1.

INTRODUCTION

The Earth Doesn’t belong to us. We belong to the Earth

. . . Marlee Matlin

Under the modern scheme for environmental management, courts assume a subsidiary role in
enforcement to administrative agencies. However, several new and innovative techniques are
available to bolster the role of the courts in environmental protection including tort,
administrative, and criminal law along with conflict of law. In addition, courts play a role in
determining the adequacy of quantification of environmental damage. Before 1980s, only the
aggrieved party could personally knock on 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 also judicial activism. In
a modern welfare state, justice has to address social realities and meet the demands of time.
Protection of the environment throws up a host of problems for a developing nation like ours.
Administrative and legislative strategies of harmonization of environmental values with
developmental values are a must and are to be formulated in the crucible of prevalent socio-
economic conditions in the country. In determining the scope of the powers and functions of
administrative agencies and in striking a balance between the environmental and development,
the courts have a crucial role to play. Principle 10 of Rio Declaration of 1992 specially provides
for effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy.
The judiciaries’ anxiety for combating environmental assaults has already been well
elucidated. Its concern for the maintenance and preservation of forests, one of our depleting
natural resources has also been highlighted. The Public Interest Litigations (PIL) in India
initiated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court emerged through human rights jurisprudence and
environmental jurisprudence. PIL in Indian Law has been introduced by the Hon’ble judges.
The traditional concept of Locus Standii is no longer a bar for the community oriented Public
Interest Litigations. Though not an aggrieved party, environmentally conscious individuals,
groups or NGOs now have access to the Supreme Court/High Courts through PIL. The Hon’ble

1
 Supreme Court while taking cognizance of the petitions has further relaxed the requirement of
a formal writ to seek redressal before the Court. Any citizen can invoke the jurisdiction of the
Court, especially in human rights and environmental matters even by writing a simple postcard.

The Constitution of India has basic features in respect of the power of judicial review by the
Supreme Court. Under Part III of the Constitution, which guarantees fundamental rights to the
people and under Part IV, the State is under obligation to implement the Directive Principles.
Article 39-A of the Constitution provides “Right of Access to Courts” to the citizens. In
exercise of its powers of judicial review, the Court enforces the constitutional and legal rights
of the underprivileged by transforming the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and
by interoperating the Articles 48-A and 51 A (g) of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has given a new dimension to the environmental jurisprudence in India with a
view to meeting the problems in the environmental field.

The Environment Protection Act defines the term ‘environment’ as one which includes water,
air and land and the inter relationship which exists among and between water, air and land, and
human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organisms and property.1

The problem of environment protection is as old as the evolution of homo sapiens on this
planet. With the development of science and technology and with the ever-increasing world
population, came tremendous changes in the human environment. These changes upset the eco-
laws of nature, thereby shaking the balance of human life.2

1
The Environment (Protection) Act 1986, section 2(a)
2
P. Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law in India 01 (Lexis Nexis, Gurugram, 5th edn., 2019).

2
 2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
At present most environmental actions in India are brought under Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution. The writ procedure is preferred over the conventional suit because it is speedy,
relatively inexpensive and offers direct access to the highest courts of the land. Nevertheless,
class action suits also have their own advantages. The powers of the Supreme Court to issue
directions under Article 32 and that of the high courts under Article 226 have attained greater
significance in environmental litigation. The Supreme Court of India in numerous matters
elaborated the scope of Article 21 of the constitution of India, which deals with protection of
life and personal liberty - No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by Law. In the matter of Rural Litigation and Entitlement
Kendra Vs State of U.P.3 - the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the right to unpolluted
environment and preservation and protection of nature’s gifts has also been conceded under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Constitutional provisions provide the bedrock for
the framing of environmental legislation in the country. Article 48-A of the Constitution deals
with the Protection and Improvement of the Environment and Safeguarding of Forests and
Wildlife – The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard
the forests and wildlife of the country. Based on the said provisions, the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (as amended in 1986) have
been enacted by the Parliament. Under Part IV-A of the Directive Principles of State Policy,
Fundamental Duties have been added under Article 51-A by the 42nd Amendment of the
Constitution in 1976. Under Article 51-A(g) provides the Fundamental Duties with respect to
the environment which includes - To protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.

