ROLE OF PIL IN

ENVIRONMENT
AL PROTECTION
IN INDIA
MEANING OF PIL
According to Indian law, PIL means a mode of
litigation which is carried out for  protection of
public interest. This type of litigation is introduced in
a court of law, where the court itself takes
cognizance or by any other private party and not by
the aggrieved party. It is not necessary, for the
exercise of the court’s jurisdiction, that the victim
whose rights are violated should personally
approach the court. Public Interest Litigation is the
power which has been given to the public by courts
through judicial activism.
“Public Interest Litigation means a legal action
initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of
public interest or general interest in which the
public or class of the community have pecuniary
interest or some interest by which their legal
rights or liabilities are affected.”
•The definition of Public interest litigation is not
mentioned in any statute or in any act. It has been
interpreted by judges to consider the intent of public
at large. However, the principal purpose of such
litigation is exclusively “Public Interest”. There are
diverse areas where a Public interest litigation can
be filed. For e.g.
1) When basic human rights of a poor person is
violated.
2) To question contents or conduct of any
government policy.
3) To compel municipal authorities to perform a
public duty.
4) When religious rights or other basic fundamental
rights are violated.
CHARACTERISTICS OF PIL
 Petitions in PIL are filed on behalf of a group or
class of persons .
 Petitions are on behalf of such group or class of
persons, who on account of their social, economic
or other constraints cannot approach the court for
any legal remedy.
 It is anew concept of jurisprudence which is
developing its own mechanism for justicing.
 It is a law proposed and propounded by the judges.
 It gives rise to such cause of action where legal
damage has been caused to the public at large or a
section of it.
 Liberalisation of LOCUS STANDI Rule.
Prior to 1980s, only the aggrieved party
could personally knock the doors of justice
and seek remedy for his grievance and any
other person who was not personally
affected could not do so as a proxy for the
victim or the aggrieved party. But around
1980, the Indian legal system, particularly
the field of environmental law, underwent a
sea change in terms of discarding its
moribund approach and instead, charting
out new horizons of social justice. This
period was characterized by not only
administrative and legislative activism but
FIRST REPORTED CASE OF PIL

