Published On: 31st October, 2024
Authored By: Shubhangi Dixit
INTRODUCTION
Environmental law aims to preserve and protect the gift of nature given to humanity for their survival. Its objective is based on the dire need to prevent the wastage of three elements of the earth- air, water, and land.
The development of Indian Environmental law was initiated in Stockholm in 1972 at the United Nations Conference on Human Environment in which the necessity of Environmental laws to protect and preserve the environment came forward. After this conference, various laws were passed for example- The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974, the Forest Conservation Act of 1981, the Environment Protection Act of 1986, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1987, National Green Tribunal Act of 2010, etc. Along with these, changes were made in the Constitution through the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution of India, which added Article 48-A in Directive Principles of State and Article 51 (g) in Fundamental Duties, for expressly mentioning environmental principles in the constitution.
The incapability of government agencies to implement environmental laws led to the degradation of the environment, which inimically affected public health. The inefficiency of agencies led to the need to reach out to higher courts of the country i.e., the Supreme Court and High Courts for remedies. In this matter, the most important role is played by Public Interest Litigation (PIL). It is a rapidly growing procedure for protecting the environment. Earlier in the 1980s, ‘locus standi’ in writs, applied only to those petitions filed by people directly suffering from violation of their rights. As a result, no one was allowed to file a petition for people suffering from injustice because they would not have required ‘locus standi’ to file a petition.
However, later, the introduction of Public Interest Litigation by Justice P.N Bhagwati and Justice Krishna Iyer who chaired the Legal Aid Committee led to the evolution of environmental jurisprudence and allowed locus standi in petitions filed by some other persons on behalf of aggrieved persons.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
According to the Ford Foundation of the USA, “Public Interest Litigation is the name that has recently been given to efforts that provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that the ordinary marketplace for legal services failed to provide such services to significant segments of the population and significant interests. Such groups and interests include environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities, and others”. [1]
The term ‘Public Interest Litigation’ is not defined in Indian Statutes but from time to time, it has been defined by Indian courts. When the general public or a particular class of the public has an interest (including a financial interest) that impacts their legal rights or obligations, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled in the case of Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chaudhary (AIR 1993 SC 892) that the term PIL refers to a legal action brought in a court of law to protect a public or general interest. [2] Stated differently, Public Interest Litigation is a form of legal aid that provides legal counsel to those who are in need.
Initially, the concept of Public Interest litigation was introduced by Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha Vs Abdul Thai (1976 AIR 1455) which talked about giving bonuses to an industry’s employees. Later, Justice P.N. Bhagwati established the concept of PIL in the case of S.P. Gupta Vs Union of India [(1982) 2 SCR 365]. According to the judgment in this case, any member of society seeking compensation for the breach of their legal rights but is unable to appear in court may use the Supreme Court’s or High Court’s writ jurisdiction. Public Interest Litigation was transformed into a potent tool for public duties. As a result, any citizen may now approach the court to seek redress when the general public’s interests are at risk even routine letters from people with concern for the public were treated as writ petitions by Justice P.N. Bhagwati.[3]
Hussainara Khatoon and Others vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979 AIR 1369) was the first case of Public Interest Litigation in India. In this case, PIL was filed in response to the predicament of thousands of Bihar jail inmates awaiting trial. The hearings impacted the release of over 40,000 convicts in pending trials. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to swift justice in cases involving the greater good of society is a Fundamental right that falls under the purview of “life” and “personal liberty” protected by Article 21.[4]
APPROACHING THE COURTS
In Indian Environmental Law, Public Interest Litigation plays a vital role. Several cases were presented before the Courts as PIL, after expanding the scope of Locus Standi.
For approaching the higher courts i.e., the Supreme Court and High Court of any state, a person can exercise his right under the writ jurisdiction mentioned in Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The Fundamental Rights stated in the third part of the Indian Constitution do not mention environmental issues. Initially for deciding matters related to the environment, the judiciary referred to Article 48-A and Article 51(g) of the Constitution. However, with time, the courts started considering matters related to environmental pollution as an infringement of Article 21, expanding its ambit. By doing this, the Indian Judiciary sustained the doctrine of Public Trust and covered, a wide range of issues related to air, water, solid, and hazardous waste management.
The Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Kumar Vs State of Bihar and others (AIR 1991 SC 420), observed that the Right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. A citizen has the right to use Article 32 of the Constitution to remove air or water pollution that may be deemed to be detrimental to their quality of life if anything violates the law and puts their quality of life in jeopardy[5].
ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
Courts of our country through the concept of PIL, have developed environmental jurisprudence and ensured the maintenance of environment ecology, wildlife, flora, and fauna.
One of the earliest cases of PIL for environmental protection is of Ratlam Municipal Council Vs Vardhi Chand (AIR 1980 SC 1622). In this case, the municipal body of the city of Ratlam had failed to perform its duty of establishing a proper drainage system on the grounds of the scarcity of funds. The Supreme Court observed that a responsible Municipal Council constituted for preserving public health, cannot escape from its primary duty by pleading financial inability.[6]
The Supreme Court in different Public Interest Litigation cases has read various doctrines as a part of domestic law, formed expert committees to study and provide solutions for problems of environmental protection, and ordered the closing of industries that were causing environmental pollution. Some of the Doctrines postulated by Indian Courts are: –
- Rule Of Absolute Liability– The Supreme Court put forward the ‘Doctrine of absolute liability’ in the case of C Mehta Vs Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 1086). In this case, the Hon’ble Court asked the enterprises that deal with hazardous and inherently dangerous industries that pose a potential threat to the health of the employees working there and to the persons residing in the surrounding areas to be under obligation and absolute liability toward the community and ensure that no harm is caused to them because of such activities. The Court said that the doctrine of ‘absolute liability’ will be on the user of the hazardous materials and the enterprises will be liable to compensate for any harm caused. Enterprise’s argument that all reasonable care was taken and that there was no negligence from their side is not permissible.