Indian environmental statutes chiefly employ a system of licensing and criminal sanctions to
preserve natural resources and regulate their use. Civil compensation recovered through private
citizens’ suits plays a peripheral role in the overall regulatory strategy.4

3
AIR 1987 SC 359
4
Shyam Divan and Armin Roscencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India 40 (Oxford, Delhi, 2nd edn., 2001)

3
The Environment related Laws enacted by the Parliament under Articles 252 and 253 of the
Constitution of India. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was
promulgated as a Central Legislation under Article 252 of the Constitution. Since, the “water”
is listed under the State list; a Resolution from two or more State Assemblies empowering the
Parliament to enact the Legislation on the State List was required. The Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 became effective at the State level when it was adopted by the
concerned State Assemblies. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 were promulgated under Article 253 of the Constitution
of India, which empowered the Parliament to enact legislations on such matters as necessary
for compliance of International Agreements in which India has been a party. The formulation
of certain principles to develop a better regime for protecting the environment is a remarkable
achievement. In the Bhopal Gas case, the Supreme Court formulated the doctrine of absolute
liability for harm caused by hazardous and inherently dangerous industries by interpreting the
scope of the power under Article 32 to issue directions or orders which ever may be appropriate
in appropriate proceedings. According to the Court, this power could be utilized for forging
new remedies and fashioning new strategies.

These directions were given by courts for disciplining the developmental processes, keeping
in view the demands of ecological security and integrity. In one of the earlier cases, Rural
Litigation Kendra, that posed an environment development dilemma, Supreme Court gave
directions that were necessary to avert an ecological imbalance, such as the constitution of
expert committees to study and suggest solutions, establishment of a monitoring committee to
oversee afforestation programs and stoppage of mining operations that hurt the ecology.

The rights to livelihood and a clean environment are of grave concern to the courts whenever
they issue a direction in an environmental case. In the CERCs case, Laborers engaged in the
asbestos industry were declared to be entitled to medical benefits and compensation for health
hazards, which were detected after retirement. Whenever industries are closed or relocated,
laborers losing their jobs and people who are thereby dislocated were directed to be properly
rehabilitated. The traditional rights of tribal people and fisherman are not neglected when court
issue directions for protection of flora and fauna near sanctuaries or for management of costal

4
 zones. In L. K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan5, the Rajasthan High Court observed that a
citizen's duty to protect to protect the environment under Article. 51-A(g) of the Constitution
bestows upon the citizens the right to clean environment. The judiciary may go to the extent
of asking the government to constitute national and state regulatory boards or environmental
courts. In most cases, courts have issued directions to remind statutory authorities of their
responsibility to protect the environment. Thus, directions were given to local bodies,
especially municipal authorities, to remove garbage and waste and clean towns and cities.

In Indian Council for Environ-legal Action v. Union of India6, Supreme Court felt that such
conditions in different parts of the country being better known to them, the high courts would
be the appropriate forum to be moved for more effective implementation and monitoring of
the anti-pollution law. The liberal use of PIL against assaults on the environment does not mean
that the courts, even if it is tainted with bias, ill will or intent to black mailing will entertain
every allegation. This amounts to vexatious and frivolous litigation. When the primary purpose
for filing a PIL is not public interest, courts will not interfere. In Subhash Kumar Vs. State of
Bihar7, the Supreme Court upheld that affected persons or even a group of social workers or
journalists, but not at the instance of a person or persons who had a bias or personal grudge or
enmity could initiate PIL for environmental rights.