Hussainara Khatoon & Others

vs
Home Secretary, State Of Bihar [AIR 1979 SC
1369]
In this case, the attention of the Court focussed on
the incredible situation of under-trials in Bihar who
had been in detention pending trial for periods far in
excess of the maximum sentence for their offences.
The Court not only proceeded to make the right to a
speedy trial the central issue of the case, but
passed the order of general release of close to 40,
000 under-trials who had undergone detention
beyond such maximum period.
CONCEPT OF PIL
The emergence of concept of PIL in the indian legal system has been
succinctly explained by P.N. Bhagwati, J., in one of his articles
contributed under the caption ‘Social Action Litigation’. The Indian
experience reads thus:
“The judiciary has to play a vital and important role not only in preventing
and remedying abuse and misuse of power but also in eliminating ,
exploitation and injustice. For this purpose, it is necessary to make
procedural innovations in order to meet the challenges posed by this
new role of an active and committed judiciary. The summit judiciary in
india, keenly alive to its social responsibility and accountability to the
people of the country, has liberalised itself from the shackles of the
western thought, made innovative use of the power of judicial review,
forged new tools, devised new methods and fashioned new strategies
for the purpose of bringing justice for socially and economically
disadvantaged groups…..During the last four or five years however,
judicial activism has opened up new dimension for the judicial process
and has given a new hope to the justice starved millions of india.”
•The contribution of M. C Mehta towards the protection of the environment is
truly outstanding. He is a lawyer by profession and by choice he is an
environmentalist. He is famous for his continuous fights in Courts for the
protection of the environment.
 Here are some of the famous cases,
where M.C Mehta fought for the
protection of environment.
M.C Mehta Vs Union of India (Taj
Mahal Case):
 TajMahal which is one of the finest examples of Mughal
architecture and one of the seven wonders in the world was
facing a serious threat from pollution caused by nearby
industries.
 The Taj Mahal and other historical monuments were facing a
serious danger because of acid rain resulted from high toxic
emission from these industries.
 M.C Mehta had filed a petition in Supreme Court in 1984, and in
1996 the Apex Court gave a historical verdict in which the
Court banned the use of cole and cake, and also directed
these industries to use Compressed Natural Gas.
M.C Mehta Vs Union of India
(Ganga Pollution Case):
River Ganga is a very sacred one among the Hindu people, it
flows through India and Bangladesh. But this holy river getting
polluted due to tanneries and shop factories in the banks of
the river in Kanpur. The river Ganga became so polluted that it
could no longer for either drinking of bathing.
M.C Mehta filed a writ petition in Supreme Court for the
prevention of nuisance, which resulting the pollution in the
river. The Court, in this case, had issued several directions to
Kanpur Municipal Corporation, Court also pronounced that all
these directions are also applicable for all other Municipalities
which have jurisdiction over areas in which River Ganga flows.
After this case, the Supreme Court ordered the Central
Government to direct all the educational institutions to teach
at least one hour in a week for the protection and
improvement of our environment in the first ten classes.
M.C Mehta Vs Union of India
(Oleum Gas Leak Case):
Oleum Gas Leak case is also known as Shiriram Gas Leak
case. It was a very significant one in the environmental field.
Shriram Food and Fertilizers was a subsidiary of a privately
owned company Delhi Cloth Mill Limited.
They have a single complex for all of their units, which situated
near a thickly populated area of Delhi. Within a very few days, it
created a nuisance for the surroundings of local people.
 M.C Mehta filed a Public Interest Litigation for the immediate
closure and relocation of the complex. On 4  December 1985
th

after one month of filing the petition, the Oleum had leaked
from the complex. As a result, several people injured.
In this case, the Supreme Court gave a landmark verdict and
the rule of Absolute Liability laid down. The Court also inserted
a new chapter to the Factories Act and made several changes
in environmental laws.
M.C Mehta Vs Union of India (Vehicular
Pollution Case):
Against vehicular pollution, the Supreme Court had
delivered a landmark judgment in 1992.
As per that judgment, retired Judge of the Supreme
Court was appointed along with three other
members to suggest measures for the nationwide
management of transport pollution.
Orders for providing Lead-free fuel within the
country, and for the use of gas and alternative mode
of fuels to be used within the vehicles are passed
and carried out. Lead-free fuel had been introduced
within the four metropolitan cities from April 1995;
all new cars registered from April 1995 forwards are
fitted with chemical action convertors.
M.C Mehta Vs Union of India (Ground
Water Pollution case)
Five small chemical industries were operating at
Rajasthan’s Bichhri without the proper flowing
plant. Toxic effluents from these industries were
entering the ground water and walls, which
affected 14 nearby villages.
M.C Mehta filed a petition on Supreme Court, and
after a fight of five years in Court, the Supreme
Court delivered its judgment in March 1996. By
that Judgment, these factories were closed.
In landmark case Vellore Citizens'
Welfare Forum vs. Union of India  the
Supreme Court allowed standing to a
public spirited social organization for
protecting the health of residents of
Vellore. In this case the tanneries
situated around river Palar in Vellore (T.N.
) were found discharging toxic
chemicals in the river, thereby
jeopardizing the health of the residents.
The Court asked the tanneries to close
their business.
Conclusion
In this manner, our judiciary has used the tool of PIL
quite effectively for the cause of environmental
protection. But the judiciary has shown wisdom in
denying false petitions seeking to advance private
interests through PIL as evident from the decision of
the Supreme Court in Subhash Kumar vs. State of
Bihar . Hence, PIL has proved to be a great weapon
in the hands of higher courts for protection of
environment & our judiciary has certainly utilized this
weapon of PIL in best possible manner.