G D GOENKA UNIVERSITY- SCHOOL OF LAW

SEMESTER IV
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

CASE COMMENT: RURAL LITIGATION & ENTITLEMENT KENDRA VS STATE OF

U.P

SUBMITTED TO: - PROF. ABHINAV KUMAR

SUBMITTED BY: -  RUDRRAKSHI PANDEY

COURSE:- BA.LLB (HONS)

ENROLL NO.:- 190060401019

1
 INTRODUCTION

Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra vs State Of U.P on 30 August, 1988

Given current attempts to improve forest cover through reforestation, India's forests are in bad
shape, with less than 18% of the country covered in forest in 1997. To maintain ecological
stability, 30% of the country should have sufficient forest area.

Forest resources are required by all sectors of the economy. Sacrifice of forest land for large-
scale project construction. The raw material source of woodland for paper, pulp and rayons is
used by large industrial interests. Timber products are exported, generating foreign income. As a
wood source for countless goods, small enterprises rely upon forests. Tourist revenue is
generating forest and wildlife parks as well. Finally, forests serve tourists from India and the
world as a source of mental and spiritual renovation.1

In the 1980s, the worldwide campaign to conserve the environment started to exhibit signs of
existence, coinciding with the Supreme Court of India's own awakening. This age coincided with
the emergence of the idea of Public Interest Litigation, and it was a time when the courts were
gradually focusing up topics that impacted the general public. 2 It is no surprise that the
deforestation issue has attracted major public attention given the broad demand for Indian forests
and that intensive debate has arisen as a result of the implementation of conservation and
reforestation programmes. Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State Of UP 3 is the first
in which the Supreme Court has been asked to strike a balance between environmental and
ecological integrity and economic demands on forest resources. This case is also famously
known as the ‘Dehradun Valley litigation’. The very first case in which the Supreme Court
requires an equilibrium of environmental and environmental integrity against industrial forest

1
Hyde, William F., “Deforestation and Forest Land Use: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications.” The World
Bank Research Observer, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3986432.
2
Aditya AK, Seven Judgements that shaped Environment Law in India, (June 05.2018), BAR AND BENCH,
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/seven-judgments-shaped-environmental-law-india.
3
1989 AIR 594

2
resource claims is the Dehradun Valley lawsuit. The case emerged in the Mussoorie Hill Range
of the Himalaya from haphazard and risky calcareous practice.
The following laws are applicable in this case:

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Right to Wholesome Environment (Art-21): Right to environment is not expressly provided in

the constitution of India, but by a series of judicial decisions, judiciary has taken into account
Art.21, Art.14, and Art.19 for protection of environment.

Art.21 states: “No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to
procedures established by law.”

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Environmental Protection Through PIL: Today, a person acting bona fide and having sufficient
interest can move the courts for redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social
and collective rights and interests. The basic ideology behind adopting PIL is that access to
justice ought not to be denied to the needy for the lack of knowledge or finances. In PIL, a public
spirited individual or organization can maintain petition on behalf of poor and ignorant.

The matter must require a legal remedy and be of public interest, which means it must:

1. Affect a significant number of people and not just individual

2. Raise matter of broad public concern

3. Impact on disadvantaged or marginalized group

4. Must be a legal matter which require addressing “pro bono publico” (for the common
good)

STATUTES 
 The Constitution of India, 1950
 The Mines Act, 1952
 The Environment Protection Act, 1986
 The Forest Protction Act, 1980

3
 FACTS OF THE CASE

The operation of quarries was carried out in Mussoorie Hill in the Himalayas. Limestone was
extracted by dynamiting the hills and blasting them out. Since the miners cut deep into the
hillsides, which is an unlawful practice in itself, this culminated in cave-ins and slumping. Many
villagers were killed and their houses, livestock, and agricultural fields were devastated by
landslides caused by a lack of vegetation. The state minister of mines declared mining illegal in
1961. Quarry operations, on the other hand, were able to resume mining operations after
successfully lobbying the state's chief minister and securing 20-year mining leases. This resulted
in unethical and criminal conduct, and safety laws were also not enforced.

In 1982 a total of 18 renewals were proposed which, due to environmental degradation, were
refused by the state. However, the High Court of Allahabad issued an injunction allowing the
petitioners to resume mining because the economic gains outweighed the environmental
considerations.

The Supreme Court got a letter from the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra in 1983,
concerned about environmental destruction. The letter was considered as a writ petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution.4 When the lessees of more than 100 mines entered the lawsuit, it
grew into a complex legal battle.