The apex court in landmark judgment of S. P. Gupta v. Union of India8, elucidated in the
following words: “but we must hasten to make it clear that the individual who moves to court
for judicial redress in cases of this kind must be acting bona fide with a view to vindicating the
cause of justice and if he is acting for personal gain or private profit or out of political
motivation or other oblique consideration, the court should not allow itself to be activated at
the instance of such person and must reject his application at the threshold” The right to
humane and healthy environment is seen indirectly approved in the MC Mehta group of cases,
decided subsequently by the Supreme Court. The first MC Mehta case enlarged the scope of
the right to live and said that the state had the power to restrict hazardous industrial activities

5
AIR 1988 RAJ 2.
6
AIR 1995 SC 2252.
7
AIR 1991 SC 420.
8
AIR 1982 SC 149.

5
to protect the right of the people to live in a healthy environment. Although the second MC
Mehta case modified some of the conditions, the third MC Mehta case posed an important
question concerning the amount of compensation payable to the victims affected by the leakage
of oleum gas from the factory. The Court held that it could entertain a petition under Article 32
of the Constitution and lay down the principles on which the quantum of compensation could
be computed and paid. This case is significant as it evolved a new jurisprudence of liability to
the victims of pollution caused by an industry engaged in hazardous and inherently dangerous
activities. The fourth MC Mehta case was regarding the tanning industries located on the banks
of Ganga was alleged to be polluting the river. The Court issued directions to them to set up
effluent plants within six months from the date of the order. It was specified that failure to do
so would entail the closure of business. The four MC Mehta cases came before the Supreme
Court under Article 32 of the constitution on the initiative of the public-spirited lawyer. He
filed the petitions on behalf of the people who were affected or likely to be affected by some
action or inaction. The petitioner had no direct interest in the subject and had suffered no
personal injury. Still standing to sue was not raised at the threshold question to be decided by
the Court.

6
 3. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
A predominant part of the existing environmental law has developed in India through careful
judicial thinking in the Supreme Court and the High Courts. While exercising their powers
under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court and the High Courts
respectively, have played a pivotal role in interpreting Article 21 for the redressal of
environmental grievances. The Courts have successfully evolved indigenous juristic
techniques by incorporating various international doctrines relating to the environment for
purposes of interpreting the Constitution and the Statutes, combined with a liberal view
towards ensuring social justice and the protection of human rights as a part of the
environmental jurisprudence of India.

The most characteristic feature of the Indian environmental law is the important role played by
the public interest litigation. A majority of the environment cases in India since 1985 have been
brought before the courts as writ petitions, normally by individuals acting on a pro bono basis.
Public interest litigation is a result of the relaxation of the locus standi rules. There was a
departure from the “proof of injury” approach. This form is usually more efficient in dealing
with environmental cases, for the reason that these cases are concerned with the rights of the
community rather than the individual.9

One of the most important procedural innovations for environmental jurisprudence has been
the relaxation of the traditional process of standing in the court and the introducing of the
concept of PIL. Until the 1970s, litigation in India was in rudimentary form because it was
seen as a pursuit for the vindication of private vested interests. 10

The judiciary looked into constitutional provisions to provide the court with the necessary
jurisdiction to address specific issues. Disputes that are normally matters of torts in other
common law jurisdictions are treated as cases pertaining to fundamental rights in India. Though
the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India do not specifically

9
Dr. Minal H. Upadhyay, “P.I.L. and Environment Protection” 2 IJRSML 1 (2014).
10
Geetanjoy Sahu, “Public Interest Environmental Litigations in India” 69 Indian Political Science Association 745
(2008).

7
 mention environmental matters, but the courts have held that Article 21 of the Constitution of
India entitles citizens to invoke the writ jurisdictions of the Supreme Court and High Courts
under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, respectively. These remedies have proven to be
powerful and expeditious tools for redressing environmental grievances because they provide
for direct access to the High Courts and the Supreme Court and eliminate the expense and
delay of normal appeals.

In India, in the past two and a half decades, environmental law has evolved at a fast pace
establishing a number of fundamental principles for its better implementation. A major share
of this innovation can be attributed to the Indian judiciary, particularly the higher judiciary
consisting of the Supreme Court of India, the High Courts of the States and now the National
Green Tribunal by incorporating various international doctrines relating to environment as part
of the environmental jurisprudence in India. The concept of PIL has therefore, facilitated access
to justice for all classes of the society, whether rich or poor, educated or illiterate, an individual
or an entire community, even an NGO.

