Published on: 24th December, 2025
Authored by: Kabhilakshya D V
Government Law College, Madurai
Introduction
Quality of environment is necessary for all organisms to lead a quality life and sustain their existence. Even a child in the mother’s womb needs a quality environment—quality air, nutritious food, and hygienic water. Environmental protection is not only the duty of the State; it is increasingly recognized as an international and global issue.[1]
The Indian courts have transformed from passive observers of environmental issues to active defenders of nature. Post-independence, the primary concern was to set up markets, establish industries, and create employment opportunities for citizens. However, after the Bhopal Gas tragedy in 1984, environmental protection became a priority. Following this catastrophic event, environmental law expanded across India, and courts became increasingly involved in adjudicating these cases. When the Environment Protection Act of 1986 became the first major legislation to protect the environment, public attention to these issues intensified. The Act serves as a safeguard for nature against emerging industries and rapid urbanization. Prior to this 1986 Act, a major enactment was passed just two years after the Stockholm Conference in 1972.[2]
In the contemporary world, new innovations such as thermal power plants and atomic facilities, often lacking sufficient environmental safeguards, pose additional dangers to ecological systems. The consequences include global warming, climate change, acid rain, and other environmental crises. This reality underscores the need for careful study of environmental protection mechanisms. Recently, the Supreme Court and High Courts have worked diligently to create and enforce rules controlling pollution and promoting nature conservation and wildlife protection. Tools like Public Interest Litigation (PIL) have been widely used to address environmental problems, garnering both support and criticism.[3]
Judicial Activism on Environmental Protection
Judicial activism refers to the proactive role of the judiciary in enforcing constitutional and legal rights when the executive and legislature fail to act. It involves interpreting laws in a liberal and expansive manner to uphold justice, often stepping into domains traditionally reserved for the other two organs of the state.
In the context of environmental protection, judicial activism has ensured:
– The enforcement of environmental laws
– Recognition of the right to a clean environment as a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Indian Constitution
– Growth of environmental law through Public Interest Litigations (PILs)
– Imposition of penalties on companies and individuals who violate environmental regulations[4]
The evolution of environmental jurisprudence in India demonstrates the judiciary’s remarkable adaptability in responding to emerging challenges. This evolution occurred against the backdrop of significant constitutional amendments. The 42nd Amendment in 1976 introduced Article 48A, directing the State to protect and improve the environment, and Article 51A(g), making environmental protection a fundamental duty of citizens. These provisions provided the constitutional foundation for subsequent judicial activism in environmental matters.
The Supreme Court expansively interpreted Article 21, which guarantees the right to life, making it the cornerstone of environmental law. Courts recognized that the right to life encompasses having a clean environment, fresh air, and safe drinking water.[5] This expansive interpretation transformed environmental protection from a policy directive into a justiciable right, enabling citizens to approach courts for environmental grievances.
Doctrines Established by Judiciary
1. Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle emerged as a fundamental doctrine in Indian environmental law, requiring preventive action even in the absence of complete scientific certainty about environmental harm. The principle, proposed as a new guideline in environmental decision-making, has four central components: taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty; shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity; exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and increasing public participation in decision-making.[6]
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India[7]
This landmark case established the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle as integral parts of Indian environmental law. The case concerned pollution from tanneries in Tamil Nadu, affecting groundwater, agricultural land, and public health across multiple districts. The Supreme Court held that environmental measures must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation, even where there is a lack of full scientific certainty.
2. Polluter Pays Principle
The polluter pays principle establishes financial responsibility for environmental damage with those who cause it. This principle serves both remedial and deterrent functions, ensuring that polluters bear cleanup costs while incentivizing pollution prevention.
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)[8]
In this case, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed against private companies in Bichhri village, Rajasthan, for releasing hazardous waste without proper treatment. This pollution severely damaged groundwater, rendered soil unsuitable for agriculture, and made water unsafe for consumption.
The Supreme Court ordered the polluting companies to pay ₹37.385 crores to remedy the environmental damage. The Court held that companies must pay for the harm they cause and formally recognized the “Polluter Pays Principle” as an established legal doctrine in India.
3. Absolute Liability
Indian courts developed the doctrine of absolute liability for hazardous activities. This doctrine eliminates defenses available under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher,[9] including act of God, act of strangers, and statutory authority.
The absolute liability doctrine reflects judicial recognition that those engaging in hazardous activities for profit must bear full responsibility for resulting harm, regardless of fault or reasonable care. This approach prioritizes victim compensation over industrial convenience and establishes strong deterrents against dangerous activities in populated areas.
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India[10]
In this case, the Court held that where an enterprise is engaged in an inherently dangerous or hazardous activity, and harm results to anyone by virtue of an accident in the operation of such dangerous activity—such as the escape of toxic gas—the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all persons affected by the accident. Such liability is not subject to any exceptions. Accordingly, the Supreme Court created a new precedent of absolute liability without any exemptions.
4. Public Trust Doctrine
The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, water, sea, and forests have such great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them subjects of private ownership. Such resources are gifts of nature and should be available to all—irrespective of a person’s cultural, religious, social, or financial status.[11]
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others[12]
The State Government leased riparian forest land for commercial purposes to a private company operating a motel located on the bank of River Beas. The motel management’s activities affected the natural flow of the river. The Court held that the State is a trustee of certain resources like air, sea, water, and forests, which are of public importance and therefore should not be made subjects of private ownership. The Court concluded that the State had committed a breach of public trust.
5. Sustainable Development
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It represents a new concept of economic growth involving progressive transformation of economy and society. All policies must aim for sustainable development in economic, social, and ecological fields.
