Justice for the Planet: The Role of Public Interest Litigation in Safeguarding Our Environment

WHAT IS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION?

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a concept that finds its origins in the American legal system. It was designed to ensure that marginalized groups—such as economically disadvantaged individuals, racial minorities, unorganized consumers, and advocates for environmental sustainability—receive adequate legal representation. This innovative approach to litigation seeks to address systemic issues that affect the broader community, providing a means for the judiciary to intervene on behalf of the public interest.

PIL encompasses legal actions initiated in courts with the primary objective of safeguarding the “Public Interest.” These litigations address a diverse array of issues, including environmental degradation, terrorism, road safety, construction hazards, and other significant matters impacting society at large. By serving as a mechanism for seeking judicial remedies, PIL plays a crucial role in addressing societal challenges that might otherwise go unaddressed due to the limitations of traditional legal frameworks.

While PIL does not have a specific definition enshrined in statutory law, it has evolved significantly through judicial interpretation. This evolution reflects a deep-seated commitment to the common good and underscores the judiciary’s proactive role in empowering citizens through judicial activism.

The essence of PIL lies in its ability to give voice to the voiceless, ensuring that the concerns of the marginalized and the oppressed are brought before the court. However, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to convincingly demonstrate that the case is genuinely related to the public interest. This requirement acts as a safeguard against frivolous or malicious litigation intended to harass.

Judicial authorities wield considerable power in this domain, including the ability to take suo motu cognizance of issues. This means that the court can initiate proceedings on its own accord when it becomes aware of matters of significant public concern. Additionally, the judiciary can respond to petitions from individuals who exhibit a sincere concern for public welfare.

The scope of issues addressed through PIL is broad, encompassing cases of bonded labor, concerns regarding neglected children, violations of minimum wage laws and exploitation of casual laborers, incidents of violence against women, environmental pollution and ecological harm, food adulteration, and the preservation of cultural heritage and traditions. This broad scope highlights the versatility and importance of PIL as a tool for social justice and public accountability.

ROLE OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) serves a crucial function in the realm of environmental protection by enabling citizens and organizations to contest breaches of environmental legislation and promote sustainable practices. Its significance is substantial, acting as an essential mechanism for addressing environmental challenges that might otherwise be neglected or insufficiently managed by conventional legal frameworks.

A key role of PIL in environmental advocacy is to create a forum for raising awareness and initiating legal proceedings concerning urgent environmental issues. Through PIL, individuals and collectives can present cases in court that represent the public interest, tackling matters such as pollution, deforestation, and unlawful mining activities. This method facilitates judicial examination of environmental laws and practices, ensuring their proper enforcement and adherence.

An important characteristic of PIL is its capacity to confront environmental challenges that extend beyond personal interests, emphasizing the wider implications for communities and ecosystems. For example, PILs have been vital in addressing instances of industrial pollution, where local populations endure the adverse effects of unchecked emissions. Via PIL, courts can require remedial measures, impose fines, and enforce adherence to environmental standards, thereby holding offenders accountable.

Moreover, PILs are instrumental in advancing environmental justice by amplifying the voices of marginalized communities that are disproportionately impacted by environmental harm. By empowering these groups to contest detrimental practices and assert their rights, PILs contribute to the establishment of equitable and inclusive environmental protections.

Furthermore, PIL has been influential in catalyzing policy reforms and shaping environmental legislation. Landmark decisions arising from PIL cases frequently result in the establishment or enhancement of environmental regulations, thereby affecting both governmental and corporate behaviors. For instance, PILs have prompted more stringent regulations concerning hazardous waste management, better conservation of natural resources, and increased efforts to combat climate change.