The Indian Judiciary has upheld the doctrine of Public Trust. The orders and directions of the
Supreme Court and the High Courts at the State level cover a wide range of areas be it air,
water, solid waste or hazardous waste. The field covered is very vast such as – vehicular
pollution, pollution by industries, depletion of forests, illegal felling of trees, conservation of
wild life, dumping of hazardous waste, solid waste management, plastic degradation, pollution
of rivers, illegal mining etc. The list is unending. The Supreme Court has passed several orders
for closure of polluting industries and environmentally harmful aqua-farms, mandated cleaner
fuel for vehicles, stopped illegal mining activity, protected forests and preserved architectural
treasures like the Taj Mahal and prohibited construction activities in sensitive areas.11

A plethora of PIL’s are filed regularly before the Supreme Court and the High Courts and they
have played a pivotal role in creating environmental jurisprudence. Due to the paucity of time,
I am referring to a few of the landmark cases relating to preservation of the environment, which
are as follows;

11
Dr. Minal H. Upadhyay, “P.I.L. and Environment Protection” 2 IJRSML 2 (2014).

8
 3.1. In the case of Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand12, where the Municipal body of
the city of Ratlam, had failed to perform its duty of ensuring establishment of a proper
drainage system on the grounds of paucity of funds, the Supreme Court had introduced
the concept of PIL for the first time and had observed that a responsible Municipal Council
constituted for the precise purpose of preserving public health, cannot escape from its
primary duty by pleading financial inability

3.2. Ever since then, the Indian Judiciary has been evolving old principles and formulating
new ones to meet the needs of the hour. A perfect example is the case of M. C. Mehta v.
UOI13, where an oleum gas leak at an industrial plant in the capital city of Delhi in the
year 1985 had led to the death of a person and raised serious health issues in the general
populous. In this case, the Supreme Court had introduced the doctrine of ‘Absolute
Liability’ on the user of hazardous material, thereby eroding the possibility of the
offending party taking any defense to wriggle out of its accountability. This rule was
evolved from the established principle of ‘strict liability’.

3.3. In Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India14, (Sariska BioReserve), a distinguished
NGO had filed a PIL in the Supreme Court in the year 1991, regarding large scale mining
activities illegally sanctioned by the State Government within the protected area that was
steadily destroying the Tiger habitat and pushing them towards virtual extinction. The
Supreme Court directed the constitution of a Committee headed by a retired Supreme
Court Judge, (Justice M.L. Jain) to prepare a list of the mines within the protected area
and to ensure the enforcement of the notifications and the orders of the Court. It prohibited
all mining activities in Sariska National Park and the area notified as a Tiger Reserve. In
the year 1996, the Chief Justice of India established a permanent Forest Bench to deal with
cases relating to environment and forest. In the year 2013, the Forest Bench was
rechristened as the “Green Bench” and it continues to oversee matters relating to

12
AIR 1980 SC 1622
13
AIR 1987 SC 1086
14
AIR 1992 SC 514 and AIR 1993 SC 293

9
 Sanctuaries and National parks as these matters do not fall within the jurisdiction of the
National Green Tribunal.

3.4. The Indian Judiciary has the unenviable task of drawing a fine balance between
environmental concerns and competing demands of development that generates
employment and adds to the national wealth. Keeping that in mind, in the case of Vellore
Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India & others15, the Supreme Court had invoked the
‘polluters pay’ principle. Here, the untreated effluents of tanneries and industries were
being directly discharged in river Palar that was the main source of water supply to the
residents of the city of Vellore in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court held that the “absolute
liability” principle for harm caused to the environment extends not only to compensate the
victims of pollution, but also covers the cost of restoring environmental degradation.

