellore district. The court recognized the concept of “sustainable development”[9] as a binding legal principle. The Indian jurisprudence finally introduced the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pay Principle in this judgment. The court also stated that development should not come at the cost of ecological destruction. The judgment stated that the burden of proof lies on the developer to show that the proof lies on the head of the industry to show that the project is environmental damage. It also stated that the state cannot ignore environmental concerns for its economic policies. The court emphasized that it is the duty of all to protect nature for future generations.
Similarly, in the Godavarman Case in 1995[10], a simple petition was filed to stop illegal deforestation in Tamil Nadu, which later on turned into one of India’s longest-running environmental cases. The court halted commercial exploitation of forest resources without central clearance. Also, it puts a check on rampant deforestation carried out under the guise of development. Court orders extended to illegal mining in forest areas and construction without environmental approvals. This case empowered environmental activists and forest officers to challenge unlawful encroachments. The Supreme Court had passed orders regarding this case under the original PIL and had initially turned the court into a “green watchdog” and made forests a national legal priority rather than just a state subject.
Doctrine brought alive by judiciary
Indian courts did not wait for Parliament to legislate on every environmental issue; they themselves adapted global doctrines into binding law. Doctrines such as Polluter Pays, Precautionary Principle, and Public Trust Doctrine became part of Indian environmental law through court orders. These doctrines now guide environmental clearance processes, EIA assessments, and decisions on land use. These principles became a legal part of the country, rather than just a legal text.
Polluter Pays Principle
This doctrine states that those who pollute must bear the cost of managing that principle. Indian courts generally enforced this doctrine where industries contaminated rivers, soil, and air. This doctrine was used in the Vellore Citizens case, and according to this doctrine, the court can order companies to compensate for ecological damage, including loss of livelihood and health impact. Similarly, in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, the court ordered a polluting company to pay 37 crore[11] for chemical contamination. The court demanded both remedial and compensatory actions from violators. PPP is now routinely mentioned in EIA conditions and tribunal orders. This doctrine created a deterrent effect, reminding industries that pollution won’t be cost-free.
Precautionary Principle
This principle allows action against potentially harmful activities even if scientific certainty is lacking. Indian courts applied this in situations where environmental damage could be irreversible. In Sterlite Industries, the Madras High Court shut down the plant[12], citing precautionary concerns over public health. Courts used this principle to block projects in ecologically sensitive zones without proper impact studies. Courts often used this doctrine to suspend clearances when procedural safeguards weren’t followed. It guided the evolution of India’s EIA process, forcing stricter review of project proposals. Overall, the doctrine made environmental law preventive, not just curative.
Public Trust Doctrine
The Indian Supreme Court embraced this doctrine in MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997), involving illegal land diversion of riverfront[13]. The court ruled that government cannot transfer public natural resources to private hands for commercial use. This doctrine has been used to stop illegal mining, reclaim lakes, and protect wetlands. PTD gives standing to any citizens to challenge misuse or privatization of public ecological resources. Courts used PTD to rule against builders who are converting forests into housing colonies. The doctrine was used to challenge the allocation of coal blocks and telecom spectrum under 2G and Coalgate judgments too[14]. PTD connects legal rights with ethical stewardship, reminding the state that it is answerable to both people and nature.
Challenges
The judiciary’s involvement in environmental cases often extends beyond interpretation into policy enforcement, for which the court lacks direct tools. Industries sometimes challenge court rulings aggressively, citing economic loss and job cuts, putting pressure on courts. Long delays in court proceedings discourage ordinary citizens from pursuing environmental cases. Without in-house ecological experts, judges must assess technical feasibility with limited understanding. The NGT is better equipped in this regard, but even it has struggled to maintain consistent environmental expertise. Developers and state agencies exploit legal loopholes and adjournments to delay actions. The State Pollution Control Board rarely acts unless pushed repeatedly through court supervision. Environmental rulings often clash with government development goals, putting judges in a politically sensitive spot. There are instances where political functionaries try to influence bench allocation in sensitive cases. Some judgments were overturned under pressure after a change in government. Courts that delay or cancel industrial licenses are often accused of being “anti-development.” Despite these pressures, the courts remain among the few institutions that have consistently spoken for ecological integrity.
Conclusion
The judiciary has gone beyond technicalities; it became a moral voice for the environment when all other existing systems failed. Through landmark decisions of the court, it has shown that nature is in the heart and not outside of the constitution. The expansion of Article 21 to include the right to a clean environment is one of the judiciary’s most progressive decisions and contributions. Despite limited scientific training, courts showed courage in punishing harmful industries and protecting ecologically sensitive zones. Still, judicial activism in environmental matters has given hope to affected communities, activists, and future generations. The court cannot do it alone, but it has shown what a strong legal conscience looks like in action. Lastly, the need is not only for more judgments but also for stronger collective support by citizens, lawmakers, and institutions.
References
[1] Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420.
[2] Constitution of India, art 48A and 51A (g).
[3] Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647.
[4] MC Mehta v Union of India AIR 1988 SC 1037 (Ganga Pollution case).
[5] S.P. Gupta v Union of India 1981 Supp SCC 87.
[6] State of Uttarakhand v Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402.
[7] MC Mehta v Union of India AIR 1987 SC 965 (Oleum Gas Leak case).
[8] MC Mehta v Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 353 (Taj Trapezium case).
[9] Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647.
[10] TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267.
[11] Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212.
[12] Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd v Union of India and Others (2013) SCC Online Mad 1820.
[13] MC Mehta v Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388.
[14] Centre for Public Interest Litigation v Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 1 (2G case); Common Cause v Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 499 (Coalgate case).