In essence, Public Interest Litigation is a powerful mechanism for environmental protection, enabling legal action on behalf of the public interest, ensuring compliance with environmental laws, and advocating for the rights of affected communities. Its role in advancing environmental justice and driving policy reforms underscores its significance in the ongoing effort to safeguard our planet for future generations.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS

Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand[1]

In the landmark case of Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand, the Supreme Court of India established the concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The case centered on the Ratlam Municipal Council’s failure to implement a sufficient drainage system, with the Council attributing this shortcoming to financial limitations. The Court determined that a Municipal Council, which has the responsibility of safeguarding public health, cannot shirk its essential duties by citing budgetary constraints. This ruling represented a significant transformation, emphasizing that financial limitations cannot serve as a valid excuse for neglecting critical responsibilities.

C. Mehta v. Union of India[2]

In the aftermath of this groundbreaking decision, the Indian judiciary has continued to evolve its legal principles to meet new challenges. A prominent illustration of this legal progression is found in the case of M. C. Mehta v. Union of India. This case emerged from a devastating oleum gas leak at a Delhi industrial facility in 1985, which resulted in loss of life and posed severe health threats to the surrounding community. In reaction, the Supreme Court formulated the doctrine of “Absolute Liability” for those in charge of hazardous materials. This doctrine establishes a more rigorous standard of accountability compared to the previous “strict liability” principle, effectively eliminating any legal loopholes that could permit responsible parties to evade their duties. This advancement highlights the judiciary’s dedication to upholding the highest standards of environmental and public safety.

Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Others[3]

In the matter of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Others, the petitioner Subhash Kumar initiated a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to address pollution in the Bokaro River, attributing it to sludge and slurry discharges from Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Kumar contended that the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, enacted by Parliament, aimed at safeguarding water quality and preventing pollution. He further alleged that the State Pollution Control Board had failed in its responsibilities by permitting pollution through leases for slurry collection in return for royalties.

The primary concern revolved around whether the discharges from the company were indeed polluting the Bokaro River. The Supreme Court held that the entitlement to clean water and air constitutes a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Consequently, the right to a pollution-free environment was acknowledged as an integral component of the right to life, mandating all Indian courts to uphold this principle. Stressing the significance of public health and environmental preservation, the Court also mandated the establishment of a green bench to handle environmental disputes.

The Court observed that Tata Iron & Steel Co. had been authorized by the State Pollution Control Board to release effluents in compliance with Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Board had conducted comprehensive monitoring and evaluation to ensure that the effluents did not pose a threat to the Bokaro River. Following a meticulous examination of the evidence and contentions presented, the Court found no substantial grounds supporting the petitioner’s allegations of pollution. Consequently, the Court determined that the State Pollution Control Board had effectively implemented pollution control measures, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.

Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India[4]

The case of Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India (Sariska BioReserve) revolved around a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in 1991 by a prominent non-governmental organization (NGO) before the Supreme Court of India. The PIL was directed against the illegal mining operations authorized by the State Government within Sariska National Park, a protected area crucial for tiger conservation. These mining activities were causing extensive damage to the tiger habitat and significantly threatening the species with extinction.

In response to the PIL, the Supreme Court took decisive action. The Court constituted a high-level Committee led by retired Supreme Court Justice M.L. Jain. The Committee was tasked with the critical responsibility of identifying and documenting all mining operations within the Sariska National Park and ensuring strict compliance with the Court’s orders. The Court’s intervention also included a sweeping directive to halt all mining activities within the park and the designated Tiger Reserve to protect the endangered tiger population and preserve the ecological balance of the habitat.

Furthering its commitment to environmental protection, the Supreme Court’s measures led to the establishment of a permanent judicial body specifically for environmental and forestry-related cases. In 1996, the Chief Justice of India set up the Forest Bench to address such matters. This bench, known for its focus on issues related to forests and wildlife, was renamed the “Green Bench” in 2013. The Green Bench continues to handle cases concerning sanctuaries and national parks that fall outside the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal, ensuring ongoing judicial oversight and protection for India’s ecological and environmental heritage.