The principles laid down in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum were applied in Kinkri Devi v. State of H.P.[13] In this case, the Court observed that “if industrial growth is sought to be achieved by reckless mining resulting in loss of life, loss of property, loss of amenities like water supply, and creation of ecological imbalance, there may ultimately be no real economic growth and no real prosperity.”
Landmark Judgments on Environmental Protection
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case)[14]
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), the Supreme Court addressed pollution in the Ganga River caused by untreated industrial effluents, particularly from leather tanneries in Kanpur. M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition seeking to restrain these industries from discharging toxic waste into the river. The Court invoked Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution, emphasizing the State’s duty and citizens’ responsibility to protect the environment. It found that authorities failed to act under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
The Court ordered the closure of non-compliant tanneries, holding that industries without effluent treatment plants cannot be allowed to operate. The judgment reinforced the principle that economic activity cannot come at the cost of environmental and public health, asserting that a clean environment is part of the right to life under Article 21.
K.M. Chinnappa, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.[15]
In this case, the Supreme Court reinforced that environmental law serves as a tool to protect and improve the environment and to prevent harmful activities. The Court emphasized that with increasing industrial activity, stricter environmental controls and greater liability for non-compliance are necessary. It considered the Forest Advisory Committee’s recommendation regarding the renewal of a company’s mining lease.
The Court allowed mining to continue only until the end of 2005, limited to existing broken areas, and subject to ecological safeguards recommended by the Committee under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Court also criticized the inconsistency of both the State and Central Governments in handling the issue and underlined the importance of applying due diligence before taking administrative decisions. Proceedings against the company were left open to be addressed by appropriate forums. This judgment reflects the Court’s approach of balancing development with strict environmental oversight and sustainable use of natural resources.
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu[16]
In this case, a company planned to establish a vegetable oil factory in Indore village, Andhra Pradesh, near a reservoir supplying drinking water to five million people. The Supreme Court raised concerns about potential pollution and applied the Precautionary Principle, stating that it is better to prevent environmental harm than to remedy it later. The Court also invoked the Polluter Pays Principle, holding that industries must bear the cost of any environmental damage caused.
It directed the appointment of an authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, placing the burden of proof on the industry to demonstrate that no harm would result from its operations.
Arjun Gopal v. Union of India[17]
In this case, a group of minors filed a petition through their guardians, raising concerns about severe air pollution caused by firecrackers, especially during Diwali. The Supreme Court recognized the harmful effects of firecrackers on public health, particularly on children and the elderly. The Court imposed a ban on toxic firecrackers and allowed only “green crackers,” which produce less pollution.
It also regulated the timing for bursting firecrackers and directed authorities to enforce these rules strictly. This case highlighted the Court’s commitment to balancing environmental protection with cultural practices under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life.
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors.[18]
The Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India case centered on the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River, which faced intense scrutiny and legal challenges due to its environmental and social impacts. The Supreme Court’s decision, rendered in 2000, addressed the conflict between development and environmental conservation.
The Court allowed the dam’s construction up to 90 meters based on prior environmental clearances while mandating further approvals for any construction above this height from the designated environmental subgroup. This ruling emphasized the importance of balancing development with environmental and human rights, enforcing strict compliance with rehabilitation and environmental improvement measures.
The judgment highlighted the judiciary’s role in overseeing the implementation of large-scale projects, ensuring that the government’s policy decisions align with constitutional protections and sustainable development principles.
Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand[19]
In Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, residents of Ratlam city complained of unsanitary conditions and pollution caused by inadequate drainage and waste from a nearby alcohol plant. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the municipality to act, but the council appealed, citing lack of funds.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that financial constraints cannot excuse failure to perform statutory duties. It affirmed that a pollution-free environment is part of the right to life under Article 21. The Court ordered the municipality to ensure sanitation, build public latrines, provide water and waste services, and seek funds from the state if necessary.
Conclusion
The Indian judiciary has played a pivotal role in strengthening environmental protection by interpreting Article 21 (the right to life) to include the right to a clean environment. In landmark cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, the Supreme Court introduced vital principles including absolute liability, the precautionary principle, and the polluter pays principle. These doctrines have helped tackle pressing issues such as pollution and deforestation.
However, while judicial activism fills gaps left by weak executive action, it cannot replace lasting policy reform. As new global challenges emerge, India’s judicial approach offers a guiding example for other developing nations seeking to balance economic development with environmental sustainability.
References
[1] P. Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law in India, Lexis Nexis, 3rd ed., 2015, p. 202.
[2] Dr. A. Anala, ‘Indian Judiciary and Environmental Protection’ (2016) 4(4) International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) <https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT1134070.pdf> accessed 21 July 2025.
[3] Former Chief Justice Mr. K.G. Balakrishnan, ‘The Role of the Judiciary in Environmental Protection’ (D.P. Shrivastava Memorial Lecture, 20 March 2010) 1.
[4] Sureshwar Tiwari, ‘Judicial Activism and Environmental Protection in India: A Progressive Approach’ (30 January 2025).
[5] Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598.
[6] S. Shanthakumara, Introduction to Environmental Law, Lexis Nexis, 2nd ed., 2012, p. 107.
[7] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
[8] Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212.
[9] Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3 HL 330.
[10] Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 273.
[11] S. Shanthakumara, Introduction to Environmental Law, Lexis Nexis, 2nd ed., 2012, p. 108.
[12] M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others, (1997) 1 SCC 388.
[13] Kinkri Devi v. State of H.P., AIR 1988 HP 4.
[14] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 471.
[15] K.M. Chinnappa and T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 606.
[16] A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718.
[17] Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, (2019) 13 SCC 523.
[18] Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664.
[19] Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, AIR 1980 SC 1622.