3.5. In the case of Research Foundation for Science Technology and Natural Resources
Policy v. UOI16, in the year 2005, the petitioner had filed a PIL in the Supreme Court
invoking the fundamental rights of a citizen as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution
of India and asking for intervention when a French ship ‘Clemenceau’ had posed a threat
to the maritime environment at the Alang Shipbreaking Yard situated in the State of
Gujarat. The Supreme Court responded by issuing a direction denying access to the ship
to make port at the Alang Shipbreaking Yard for dismantling. Showing deep concern over
the operation of shipbreaking, the Court had asked for recommendations from a
Committee of technical experts constituted by it. Directions were also issued to the
Government of India to enact legislation on this aspect, and as an interim measure, the
court had laid down a set of guidelines to be followed in order to mitigate the harm caused
to the environment by this activity that included decontamination of the ship prior to its
breaking and classification of the waste generated by the shipbreaking process into
hazardous and nonhazardous categories.17

15
1996 (5) SCC 647
16
2007 (8) SCC 583
17
Dr. Minal H. Upadhyay, “P.I.L. and Environment Protection” 2 IJRSML 1 (2014).

10
 3.6. In the case of Him Privesh Environment Protection Society Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh18 through Secretary Industries and Ors., in the year 2010 petitions were filed
before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, challenging the setting up of a Cement Plant
by an Industrial House in District Solan, H.P. alleging that the cement plant had been set
up in total violation of the environment laws, especially the EIA Notifications. The plant
had demolished a good part of the forest area and taken lands from nearby villages without
a proper public hearing. Conscious of the fact that passing of a closure or demolition order
in respect of the cement plant would cause immense hardship and adversely impact the
livelihood of thousands of innocent citizens, the High Court had invoked the principle of
“polluter pays” and imposed damages on the Cement Plant owner to the tune of Rs.100
crores, i.e., 25% of the total cost of the project. The aforesaid decision was challenged by
the Cement Plant owner before the Supreme Court but the appeal was dismissed in the
year 2013.

18
2012 SCC OnLine HP 2690

11
 4. LANDMARK DECISIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
4.1. Taj Pollution Matter: M.C.Mehta Vs Union Of India (UOI)& Ors. W.P. (C)
No.13381/1984
4.2. Ganga Pollution Matter: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3727/1985 (M.C.Mehta Vs UOI & Ors.)
4.3. Vehicular Pollution in Delhi: Writ Petition (Civil) No.13029/1985 (M.C.Mehta Vs UOI &
Ors.)
4.4. Pollution by Industries in Delhi: M.C.Mehta Vs Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil)
No.4677/1985
4.5. Pollution in river Yamuna: Writ Petition (Civil) No.725/1994, News Item ‘HT’, dated
18.7.1994, A.Q.F.M. Yamuna Vs Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.
4.6. Pollution in Noida, Ghaziabad area: Writ Petition (Civil) No.914/1996, Sector 14
Residents’ Welfare Association & Ors. Vs State of Delhi & Ors.
4.7. Noise pollution by firecrackers: Writ Petition (Civil) No.72/1998 (Noise Pollution–
Implementation of the laws for restricting use of loudspeakers and high volume producing
sound systems) Vs UOI & Ors.
4.8. Import of Hazardous waste: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 657/1995 (Research Foundation for
Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy Vs UOI & Ors.)
4.9. POLLUTION IN PORBANDAR, GUJARAT: Dr. Kiran Bedi Vs Union of India & Ors.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 26/98
4.10. Management of municipal solid waste: Writ Petition (Civil) No.286/1994, Dr. B.L.
Wadehra Vs Union of India & Ors.
4.11. Management of solid waste in class-1 cities – Writ Petition (Civil) No.888/1996
(Almitra H.Patel Vs Union of India & Ors.)
4.12. Pollution in Medak District, Andra Pradesh: Writ Petition (Civil) No.1056/1990
(Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action & Others Vs. UOI & Others)
4.13. Pollution by Chemical industries in Gajraula Area: Writ Petition (Civil)
No.418/1998 (Imtiaz Ahmad Vs UOI & Ors.) – Pollution by Chemical Industries in
Gajraula area
4.14. Pollution of Gomti River: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 327/1990 (Vineet Kumar
Mathur Vs UOI & Ors.)

12
 5. NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
To provide effective and expeditious disposal of cases about environmental protection and
forest conservation, the National Green Tribunal was formed on 18th October 2010 through
the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It is a statutory and specialized body that handles the
major environmental disputes in India. It replaced the National Environment Appellate
Authority.