MC Mehta vs. Union of India[5]

M.C. Mehta initiated legal proceedings in 1985 by filing a writ petition to stop leather tanneries from discharging domestic and industrial waste into the Ganga River. The petitioner sought a Supreme Court directive to halt effluent discharge until the tanneries implemented effective treatment systems for hazardous waste, addressing the critical issue of water pollution.

The Court emphasized the constitutional duty to protect the environment. Article 48-A of the Indian Constitution mandates that the State safeguard and enhance the environment, including forests and wildlife. Additionally, Article 51-A requires every citizen to contribute to preserving and improving the natural environment actively.

The Court also highlighted the importance of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, designed to tackle water pollution and maintain water quality. This Act established central and state boards with the authority to regulate and prevent water pollution.

The Court examined the definition of “Trade Effluent,” which includes any substance—solid, liquid, or gaseous—discharged from industrial or trade activities, excluding domestic sewage. The leather industry, known for its significant water consumption and resultant wastewater, was identified as a major pollution source. This wastewater, containing hazardous substances, depletes oxygen levels in the river, leading to the death of aquatic life and producing foul odors.

Despite the provisions of the Water Act, the Court found that the State Board had inadequately regulated effluent discharge into the Ganga. Similarly, the Central Government had not effectively addressed the public nuisance caused by the tanneries in Kanpur under the Environment Protection Act.

In a landmark 1987 ruling, the Court ordered the closure of several polluting tanneries near Kanpur. The judgment concluded, “Just as an industry that cannot pay minimum wages cannot continue, a tannery that fails to install a primary treatment facility cannot be permitted.

Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Others[6]

The Indian judiciary faces the intricate challenge of reconciling the imperative of environmental conservation with the fundamental requirements of development, which are vital for job creation and economic advancement. This delicate equilibrium was examined by the Supreme Court in the pivotal case of Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Others. The case focused on the release of untreated effluents from tanneries and industrial activities into the Palar River, an essential water resource for Vellore in Tamil Nadu.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court endorsed the ‘polluters pay’ principle and highlighted the doctrine of “absolute liability” concerning environmental degradation. This principle mandates that polluters not only provide compensation to those impacted by pollution but also bear the expenses associated with environmental rehabilitation. The judgment reinforced the judiciary’s dedication to ensuring accountability for those who inflict environmental damage, compelling them to rectify the harm done and implement measures to avert future pollution.

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.[7]

In the landmark case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., widely referred to as the ‘Dehradun Valley Litigation,’ the Supreme Court of India scrutinized the extensive environmental degradation resulting from quarrying activities in the Mussoorie hill range of the Himalayas. The methods employed for limestone extraction, including blasting and large-scale excavation, led to cave-ins, landslides, and considerable modifications to the natural terrain. The absence of vegetation exacerbated these problems, culminating in landslides that resulted in loss of life, destruction of residences, and adverse effects on agricultural lands.

The mining companies attempted to have the case dismissed, contending that it fell under the purview of administrative authorities as outlined in the Environment Protection Act. However, the Court dismissed this contention, emphasizing that the litigation was already underway and that significant orders had been issued before the Act’s implementation. Despite the formation of a monitoring committee, the lessee persisted in quarrying activities in violation of the committee’s instructions. Based on the committee’s findings, the Court concluded that the clandestine mining operations of Vijay Shree Mines had inflicted considerable damage and mandated the company to contribute Rs. 3 lakhs to the committee’s fund.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court determined that the pollution arising from quarrying constituted a grave threat to public health and safety, thereby ordering an immediate cessation of such activities. The Court recognized that the right to a clean environment is a fundamental component of the right to life and personal liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. This case represented a crucial juncture in the Supreme Court’s endeavor to reconcile environmental protection with industrial advancement.

