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

Abstract

Being the very foundation of human existence, the environment requires regular and vigilant protection. In protecting the environment in India, the judiciary has played a revolutionary role, progressing from a traditional interpreter of laws to a proactive protector of environmental rights. This article examines the role of the Indian judiciary in protecting the environment by studying statutory frameworks, constitutional mandates, and landmark judgements that have helped shape environmental jurisprudence. It also inspects the principles that emerged from the judiciary and innovative doctrines, including the Precautionary Principle, the Public Trust Doctrine, and the Polluter Pays Principle.

Introduction

Environmental degradation is one of the most critical concerns of the 21st century. The need for efficacious environmental protection mechanisms has become more necessary than ever due to rising metropolitan expansion, industrialization, and unsustainable exploitation of natural resources. The judiciary has emerged as a central pillar in the implementation of environmental rights and norms in India. Courts have strengthened environmental governance through continuous interpretations of constitutional provisions and vigorous engagement in public interest litigations (PILs).

Constitutional Mandate for Environmental Protection

Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties

Although the word “environment” was not specifically mentioned in the original Constitution of India, duties on both the State and citizens are now imposed by several constitutional provisions:

Article 21: Recognizes the right to a clean and healthy environment as a fundamental right under the Right to Life.[1]

Article 48A (Directive Principles): Mandates the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife.[2]

Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duties): Imposes a duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment.[3]

Judicial Activism and the Rise of Environmental Jurisprudence

The post-1980 era marked a significant shift in judicial attitude, particularly through the use of PILs. Environmental PILs became tools of environmental democracy, allowing citizens and NGOs to approach courts in the public interest without the traditional requirement of locus standi. This transformation enabled the judiciary to address environmental concerns more proactively and expansively.

Landmark Judgements and Judicial Contributions

1. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985 AIR 652)

This case, also known as the Dehradun Quarrying Case, marked the first time the Supreme Court examined environmental damage caused by development activities. The Court ordered the closure of limestone quarries in the Mussoorie Hills, emphasizing the need to protect fragile ecosystems.[4]

Key Contribution: Recognition of environmental rights under Article 21.

2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) (Ganga Pollution Case)

This case addressed industrial pollution in the Ganga River. The Supreme Court directed industries near the river to either comply with pollution control rules or cease operations. This judgment initiated the principle of holding industries responsible for pollution.[5]

Key Contribution: Establishment of the Absolute Liability Doctrine, a stricter form than the traditional tort principle of strict liability.

3. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388

This landmark case introduced the Public Trust Doctrine in India. The Supreme Court ruled that natural resources like rivers are held in trust by the government for public use and cannot be exploited for private benefit. The case involved accusations against Kamal Nath for diverting a river to benefit a private motel.[6]

Key Contribution: Introduction of the Public Trust Doctrine in Indian environmental law.

4. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997 onwards)

This case has played a major role in forest conservation in India. The Supreme Court expanded the definition of “forest” and directed state governments to regulate activities in forest areas, establishing continuous monitoring mechanisms.[7]

Key Contribution: Continuous judicial monitoring of forest conservation and biodiversity protection.

5. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647

This landmark case brought the Precautionary Principle and Sustainable Development into Indian law. The Supreme Court ruled that industries, especially tanneries in Tamil Nadu, must take steps to prevent water pollution.[8]

Key Contribution: Recognition of sustainable development and integration of two key international environmental principles into Indian jurisprudence.

6. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281

In this case, the Supreme Court held chemical industries in Rajasthan strictly liable for hazardous waste pollution. The Court highlighted the Absolute Liability Principle, ensuring that industries pay for environmental damage and restoration.[9]

Key Contribution: Strengthened environmental accountability and restoration responsibilities.

7. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718

This case dealt with the establishment of an industry that could affect water quality. The Supreme Court prioritized the importance of technical and scientific expertise in environmental decision-making.[10]

Key Contribution: Advocated for precaution in scientific uncertainty and emphasized the need for an expert regulatory approach.

8. Vizag Gas Leak Case (2020)

This case involved a gas leak at the LG Polymers plant in Visakhapatnam, which led to deaths and serious health problems. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) imposed heavy fines on the company, highlighting the need for corporate accountability.[11]

Key Contribution: Reinforced the importance of the Absolute Liability Principle in cases of industrial disasters.

9. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000)

The Sardar Sarovar Dam Project faced strong opposition over environmental and human rights issues. Although the Court permitted the project to proceed, it stressed the need for strict environmental safeguards.[12]

Key Contribution: Emphasized the importance of balancing developmental goals with environmental sustainability.

10. Sterlite Copper Plant Case (2018)

The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board ordered the closure of the Sterlite Copper Plant due to environmental violations and widespread public protests. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, citing serious health and environmental risks from the plant.[13]

Key Contribution: Strengthened the focus on protecting public health and ensuring environmental safety.

Doctrines and Principles Developed by the Judiciary

Public Trust Doctrine

The Public Trust Doctrine is based on the principle that natural resources such as air, water, seas, and forests are so essential to the well-being of society that they cannot be subjected to private ownership. The Supreme Court of India declared in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath that the Public Trust Doctrine is an essential part of Indian law.[14] This doctrine mandates that such resources must be preserved and regulated in a manner that serves the collective interest of the public, guaranteeing their sustainable management and protection for current and future generations.

Precautionary Principle

In the landmark case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India articulated three vital components of the Precautionary Principle.[15] First, environmental measures must be prepared to anticipate, prevent, and address the causes of environmental degradation. Second, the absence of full scientific certainty should not be a reason to delay steps that are important to prevent environmental harm. Finally, the burden of proof rests with the party proposing an activity to demonstrate that it is environmentally harmless. These guiding principles ensure responsible environmental decision-making, particularly in cases involving potential ecological risks.

Polluter Pays Principle

The Polluter Pays Principle has received widespread recognition in recent years. Its core idea is that if the environment is polluted by any individual or entity, they must bear the costs of the damage caused, including cleanup and restoration. This principle does not rely on establishing fault or intent but is instead based on the belief that those who cause environmental harm must be held accountable for remedying the damage. It is closely aligned with the broader objectives of environmental justice and promoting sustainable development. The Supreme Court declared the Polluter Pays Principle to be a fundamental component of India’s environmental jurisprudence in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India.[16]

Doctrine of Sustainable Development

The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), in its influential report broadly known as the Brundtland Report, introduced the concept of Sustainable Development. It defines sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.[17] This principle has been integrated into Indian environmental jurisprudence, requiring courts to balance economic development with environmental protection.

Criticism and Challenges

Overstepping Separation of Powers

Critics argue that judicial activism sometimes results in courts assuming executive functions, which could disrupt the balance of power among branches of government. While the judiciary’s proactive role has been crucial in environmental protection, concerns exist about potential overreach into policy-making domains traditionally reserved for the executive and legislature.

Implementation Gaps

Despite progressive rulings, enforcement remains weak due to lack of political will, corruption, and bureaucratic inertia. Many landmark judgements have not translated into effective ground-level implementation, limiting their practical impact on environmental protection.

Access to Justice

Although PILs have widened access to courts, rural and marginalized communities still face significant barriers to reaching judicial forums. Issues of legal literacy, financial constraints, and geographic distance continue to impede equitable access to environmental justice.

Conclusion

The Indian judiciary has played a pivotal role in the evolution of environmental jurisprudence through its interpretation of constitutional mandates, innovation in legal doctrines, and addressing of environmental concerns via landmark decisions. Through its efforts, the status of environmental rights has been elevated to that of fundamental rights, and a legal shield against environmental degradation has been provided. However, ensuring environmental justice requires continuous vigilance, institutional strengthening, and collaborative governance involving all three branches of government.

The judiciary must continue to serve as the environment’s conscience, particularly as India pursues ambitious development goals. As ecological crises continue to grow, greater responsibility will be placed on the courts to ensure a balance between environmental protection and development, safeguarding the interests of both present and future generations.

References

[1] Courses DLMBJ & AO, “Landmark Environmental Law Cases Every Judiciary Aspirant Should Know,” Doon Law Mentor (January 11, 2025), https://doonlawmentor.com/landmark-environmental-law-cases-every-judiciary-aspirant-should-know/ 
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 652 
[5] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 
[6] M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388 
[7] T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267 
[8] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647 
[9] Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 281 
[10] A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718 
[11] Courses DLMBJ & AO, supra note 1.
[12] Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664 
[13] Courses DLMBJ & AO, supra note 1.
[14] Agrawal A, “Role of Judiciary in Environment Protection,” LawBhoomi (May 23, 2023), https://lawbhoomi.com/role-of-judiciary-in-environment-protection/
[15] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
[16] Id.
[17] World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Oxford University Press, 1987).