Role of Judiciary in Environmental Protection: A Study of Landmark Judgments

Author: Shrestha Datta[1]

ABSTRACT

India commits to achieving Net Zero emissions by 2070 while addressing the adverse effects of climate change. To achieve this goal, the entire nation must come together to prevent pollution and environmental degradation. To ensure that our nature is protected, the judiciary has become an integral part of India’s environmental governance, often stepping in where legislation and executive actions fall short. This article examines how the Courts have shifted from being passive referees to active leaders in ecological governance through landmark decisions. This article aims to achieve the same by analyzing the groundbreaking cases, ranging from India’s Public Interest Litigation to advisory rulings. It highlights the rise of judicial involvement in defining planetary boundaries as a key legal development of our time, where courts increasingly clarify the constitutional limits of humanity’s relationship with Earth’s life-support systems. The Supreme Court and High Courts have turned the constitutional right to life under Article 21 into a strong foundation for a healthy environment. This has led to important principles like ‘Polluter Pays,’ ‘Precautionary Principle,’ and ‘Absolute Liability.’  As climate change presents a significant threat, the judiciary needs to shift from focusing on procedural environmentalism to adopting a more meaningful climate justice approach.

Keywords: Environment, Judiciary, Protection, Pollution

INTRODUCTION

“Both aspects of man’s environment, the natural and the man-made, are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights, the right to life itself.” – United Nations, Stockholm, 1972.[2]

Human survival and well-being rest on the Earth and its ecosystems.[3] The environment is the basic support system for human survival. It provides essential ecological services that go beyond just offering resources. It forms the very basis of our existence. It is not just humanity’s habitat; it is the foundation of our existence, a network of systems that truly sustains life and supports the continuity of both nature and human civilization. The environment is seen as a matter of great legal and constitutional importance, essential to human life and dignity.

Environmental degradation includes air pollution in cities, groundwater depletion, deforestation, coastal erosion, and disasters caused by climate change. Currently, India is facing a serious environmental crisis, with atmospheric CO₂ concentrations exceeding 420 ppm[4], 33.6% of India’s coastline is experiencing erosion[5], and 27% of Himalayan glaciers are melting at alarming rates[6]. Therefore, the judiciary has come forward to address the sustainability crisis. From a legal framework that originally did not address ecological protection, the courts have created a system upholding environmental rights through clever interpretations and procedural improvements. With several enactments in place, India has committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2070, while handling the effects of climate change.[7]

India’s approach to environmental issues shows a significant shift in judicial responsibility. The Indian judiciary is set ‘green tribunal’ (‘LCI’) recommending in its 186th Report of law Commission, to strengthen and revitalise to the Environmental Courts.[8]

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT

For decades, the Supreme Court and High Courts have earned praise for their “green jurisprudence”.[9] The Indian Constitution became one of the rare constitutions in the world that incorporated specific provisions in the Suprema Lex, imposing obligations on both the State[10] and the citizen to protect and improve the environment.[11] Starting from the early 1980s, the Court has developed a body of ‘green constitutional law’ to safeguard the citizens’ health from the deleterious effects of environmental degradation.[12] The most important alteration in Indian environmental law is the judicial interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees that the right to life and personal liberty includes within its ambit the right to a healthy environment[13]. Through several landmark rulings, the Supreme Court of India has stated that “right to life” means more than mere existence; it involves living with dignity, which is not possible without a clean and healthy environment.[14] In the very recent case of M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India[15] the Court established a fundamental “right against the adverse effects of climate change,” based on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Owing to the constitutional mandate of the right to live in a healthy environment, India has developed a comprehensive set of legislations to address the problems of pollution, environmental degradation, deforestation, and biodiversity. These include:

• The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986[16]: Also known as the “Umbrella Act”[17], it was enacted after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy[18] and the Stockholm Conference of 1972, it gives the Central Government broad powers to take necessary measures to protect and improve the environment and cover other environmental hazards that were previously not addressed to by pre-existing laws. This act aimed at filling the gaps in the existing laws and provide a more comprehensive set of standards for regulating emissions and pollution and protecting public health.
• The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974[19] and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981[20]: These laws aimed at preventing pollution and maintaining and restoring the wholesomeness of water and air in the country respectively. These laws established bodies, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs), which set standards for emissions and effluents and can prosecute violators.
• The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972[21]: This Act offers legal protection for various species of wild flora and fauna, manages their habitats, and regulates trade in wildlife products. It empowers the governments, both at the central and state levels, to establish and declare any area as a national park, sanctuary, or other protected area.
• The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980[22]: This law was created to curb deforestation. It states that prior approval is necessary from the Central Government before any forest land can be used for non-forest projects, such as mining, dams, or infrastructure.
• The Biological Diversity Act, 2002[23]: This Act was passed to implement the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). It aims to conserve biodiversity, promote its sustainable use, and ensure fair sharing of benefits from the use of biological resources and traditional knowledge.
• The Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989[24]: This Act was enacted to keep in check the storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste materials from factories and industries to control the indiscriminate dumping of such waste.

The Indian judiciary has also enacted certain legal principles and doctrines that aim to put a check on the pollution so meted out to the environment. These include:

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Introduced in the early 1980s[25], has allowed citizens to take their concerns to court. The courts have interpreted Article 21, which guarantees the right to life, to include the right to a clean and healthy environment[26], thus recognizing environmental protection as a constitutional right.

• Public Trust Doctrine

This doctrine, grown from Article 21,[27] rests on the principle that certain natural resources like air, water, forests, have such great significance for the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them subject to private ownership.[28] Such resources, being a gift of nature, should be made freely available to everyone, thus enjoining the government to protect the resources for the general public.[29] This doctrine imposes a limitation and obligation upon the government agencies on behalf of the public and future generations. States and their instrumentalities should act as trustees of this great wealth.[30]

• Polluter Pays Principle

First introduced in 1972 by the OECD, this doctrine is two-fold; it states that the polluter is ‘absolutely liable’ for the harm caused to the environment, which includes not only compensating the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring environmental degradation.[31] The producer of goods is responsible for the cost of preventing or dealing with any pollution that the industrial process causes. In doing so, the magnitude, capacity and prosperity of the industry is to be borne in mind for ascertaining the amount of compensation.[32]

• Precautionary Principle

The main purpose of this doctrine is to ensure that any substance or activity posing a serious threat to the environment must be prevented from adversely affecting the environment. The authorities must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation.[33] Lack of scientific uncertainty cannot be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent pollution, and the onus of proof lies on the polluter to show that their actions are environmentally benign. It is better to err on the side of caution and prevent environmental harm, which may indeed become irreversible.[34]

• Directive Principle of State Policy (Article 48A)

The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, 1976, added Article 48A to the Directive Principles of State Policy. It states that “The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.” This article places a clear obligation on the central and state governments to actively contribute to environmental protection. Courts use this article as a reference to interpret laws and evaluate the legality of government actions.

• The Citizen’s Fundamental Duty (Article 51A(g))

The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, 1976, introduced Fundamental Duties for citizens[35]. Article 51A(g) states that it is 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.” An individual can bring to the notice of the court omissions or commissions by people that cause pollution. The rights and duties of individuals co-exist.[36] This creates a unique reciprocal relationship. The state has a duty to protect, and citizens have a duty to contribute. It establishes that environmental protection is a shared responsibility of all.

 

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS

• Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., 1991 (1) SCC 598

Facts of the case

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by way of a PIL seeking direction to prevent the pollution of the Bokaro river water due to the sludge emitted by the West Bokaro Collieries at Ghatotand. The washeries of the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. were polluting the Bokaro River from the sludge so discharged. The collieries used the froth flotation process, where at the end of the process, industrial sludge water was discharged into the river. As a result, the slurry was getting deposited on agricultural land, thereby adversely affecting soil fertility and polluting the river water, rendering it unfit for drinking purposes.