Him Privesh Environment Protection Society versus the State of Himachal Pradesh[8]

In the case of Him Privesh Environment Protection Society versus the State of Himachal Pradesh, represented by the Secretary of Industries and others, petitions were filed with the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in 2010. These petitions contested the establishment of a cement manufacturing facility by an industrial conglomerate located in District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The petitions argued that the construction of the plant violated environmental regulations, particularly the EIA Notifications. They claimed that the plant had caused significant harm to forested areas and had unlawfully acquired land from neighboring villages without conducting the necessary public hearings.

Acknowledging that an order to close or dismantle the cement plant would impose considerable hardship and negatively impact the livelihoods of many innocent individuals, the High Court applied the “polluter pays” principle. As a result, the court imposed damages totaling Rs. 100 crores, which constituted 25% of the overall project cost, against the owner of the cement plant. The owner subsequently appealed this decision to the Supreme Court; however, the appeal was dismissed in 2013.

CONCLUSION
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has emerged as a transformative tool in the realm of environmental protection and social justice. Originating from the American legal system, PIL serves as a mechanism to address systemic issues affecting marginalized groups and broader societal interests. Its evolution in India has empowered citizens and organizations to confront pressing challenges that traditional legal frameworks might overlook.

The role of PIL in environmental protection is particularly significant. By providing a platform for legal actions addressing issues such as pollution, deforestation, and unsustainable practices, PIL facilitates judicial scrutiny and enforcement of environmental laws. Notably, landmark cases like Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India have underscored PIL’s effectiveness in compelling authorities and industries to adhere to environmental standards. These cases have led to the establishment of rigorous legal principles such as “absolute liability” and “polluter pays,” holding offenders accountable, and ensuring that environmental harms are rectified.

PIL has also proven instrumental in advancing environmental justice by amplifying the voices of marginalized communities disproportionately affected by environmental degradation. Cases such as Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India have highlighted the judiciary’s commitment to protecting endangered ecosystems and promoting sustainable practices. Additionally, the formation of specialized judicial bodies like the Green Bench demonstrates a sustained commitment to addressing environmental issues through dedicated oversight.

The significance of PIL extends beyond individual cases, driving broader policy reforms and shaping environmental legislation. The Supreme Court’s decisions in cases such as Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh have not only addressed immediate concerns but also set precedents that influence regulatory practices and environmental policy.

In summary, PIL stands as a powerful instrument for safeguarding the environment and promoting social justice. Its ability to address a wide range of issues, hold accountable those responsible for environmental harm, and drive policy reforms highlights its vital role in the ongoing effort to protect our planet for future generations. The judiciary’s proactive approach in leveraging PIL underscores its essential function in the pursuit of a more just and sustainable world.

REFERENCES

Hima Koli, PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, AJNE,  <https://www.ajne.org/sites/default/files/event/7/session-materials/h.-kohli.-session-7-public-interest-litigation-justice-hima-kohli.pdf> accessed August 4, 2024

Role of Public Interest Litigation in Environmental Protection, Law Bhoomi, <https://lawbhoomi.com/role-of-public-interest-litigation-in-environmental-protection/> accessed August 4, 2024

Sristi Raichandani, 15 Landmark Judgments on Environmental Protection, Legal Desire <https://legaldesire.com/15-landmark-judgments-on-environmental-protection/> accessed August 3, 2024

Prarthana Vasudevan, Public Interest Litigation and Protection of the Environment, Law Column, <https://lawcolumn.in/public-interest-litigation-and-protection-of-the-environment/> accessed August 3, 2024

Aniket Vashisth, Role of PIL in environment protection in India, Law Times Journal, <https://lawtimesjournal.in/role-of-pil-in-environment-protection-in-india/> accessed August 2, 2024

[1] Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 1622

[2] M. C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086

[3] Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Others AIR 1991 SC 420

[4] Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 514 and AIR 1993 SC 293

[5] MC Mehta vs. Union of India 1988 AIR 1115, 1988 SCR (2) 530

[6] Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Others 1996 5 SCC 647

[7] Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 1985 AIR 652

[8] Him Privesh Environment Protection Society and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP 586/2010 and CWPIL 15/2009