The mining operators argued that the court should dismiss the case, and the issue should be left
to environmental protection administrative authorities. It was up to the Government and the
nation and not the court to determine whether deposits should be used at the expense of
biodiversity and environmental considerations or whether the industrial requirements should be
met elsewhere, that the mining counsel relied on the 1986 opinion given on the case. The Court
dismissed the miners' arguments, which argued that the lawsuits had already started, and the
Court released major decisions before the Environment Protection Act was adopted. The
viewpoints of the court and the central government were not contradicted immediately.
4
The Constitution of India 1950, Art. 21

4
 JUDGEMENT

The Court prohibited blasting activities in 1983 as it investigated whether the mines were being
run in line with the Mines Act of 19525 and other related mining regulations. The mines were
assessed by an expert committee (the Bhargava Committee) appointed by the Court.

On the Bhargava Committee's advice, the Court ordered that the most hazardous mines and those
inside the Mussoorie City Board's boundaries be refused leases and that their activities be halted
immediately in March 1985. The second committee (the Bandyopadhyay Committee) was given
the authority to consider proposals proposed by miners to protect the environment and to hear
appeals from people who had been harmed by the mining. The Uttar Pradesh government was
ordered to provide the Bandyopadhyay Committee with the requisite funds as well as "transport
and other facilities to allow them to discharge their duties." Since the environmental impact was
less evident, the Court ruled that a third group of mines, including a large project operated by the
state of Uttar Pradesh, should remain open.

The Court determined in 1987 that mining in the Valley should stop after reviewing the
Bandyopadhyay committee's report, which was based on ecological considerations. The Court
declared that mining activity should only be allowed to the degree that it is appropriate for the
security of the nation and the maintenance of the foreign exchange.

The first affidavit from the Central Government, submitted by the Ministry of Environment and
Forests' Director of Environment, Forests, and Wildlife, was refused by the Court. The affidavit
detailed how limestone was used in industrial operations in Uttar Pradesh, but it did not include a
satisfactory assessment of other limestone sources in India or the degree to which national
defence industries depended on it. The second affidavit included all the required assessment and
concluded that it is not justified to carry on with mining activities at any mine in the Dehradun-
Mussoorie Area on the grounds that this is a defence sector's requirement.

5
The Mines Act, 1952.

5
In 1988 the Court determined that, with the exception of three operations, all mines in Dehradun
Valley should remain closed. Even though 800 hectares of reserved forest have been occupied by
the Dehradun Valley mine operations, the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 was in force when
the leasing office submitted the permission of the State government to mine operations. This
failure demonstrates uncertainty about whether the extension of leases initially issued before the
Act entered into force was subject to the provision of the Legislation or not. In the case of
Ambika Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat6, the Supreme Court resolved this issue. The Court
found that, under the terms of the Forest Protection Act, the state government can only extend
existing mining leases if the centre reviews and approves them.

In 1988, the Court found that continued mining in the valley breached the Forest Conservation
Act in the Dehradun Valley case. In addition, the Court walked beyond the provisions of the Act
to simply protect the forest and gave instructions for the reforestation of the valley. Though Uttar
Pradesh's state had a reforestation program, the reforestation record was not encouraging. The
Court subsequently formed a Monitoring Committee of the Federal, State and Local Authorities
and two "public-spirited" people who would oversee reforestation, mining and all other aspects
needed to achieve normalcy in the Doon Valley. The court also approved funding to the
Monitoring Committee to bring 25% of the remaining mine's gross profit in the committee-
controlled fund.

The Supreme Court also dealt with the well-being of mine owners and workers left unemployed
by the closures of Dehradun Valley's operations in addition to the ecological integrity and
national interests. The Court gave the following instructions:

1. Court orders that mine lessees whose operations have been halted be given first
preference for leases in new limestone-mining areas.
2. Directs the central department of Environment's Eco-Task Force to restore and reforest
mining-damaged areas, and that workers displaced by mine closure be given first
preference for jobs with the Eco-Task Force's operations in the region.

6
1987 AIR 1073

6
 ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

In the case of Dehradun Valley Litigation, though the Supreme Court took up the matter, the
Central Government was concerned at the time of the devastation in the Valley. In 1983, the
Indian Government assigned a Working Group in Dehradun-Mussoorie to examine calcareous
canyons. Similar findings concerning the detrimental effects of the mining on the environment
were drawn both by the head of the government's workgroup and the court committee, D.N.
Bhargava. The Task Force also prepared the court reports on the few mining operations
permitted.