Judgment

The SC held that the right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and such includes the right to enjoy a pollution-free environment, water, and air for the full enjoyment of life. Provided anything endangers the quality of life in derogation of laws, a person has the right to have recourse to Article 32 for removing pollution detrimental to the life of the public. The Court ruled that the “right to live includes the right to enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life.” By integrating the right to a healthy environment into the right to life, the judiciary has made it a fundamental and enforceable right. Now, any citizen can approach a court if their right to a clean environment is violated, making it a powerful legal tool for environmental protection in India.

• M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395 (Oleum Gas Leak case)

Facts of the case

On December 4, 1985, a disastrous oleum (liquid chlorine) gas leak occurred at Shriram Food and Fertilizers Ltd., a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Limited, which manufactured caustic soda, chlorine, HCl, H2SO4, superphosphate, high-test hypochlorite, etc. As a result, an advocate at the Tis Hazari Court died, which significantly affected both the public and employees. Especially in light of the Bhopal gas tragedy[37], this incident served as a reminder of the risks associated with operating chemical plants in heavily populated areas.

Judgment

It was observed that the machinery and equipment were old and worn out, and there was negligence on the part of the management in the maintenance and operation of the plant. There was significant indifference in the installation of safety devices and proper measures to ensure the safety of employees and nearby residents.

The SC stated that any enterprise, engaged in any hazardous or inherently dangerous industry, which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of people working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas, owes an “absolute and non-delegable duty” to the community to ensure that no harm shall result to anyone on account of any inherently dangerous nature of the activity so undertaken. The activity must be carried out with the highest standards of safety. In case of any harm, the enterprise shall be “absolutely liable” to compensate the victims affected by the harm, contrary to the prevalent notion of ‘strict liability’ under the Rylands v. Fletcher[38] standard. The SC laid down that the measure of compensation must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise, because such compensation must have a deterrent effect.

• M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, 1997 (2) SCC 353 (Taj Trapezium case)

Facts of the case

The iconic Taj Mahal, one of the seven wonders of the world, was threatened by damage and decay due to the chemical and hazardous substances emitted by foundries, refineries, and brick kilns located at Mathura, which emitted sulphur dioxide, which, after oxidation, forms sulphuric acid. The acid rain had a corrosive effect on the white marble, causing fungal deterioration.

Judgment

The National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) presented, through the “Overview report,” that the sources of pollution, including small and medium-scale industrial units, are scattered all around the Taj Mahal. High air pollution load is thus pumped into the Taj airshed. Therefore, of the 510 industries locally operating in the area, almost 292 were directed to relocate to alternative plots outside the Taj Trapezium Zone and change over to natural gas as industrial fuel. If not, then the industries shall stop functioning. The feasibility study report specifically suggests that natural gas is the most economical and appropriate alternate-fuel for the Mathura Refinery. 

However, the SC had also taken into consideration the employees so affected by the relocation and called for retrenchment of the workers by providing a “shifting bonus” as per Section 25F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It stated, “Taj, apart from being a cultural heritage, is also an industry by itself; therefore, pollution must be stopped.” The Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle have been accepted as part of the law of the land. 

• Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs. Union of India, 1996 (5) SCC 647 (Tamil Nadu Tanneries case)

Facts of the case

About 900 tanneries were discharging untreated effluents into fields, waterways, including the Palar River, which serves as the primary source of water for the residents, and open lands. As a result, portable water was becoming scarce, and around 35,000 hectares of land in the belt became unfit for cultivation.

Judgment

The SC held that although the leather industry has become one of the major foreign exchange earners and Tamil Nadu is the leading exporter of finished leather, accounting for approximately 80% of the country’s export, the industry has no right to destroy the ecology, degrade the environment, and pose a health hazard. Such industries cannot be permitted to continue their operations unless they can tackle by themselves the pollution caused by their operations. Polluters must assess the damage and loss caused to the environment and identify those who were affected by the pollution. The compensation and cost for reversing the damaged environment should be recovered from the polluters.