The National Green tribunals (‘the tribunal’) were established across the nation to exclusively
deal with questions related to the environment, and to promote sustainable development.
entrusted with the great responsibility of ensuring a safe and healthy environment, in practice,
these tribunals face a multitude of issues. these range from an expanding scope of the tribunal’s
jurisdiction to its disregard of the sustainable development principle and the principles of
natural justice. The emergence of these issues necessitates a serious reconsideration,
rethinking, and reflection by the Tribunal, on the exercise of its powers in consonance with the
provisions of the National Green Tribunal act (‘the act’).19

5.1. Objectives of NGT

The NGT was formed with the objective of a special focus on environmental-related
incidents including the protection of forest and natural resources. The following are the
major objectives of the tribunal:
5.1.1. To ensure that environment-related laws are obeyed and act as a watchdog in case
of any violations.
5.1.2. To ensure the safety and conservation of forest and forest animals.
5.1.3. To prevent the harm caused to the environment due to government or private
actions.
5.1.4. To ensure proper implementation of environmental-related laws as listed
in Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act.

19
T.N. Subramanian and Rubin Vakil, “The Mechanism of the National Green Tribunal” 30 National Law School of
India Review, 74 (2018).

13
 5.1.5. To provide compensation to those who are victims of environmental degradation
and who have suffered damages as a result of it.
5.1.6. To work towards spreading awareness about various environment-related laws and
the issues prevalent in society.

5.2. NGT Intervention in Recent Cases

5.2.1. Baghjan Oil Well Fire Incident
In May 2020, a blowout was reported by a government-owned company Oil India
Limited (OIL), the blowout was reported at one of its gas-producing wells in
Tinsukia, Assam, near the Dibru Saikhowa National Park. After a few days, the
damaged Baghjan oil well, which had been gushing gas uncontrollably for a few days,
was engulfed by a large fire. This resulted in three deaths, widespread local
evacuations, environmental damage to the surrounding Dibru-Saikhowa National
Park (DSNP) and Maguri-Motapung Wetland. Furthermore, the chemicals discharged
as a result of the disaster are said to have devastated land and plants, are dangerous to
people’s health, and have harmed the livelihoods of individuals who work primarily
in agriculture, fishing, and animal husbandry.

The National Green Tribunal took cognizance of this matter when few
NGOs approached the tribunal. The National Green Tribunal’s primary bench,
chaired by Justice AK Goel, formed a committee, led by retired Justice BP Katakey,
to look into the cause and consequences of the disaster. OIL was also directed to
deposit an initial amount of Rs. 25 Crores with the District Magistrate, Tinsukia
District, Assam, and to abide by any further orders of the Tribunal, in light of
the prima facie case made out against OIL on the extent of damage caused to the
environment and biodiversity, damage to both human and wildlife, and public health.

5.2.2. Vizag Gas Tragedy

A huge gas leak from a chemical facility in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh,
happened early Thursday and quickly spread to areas within a five-kilometre radius,
killing at least eleven people; children were also among the deceased. A large number

14
 of household animals, cattle, and plants were harmed as well. As they sought to flee
the noxious fumes, several of them slumped to the ground. Hundreds of individuals
were observed to be unconscious on the sidewalks, beside the ditches, and on the lane,
hours after the leak, sparking worries of a huge industrial disaster. The manufacturing
factory used styrene monomers to make expandable polymers and it should be kept
at a temperature of less than 20°C. The factory was temporarily shut down due to the
lockdown because of COVID-19 except for maintenance tasks that were completed
within a defined time range.

The National Green Tribunal took a suo moto cognizance of this tragedy and
registered a case. The National Green Tribunal formed a five-member committee to
visit the site and submit a report to it within 10 days in response to the tragic chemical
gas leak in Vizag, Andhra Pradesh. The Tribunal under the chairmanship of Justice
Adarsh Kumar Goel also directed LG Polymers India Pvt. Ltd., the owner of the
facility where the gas escaped, to deposit payment of Rs. 50 crore with the District
Magistrate of Visakhapatnam. The Tribunal also said that leakage of hazardous gas at
such a scale adversely affects public health and the environment, clearly attracts the
principle of ‘Absolute Liability’ against the enterprise engaged in hazardous or
inherently dangerous industry and for the loss of life and public health in the gas leak
incident at its plant in Visakhapatnam.

