Abstract

Environmental problems have been growing rapidly over the years, thanks to the many
human activities that have been taking place in the name of advancement at the cost of the
environment. These problems are accompanied by harmful effects on human and animal life,
as well as the planet as a whole. With the growing need for acting efficiently when it came to
dealing with the many environmental concerns in the country, the Indian Judiciary was quick
enough to grasp this need for which it worked extensively and relentlessly by making use of
Public Interest Litigation which allowed for worried citizens to bring environmental issues
into its attention for appropriate action. This article analyses some of these measures, their
need and importance in environment preservation, as well as historical cases that examined
the success of public-spirited citizens in bringing environment issues to limelight and the
Judiciary’s landmark judgements that added to the success of Public Interest Litigation.

Keywords: Environment, Environment Problems, Environmental Preservation, Judicial

Intervention, Public Interest Litigation.

Introduction

The surroundings in which humans, animals, plants as well as millions of microorganisms

live and work are referred as the environment. Environment has a long history in India. The
ancient Indians had a high regard for the environment and worshipped various
objects/manifestations of nature with zeal and sincerity. However, over the past couple of
years, environment world-wide has degraded. The contributing factors vary but are majorly
human. The fast pace development of the economy through extensive industrialization
leading to excessive release of toxic gasses into the air, water bodies and other natural
resources have caused these resources to deplete greatly. In India, a survey carried out by
IPSOS found that air pollution was one of the leading causes of environmental pollution at
50%, while climate change leading to global warming was just behind at 43%1. This is an
evidence of changes in the environment for the worst and the need to deal with this problem.

Consequences of Environmental Pollution

Environmental pollution has grave consequences on all the living organisms. Poor air quality
has drastic effects on lungs and prolonged exposure to toxic air can be fatal.

The 2019 Global Climate Risk Index (CRI), India ranks as the 14th most vulnerable country2.
Untreated sewage water goes into rivers and lakes especially from urban cities where
1
https://www.statista.com/statistics/999489/india-leading-environmental-issues/
2
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2019/637920/EPRS_BRI(2019)637920_EN.pdf
industrialization is booming. Individuals living on river banks contaminate the water so much
that it gets rendered unfit for human consumption. Industrial waste when released into the
water can prove toxic for the aquatic life. The overall pollution in the environment can affect
humans adversely.

Public Interest Litigation

Public Interest Litigation refers to litigation in a court of law on matters concerning the larger
public. Any matter of public interest can be brought up by this litigation. To understand it in
simpler words, any matter where the interest of the public at large is affected can be redressed
by filing a Public Interest Litigation. This concept was taken from the American
Jurisprudence. PIL originated in the United States when issues concerning public good were
the talk of the town. The courts give power to the public through Judicial Activism which
allows them to be vocal about public affairs. Even though it is not expressively defined by
any law or statute, it is a concept very much in use in India as it is in the United States. This
concept is important as it allows for individuals to directly approach a court of law on affairs
they think are to be discussed, or in most cases, rectified. It is not required for the aggrieved
party to himself or herself approach the court. The court may take cognizance of the subject
and proceed on its own initiative, or proceedings may be initiated on the petition of any
public-spirited citizen. PIL can be filed in a number of different matters, like domestic
violence, forced laboring, maintenance of heritage and culture, as well as environmental
pollution and degradation. Public interest litigation broadens the interpretation of the right to
equality, life, and individuality provided by Part III of the Indian Constitution.

Tracing the History of Public Interest Litigation

Public Interest Litigation was first brought up in America to give legal representation to those
who couldn’t afford it. However, the first unofficial use of this concept traces back to 18763
when a Legal Aid Society was created in America to give legal representation to immigrants
coming from various different parts of the world. This society was formed keeping in mind
3
https://bnblegal.com/article/public-interest-litigation-origin-constitutional-aspect-guidelines/
that not every single individual in the society is capable of affording legal aid or participate in
the legal system. Thus, it would create inequality between individuals leading to the
disadvantaged not getting justice. Individuals themselves started becoming more socially
responsible in the society. Soon, a new field of law was created which associated itself only
with Social Law and providing legal aid. Civil rights organizations had essentially won a set
of rights aimed at safeguarding the formal entitlements of social and political equality.
However, poverty and inequality remained. Several non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
and lawyers began taking matters of public interest before the courts. The problems
highlighted in the PIL included environmental preservation to corruption-free administration,
the right to education, sexual harassment in the workplace, industry relocation, and the rule of
law. All this led to the popularity of Public Interest Litigation as a tool for social change in
modern civil societies.

Public Interest Litigation and India

The Indian PIL is regarded as an improved version of the PIL of the United States of
America. According to the “Ford Foundation” of the United States of America, “public
interest law is a term that has lately been applied to activities to provide legal representation
to previously unrepresented organisations and interests.” It was during the Emergency Period
(1975-1977) that the Indian legal system with regards to PIL was transformed. This period
was when India saw a state of lawlessness, where individual liberty was largely controlled.
Those aggrieved could seek justice but there was no one to represent them in cases where
they couldn’t represent themselves. In order to prove a locus standi, the aggrieved had to
show that he suffered harm without which no litigation would take place. However, after the
emergency period, when the Supreme Court addressed the issue of people's access to justice
via dramatic adjustments, and modifications were made in the criteria of locus standi and
aggrieved party, the entire picture progressively altered. This allowed for Public Interest
Litigation to take place for the first time in India, and it was not only the aggrieved who could
approach the court, but also another on his behalf.

Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar:

This was the first reported case of Public Interest Litigation in India. It was filed by advocate
Pushpa Kapila and is a landmark case as it provided a wider interpretation for Article 21
(Right to Life and Personal Liberty). It was for the very first time then that the human rights
for prisoners were brought up in India. Prisoners were being held in detention even after
serving their jail time. A writ of Habeas Corpus was filed under Article 32 which required for
the release of these inmates. The State of Bihar was asked to divide the under-trial prisoners
on the basis of heinous and non-heinous offences. The court decided that these prisoners were
to be released. If their imprisonment was to continue it would be violative of their
fundamental rights. When undertrial inmates accused of bailable offences are brought before
the Magistrates, the State Government should provide a lawyer at its own expense to file a
bail application, therefore eliminating detention and allowing for a speedy trial. Moreover,
biasedness can’t be there if the poor is not able to afford legal representation, otherwise it
would be unfair and unjust to the poor as they won’t be able to get justice. The case inspired a
number of socially concerned people and lawyers to raise their voice for the ones who would
not be able to afford legal representation by their own selves.

The Supreme Court of India is one of the strongest courts of the world. It protects the
fundamental rights of all the citizens that are ensured to them by the Constitution of the
country. In cases of breach of these rights, it provides for remedies. One of the fundamental
rights is the Right to Life (Article 21). Under this right comes Right to Environment.
Therefore, any issue of environment concern which could threat the lives of the citizens is of
utmost importance for the court which is why it has provisions to protect the environment. At
times, the court has resorted to hearing PIL cases of environmental importance. Their
effectiveness has been questioned and so has been the specific aspects of India's legal systems
which enable the Supreme Court to play this beneficial role environmental protection as well.

In India, a PIL on environment can be filed on the following:

• Creating any type of environmental pollution that has the potential to damage the
public.
• Municipal corporations or panchayats failing to perform their duties, such as
failing to maintain adequate water and sanitation services in the area.

• Conflict between religious rights and the environment.

• Role of factories and industries in making the environment toxic.

Applicability of PIL on Environment Matters:

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others:

M.C. Mehta is a public interest attorney. He has single-handedly won several landmark
judgements of the Supreme Court, most particularly for his role in environment protection
and action.

The Ganga is an Asian trans-boundary river that flows between India and Bangladesh. It is
one of the most holy rivers to Hindus and a source of life for a billion Indians who live along
its banks. However, those settled near the river started abusing prestigious water of the river
for their own domestic purposes thereby making the river toxic. Though there were many
contributors, one such was the large number of toxic wastes from domestic and industrial
sector, among which, the industrial sector was responsible for releasing untreated toxic waste
into the river. M.C. Mehta filed a mandamus writ suit to stop these leather tanneries from
dumping of residential and industrial waste and effluents in the Ganga River. He wanted the
tanneries to have a plan of decontaminating the toxic waste before it was released into the
river. The Court emphasized the significance of key elements in our constitutional framework
that entrench the relevance and necessity of environmental protection. It argued in favor of
Article 48-A which provides that the state shall endeavor to protect the environment and
Article 51-A which imposes a fundamental duty on part of every Indian citizen there is to
ensure that no such activity done by him or her leads to environmental pollution in any way
and that it is their duty to protect the environment including forests, rivers, lakes, wildlife,
etc. The Water Conservation and Protection Act, 1974 which was enacted for water
preservation too was highlighted as Section 24 of this act prevents the liberation of any toxic
pollutant into water bodies. The court also used the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, as it
empowers the central government to take steps for protection the environment which includes
water, air, and land, and the interrelationship between these natural bodies and human beings.
This act lays down standards that toxic effluent producing industries should take before
releasing the toxins into any water body or environment. If they fail to do so, the government
will be bound to shut down such factories.

In the historic judgement, the court held no effective steps were taken by the Central
Government to prevent the pollution caused by the tanneries. They were ordered to establish
a plan for treating the pollutants they produced.
Church of God in India v. KKR Majestic Colony Welfare Association:

Here, the issue of noise pollution clashed with Right to Freedom of Religion under Article 25
and 26 of the Indian Constitution. A Church of God in Chennai having its own prayer hall
with drums, guitars and other instruments installed found itself in a legal battle with K.K.R.
Welfare Association of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for noise pollution which
was a nuisance to the individuals living nearby the area. The applicant, the Welfare
Association, filed a PIL in this regard. The church retaliated arguing the complainant wanted
to stop a minority institution from practicing its religious freedom. The court held that the
Church had given religious colors to this cause of action and that their rights under Article 25
and 26 were not being violated, but only restricted as they were to only limit the use of noise
creating instruments and control noise. If it continued to happen, it would disrupt the peace of
the residents nearby and add to the increasing pollution. Such would be injurious to public
health, thus, shouldn’t be allowed. The Right to Life of others can’t be sacrificed in the name
of Freedom of Religion.

Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India:

A PIL was filed by an NGO regarding large-scale mining activities within the protected
region that were being unlawfully sanctioned by the State Government and were slowly
degrading the Tiger habitat. It wanted a stop on such activity in the interest of ecology and
environment. The Supreme Court directed the preparation of a list containing every mining
activity within the protected area recognized as tiger reserve. The court held that the activity
was illegal and the state shouldn’t have been directing it. Stopping them was the only option
because of their illegal nature and affect on the surrounding ecology.

Conclusion:

To sum it up, the Indian Judiciary through its interventionist approach made possible by
relaxation on locus standi and advocating Public Interest Litigation, has shown to be a
strategic partner in advancing environmental governance, preserving the rule of law, and
striking a fair balance between environmental preservation, social responsibilities, and
national development concerns. It has developed some outstanding principles in its
judgements that have set a standard to be followed and used in cases relating to environment
for its protection. Involvement of public-spirited individuals and organizations has reformed
the Indian Judiciary significantly. It is through a collective effort that the idea of Article 21
pertaining to Right to Life has prevailed because without a balance between human activities
and environment, the true essence of this article would stand incomplete.