• Damodar Rao vs. The Special Officer, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad; AIR 1987 AP 171

Facts of the case

By the 1980s, Hyderabad was experiencing chaotic urbanization. This included unplanned growth, land grabbing, slum expansion, and a loss of public spaces. The city had over 100 slums and lacked essential civic amenities. The Andhra Pradesh government issued G.O.Ms. No. 414 (1975) under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, designating 151.55 cents near Hussain Sagar Lake as a recreational park zone. Despite the plan, 37 cents of this land was sold to the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) and the Income Tax Department (ITD) for residential housing. Residents asked the High Court to intervene, claiming this as a breach of statutory duties. 

Judgment 

Justice P.A. Choudary stated that once approved, the development plan became binding statutory law. Common law property rights do not take precedence over this plan. “Our Parliament has recently enacted to protect and improve our environment. It widely distributes powers on all those who are traditionally classified as not aggrieved persons to take environmental disputes to the Courts. This is clearly in harmony with our Constitutional goals which not only mandate the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the Country; but which also hold it to be the duty of every one of our citizens to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.”

• Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association (2000) 7 SCC 282

Facts of the case

The appellant had a prayer hall for the Christians, located at K.K.R. Nagar, Chennai. They were using loudspeakers, drums, and other sound-producing instruments to recite the prayers. These were causing a nuisance to the residents living nearby. The respondent filed a complaint to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Counsels appearing for the Church stated that the Court cannot issue any direction to prevent the Church from practicing its religious beliefs, which would otherwise violate their right to profess and practice their religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. Two issues came before the SC:

1. Whether in a country having multiple religions and numerous communities or sects, whether a particular community or sect of that community can claim the right to add to noise pollution on the ground of religion? 
2. Should beating of drums or reciting of prayers by use of microphones and loudspeakers to disturb the peace or tranquillity of the neighbourhood be permitted?

Judgment

The SC laid down that no religion prescribes prayers should be performed at the cost of the peace of others, nor does it preach that they should be through voice-amplifiers or beating of drums.  In a civilized society, activities which disturb and cause nuisance to the lives of the people, like the infirm, aged, and sick, cannot be justified on the ground of the fundamental freedom so laid down for professing any religion.

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 prescribes permissible limits of noise in residential, commercial, industrial areas, or a silence zone. With the increasing levels of industrialization and urbanization, noise pollution has been posing serious threats to people’s lives, including causing interruption of sleep, affecting communication, loss of efficiency, hearing loss or deafness, high blood pressure, depression, irritability, fatigue, gastro-intestinal problems, allergy, distraction, mental stress, and annoyance etc. Rule 3 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 provides for ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones as specified in the Schedule annexed to the rule.

CONCLUSION

India’s environmental law shows a groundbreaking shift in the role of the judiciary during the Anthropocene. The Supreme Court moved from being a passive referee to actively ensuring ecological well-being. This change is both remarkable and necessary. The M.K. Ranjitsinh case recognizing climate rights signals the beginning of a new legal framework focused on the boundaries of our planet. Courts are now outlining the constitutional limits on humanity’s interaction with Earth’s life-support systems.

In the realm of environmental law, India’s judiciary has built a structure of global importance. Its key contribution may be in rethinking law as a social contract, connecting humanity to the only liveable planet we have. Upholding this living constitution is the highest duty of justice during this climate century.

Footnotes:

[1] The author is a final year student of B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) at Amity Law School, Amity University Kolkata. The author can be reached at shrestha2002datta@gmail.com.

[2] Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 1972

[3] United Nations Environment Programme (2021), Making Peace with Nature: A scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies. Nairobi, https://www.unep.org/resources/making-peace-nature.

[4] Ian Tiseo, Average carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels in the atmosphere worldwide from 1959 to 2024 (in parts per million) Statista (2025), https://www.statista.com/statistics/1091926/atmospheric-concentration-of-co2-historic/  (last visited Jul 20, 2025).