The Government enacted the Environment Protection Act in 1986 during the lawsuit. The mining
operators argued that the court had to reject the case and leave the matter to administrative
authorities under the Environment Protection Act because this Act includes processes to deal
with the situation in question. The miners' counsel relied on the 1986 opinion released in the case
as follows:

The government and the nation must determine, and not the court, whether the deposits should
be used at the expense of environmental considerations and environmental considerations or
otherwise satisfy industrial requirements. Environmental protection is one of the most important
requirements for any country's overall growth. Biodiversity must be preserved if sustainable
growth and prosperity are to be achieved. When human understanding of environmental
sustainability grows, so does human awareness of the need to conserve the environment while
avoiding negative effects on nature.

The court dismissed the miner's claim that the dispute had begun and that the court issued
substantial orders before the Environment Protection Act was adopted. 7 In the immediate case,
there was no dispute between the views of the court and the central government. The centre
named the Valley as an environmentally sensitive region under the Court ruling.
The views of the Court and the Central Government were not conflicting at all in the immediate
case. The centre named the Valley as an ecologically sensitive region under the Act on the
7
The Environment Protection Act, 1986.

7
Protection of the Environment following the judgement of the court. Furthermore, under the
leadership of the Minister for Environment and Forests, he nominated a Doon Valley board to
preserve and restore degraded areas within the Valley.

The Apex Court found that mining in the Dehradun Valley reserved forests breached the Act on
Forest Conservation. However, only non-forestry operations on forest land not approved by the
Central Government are prohibited by the Forest Conservation Act.8

The Supreme Court has explained that renewal of the lease should be in accordance with the law
in force on the date of renewal, based on principles laid down in the Dehradun Valley Litigation.
Previous renewal was not a right of assignment and mining in the forest was strictly banned
unless the central government had previously given its approval. The permission of the Central
Government is a prerequisite and a lease or renewal is void without that approval.

MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

8
The Forest Protction Act, 1980.

8
At first, there was no direct environmental conservation provision in Indian Constitution. The
Stockholm Conference and growing awareness of the environmental crisis led the Indian
Government to pass the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1976 9 with a global awareness
of environmental conservation in the 1970s. In order to incorporate urgent environmental
conservation requirements, the Constitution has been amended. In the Directive Principles of
State Policy, the 42nd amendment inserted Article 48-A. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution 10
reserves the right to a wholesome environment as a fundamental right. The Supreme Court ruled
that the right to life guaranteed by Art 21 did not apply only to animals. This article was later
translated to include the right to a pollution-free ecosystem within its scope. The provisions of
Articles 32 and 226 provide for the issuing of prerogative and other writs, which have been used
to provide relief. Art 32 allows a person to bring a case directly to the Supreme Court for
violation of a fundamental right or any other legal right. A High Court may grant a writ for a
breach of a civil right under Art 226. In addition, the decisions on the extension of the locus
standi principle for invoking these rules were used to guard against environmental destruction. 11
It would not be an exaggeration to state that the advancement of environmental law in India is
inextricably linked to the country's judiciary system's growth and development.

Development depends on industrialization, which is the primary cause of environmental

destruction. The doctrine of sustainable development has been proposed as a solution to this
issue. To put it another way, there must be a harmony between development and the
environment. The sacrifice of national interest does not justify environmental destruction.
Administrative and legislative solutions for balancing environmental and developmental
principles are important, and they must be customized to the country's socioeconomic
circumstances. Courts have a very important role to play in defining the extent of administrative
agencies' powers and responsibilities and in striking a balance between environment and
development. The need of the hour is to balance development on the one hand with the
environment free of pollution on the other. A mechanism that will maintain sustainability over
centuries by enhancing the quality of life while living in harmony with nature and retaining the
ability to promote eco-systems. It concentrates on the coordination of development and

9
The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act. 1976.
10
Supra 2
11
Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar, 1991, AIR, 420.

9
environmental requirements. Sustainable development is thus the only solution, and
administrative measures should be carried out in conformity with this.

Connecting human rights and environment is a valuable sourcebook that explores the uncharted
territory that lies between environmental and human rights legislation. Human beings can ensure
fundamental equality and adequate conditions of life in an environment that permits a life of
dignity and well-being. There is an urgent need to formulate laws keeping in mind the fact that
those who pollute or destroy the natural environment are not just committing a crime against
nature, but are violating human rights as well. Indeed, health has seemed to be the subject that
bridges gaps between the two fields of environmental protection and human rights.

The advancement of the relationship between human rights and environment would enable
incorporation of human rights principles within an environmental scope, such as anti-
discrimination standards, the need for social participation and the protection of vulnerable
groups.

10