- Sustainable Development– In the case of Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs. Union of India and others (AIR 1996 SC 2715), the PIL was filed by Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum against the pollution generated from the discharge of untreated effluent by tanneries and other industries of Tamil Nadu. In this case, the Supreme Court said that the solution to the age-old concept that, development and ecology are opposed to each other is ‘Sustainable Development’. The Court held that to continue their work, such industries should install pollution control devices and take liability for past pollution. It also held that Industries are vital for the growth of the nation and there is a need to strike a balance between industrial development and sustainable development.
- Doctrine of Public Trust– The Public Trust doctrine is based on the principle that resources like air, sea, water and, forests have a great impact on human lives and that it would be unjustified to make them private entities. These resources are the gift of nature and should be available to everyone irrespective of their status in life. This doctrine eggs on the government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public instead of permitting their use for private ownership and commercial use. In the case of C Mehta Vs Kamal Nath and others [(1991) 1 SCC 388], the Supreme Court held that the Public Trust doctrine is a part of Indian Law.
- PRINCIPLE OF POLLUTER PAY AND PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE– In M.C Mehta Vs Union of India [(2002) 4 SCC 356], the Supreme Court held that there are two essential principles of the doctrine of sustainable development- The principle of polluter pays and the precautionary principle.
According to the Polluter Pays Principle, the industries responsible for pollution are liable to compensate the victims of pollution and also for the cost of restoring environmental degradation. In such cases, the burden of proof is on the polluter industries to prove that their work and actions are environmentally friendly. Under the Precautionary Principle, the State Government and Statutory Authorities should foresee and prevent the causes of environmental degradation and in the cases where there are chances of serious and irreversible damages, lack of scientific confirmation should not be used as an excuse for delay in measures of prevention. In the Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum case, the Supreme Court held that Polluter Pay and Precautionary Principles are part of the law of the country and should be implemented strictly.
OTHER LANDMARK CASES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PIL
- Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Vs State of UP (AIR 1985 SC 652): This is popularly known as the Doon Valley Case. In this case, the Supreme Court took notice of the ecological damage caused to Mussoorie Hills by the activities of limestone quarries. The court, in this case, said that the mining activities in the area could be permitted only to the extent that is necessary for the interests of the defence of the country and also for safeguarding the foreign exchange position.[7]
- C Mehta Vs Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 1037): In this case, a petition was filed against leather tanneries that were polluting the Ganga River by discharging industrial effluents into it. The Ganga is considered a sacred river in India and it was being polluted. According to the court, maintaining the Ganga’s cleanliness is the holy responsibility of everyone who lives or works near it. The court issued directions to the tanneries to install effluent treatment plants and ordered that the tanneries that fail to take the minimum steps required for the primary treatment of industrial effluent should be closed. The court said that the closure of tanneries may bring unemployment, and loss of revenue but life, health and, ecology have greater importance to the people.[8]
- Tarun Bhagat Sangh, Alwar Vs Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 293): Regarding extensive mining operations within the protected region that were unlawfully approved by the State Government and were gradually degrading the Tiger Habitat and driving the species to near extinction, a renowned NGO filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court prohibited all mining activities in the Sariska National Park and the area was notified as a Tiger Reserve.[9]
CONCLUSION
In India, environmental law has evolved rapidly, establishing several fundamental principles for better implementation. The Indian judiciary has been proactive in finding innovative solutions to environmental problems by issuing directions to protect the ecology and environment through public interest litigation. This jurisdiction has been created through judicial creativity and has proven to be a powerful and expedient tool for addressing environmental grievances. It provides direct access to the High Courts and the Supreme Court, eliminating the expense and delay of normal appeals. In conclusion, the Indian judiciary has shown itself to be a strategic partner in promoting environmental governance, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring a fair balance between environmental protection, social commitments, and the country’s developmental considerations.
References:
[1] Pinky Dass, “Role of PIL in Environment Protection in India, (5th August 2018), https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/role-of-pil-in-environment-protection-in-india-by-pinky-dass/#:~:text=Under%20the%20PIL%2C%20the%20judiciary,the%20state%2C%20organization%20or%20individual.&text=Principles%20of%20International%20Environmental%20Law,Gupta
[2] Anjali Chopra, Role of Public Interest Litigation in Environmental Cases, (1st April 2023), https://desikaanoon.in/role-of-public-interest-litigation-in-environmental-cases/#_ftnref4
[3] Anjali Chopra, Role of Public Interest Litigation in Environmental Cases, (1st April 2023), https://desikaanoon.in/role-of-public-interest-litigation-in-environmental-cases/#_ftnref9
[4] Anjali Chopra, Role of Public Interest Litigation in Environmental Cases, (1st April 2023), https://desikaanoon.in/role-of-public-interest-litigation-in-environmental-cases/#_ftnref9
[5] Dr Shruti Goyal, Environment and Public Interest Litigation, https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/esp13/chapter/environment-and-public-interest-litigation
[6] Dr Shruti Goyal, Environment and Public Interest Litigation, https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/esp13/chapter/environment-and-public-interest-litigation
[7] Dr Shruti Goyal, Environment and Public Interest Litigation, https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/esp13/chapter/environment-and-public-interest-litigation
[8] Dr Shruti Goyal, Environment and Public Interest Litigation, https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/esp13/chapter/environment-and-public-interest-litigation
[9] Hima Kohli, Public Interest Litigation in Environmental Cases, https://www.ajne.org/sites/default/files/event/7/session-materials/h.-kohli.-session-7-public-interest-litigation-justice-hima-kohli.pdf