[5] Coastal Processes – activities, NCCR (2022), https://www.nccr.gov.in/?q=activities%2Fcoastal-processes-activities (last visited Jul 17, 2025).

[6] ISRO sounds climate change warning as glaciers melt in Himalayas: Key points, The Economic Times, April 23, 2024, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/isro-sounds-climate-change-warning-as-glaciers-melt-in-himalayas-key-points/himalayan-lakes-expand/slideshow/109530020.cms  (last visited Jul 17, 2025).

[7] India is committed to achieve the Net Zero emissions target by 2070 as announced by PM Modi, says Dr. Jitendra Singh, (2023), https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1961797 (last visited Jul 17, 2025).

[8] Law Commission of India, ‘186th Report on Proposal to Constitute Environment Courts’, September 2003, available at

https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ca0daec69b5adc880fb464895726dbdf/uploads/2022/08/2022081021-1.pdf.

See also Dewan Vohra, ‘Special ‘Green’ Courts Set up to Rule over Environmental Disputes’, Financial Express, 2 June 2007.

[9] Gill, Gitanjali, Human Rights and the Environment in India: Access through Public Interest Litigation, Environmental Law Review, 14. 200-218. 10.1350/enlr.2012.14.3.158 (2012).

[10] Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v Union of India, Supreme Court of India, Judgement of 18 April 1996, (1996) 5 SCC 281.

[11] Lovleen Bhullar, Environmental Constitutionalism and Duties of Individuals in India, Journal of Environmental Law, Volume 34, Issue 3, 399–418, https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqac010 (2022). See also Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v Union of India, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 448.

[12] Raghav Sharma: “GREEN COURTS IN INDIA: STRENGTHENING ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE?”

[13] Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar 1991 AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1) 5. See also Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union of India and Ors. 2013 (4) SCC 575; Virender Gaur & Ors. v State of Haryana & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 577; M.C. Mehta v Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 256, 257.

[14] Ibid

[15] M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India 2024 INSC 280.

[16] The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 Act No. 29 of 1986.

[17] The Umbrella Act-Environment Protection Act-1986, GreenLeaf ENVIROTECH LTD., (July. 20, 2025, 9:00 P.M.) https://greenleafenvirotech.in/the-umbrella-act-environment-protection-act-1986/.

[18] Union Carbide Corporation vs Union of India 1989 SCC (2) 540; 1988 SC 1538.

[19] THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974, ACT 6 OF 1974.

[20] THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981, ACT 14 OF 1981.

[21] THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972 ACT NO. 53 OF 1972

[22] THE FOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT, 1980 ACT NO. 69 OF 1980

[23] THE BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ACT, 2002 ACT NO. 18 OF 2003

[24] THE HAZARDOUS WASTE (MANAGEMENT AND HANDLING) RULES, 1989

[25] Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1980 (1) SCC 98.

[26] Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar 1991 AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1) 5; See also, T. Damodhar Rao and Ors. v. Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Others, AIR 1987 AP 171.

[27] M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu 1999 (6) SCC 464.

[28] State of NCT of Delhi vs. Sanjay 2014 (9) SCC 772.

[29] Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board vs. C. Kenchappa 2006 (6) SCC 371.

[30] Perumatty Grama Panchayat vs. State of Kerala 2004(1)KLT731

[31] Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors. 1996 (5) SCC 647; See also Research foundation for science (18) vs. Union of India 2007 AIR SCW 5851; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India 1996 SCC (3) 212.

[32] Sterlite industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2013 (4) SCC 575.

[33] Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors. 1996 (5) SCC 647.

[34] A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors. 1999 (2) SCC 718.

[35] INDIA CONST., Part IV A, added on the recommendation of Swarn Singh Committee, 1976.

[36] L.K. Koolwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 1987(1)WLN134.

[37] Union Carbide Corporation vs Union of India 1989 SCC (2) 540; 1988 SC 1538.

[38] Ryland v. Fletcher, Court of Exchequer Chamber, 1866, (1865-66) L.R. 1 Ex. 26