5.2.3. Firecracker Ban

In the year 2020, the National Green Tribunal under the principal bench headed by
Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel has directed a total ban on the sale and bursting of
crackers in the cities where ambient air quality falls under the ‘poor’ and above
category and also to limit the use of firecrackers to green crackers and for no more
than two hours in cities/towns where air quality is ‘moderate’ or ‘lower’.

15
 6. JUDICIAL SANCTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The Supreme Court’s assumption of executive power in these cases contrasts with the
judiciary’s invariable approval of, or deference to, the executive regarding all large
infrastructure projects. Notwithstanding the occasional court defense of clean air, water, and
forests, and protection of people’s access to common or protected spaces, there seems to be an
inherent predevelopment bias in the High Courts and the Supreme Court. In the cases of the
Tehri (TBVSS v. Uttar Pradesh20) and Narmada (Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India21)
dams and the Dahanu Power Plant, (Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group v. BSES22)
the respective judges emphasized that it is not the job of the Court to interfere in these
development activities because they raised scientific and technical issues and policy matters,
which are best left to the executive agencies. The views expressed by judges in all
environmental litigation concerning infrastructure projects have supported the government’s
assertion that it must carry out its development activities, such as dams and power plants, in
the national interest. In these cases, the judges seem complicit with the executive branch in
subordinating environment to development. For example, in the Tehri Dam case, the
government’s own expert committee had identified several violations of the conditions that the
MOE imposed on the project before granting an environmental clearance, but the majority
judgment allowed the government to construct the dam anyway. Similarly, in the Dahanu case,
the Supreme Court did not follow the MoEF’s Appraisal Committee report, which declared
that Dahanu was unsuitable for the construction of a thermal power plant as it did not meet
environmental guidelines. In the Narmada Dam case, the dissent urged that construction of the
dam should not be allowed because it violated environmental guidelines, and the government
had not provided for rehabilitation and resettlement of the project-affected people. But the
majority judgment allowed the construction of the dam and found the government’s report on
rehabilitation and resettlement measures sufficient. With the Supreme Court finally beginning
to wonder whether it has overstepped its Constitutional mandate, Indian lawyers and scholars
ought to re-examine the most flagrant example of such judicial activism, namely Godavarman,
which has affected all forest cover, all forest dwellers and the timber and wood products

20
1992 (Supp) 1 SCC 44
21
AIR 2000 SC 3751
22
MANU/SC/0574/1991

16
industries throughout India for more than 15 years. While the concern for forest conservation
provided the initial justification for judicial intervention, it has led the Supreme Court to
effectively take over the day-to-day governance of many aspects of Indian forests, far beyond
anything that may be justified constitutionally. The outcomes for the forests have been mixed,
and the jurisprudence is of questionable quality, highlighting the dangers of judicial overreach.

17
 7. CONCLUSION
Thus, even a cursory study of the judgments of the Indian courts especially the Supreme Court
would reflect the consistent commitment of the courts towards the protection of the
environment. Very often the courts have had to not only lay down the law but also closely
monitor its implementation due to the political compulsions of the Government. The executive
needs to show stronger commitment towards implementation of environment related laws.
However, its needs to be appreciated that the efforts of the courts can only achieve marginal
success unless there is social, political and economic change in the Government as well as of
people towards adhering to a model of sustainable development us to maintain our commitment
to the protection of our environment.

The Indian judiciary has proved itself to be a strategic partner in promoting environmental
governance, upholding the rule of law and in ensuring a fair balance between protection of the
environment, social commitments and developmental considerations of the country.

18
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

TEXT BOOKS
1. Leelakrishnan, P. Environmental law in India. 5th ed., Lexis Nexis, 2019
2. Divan, Shyam & Rosencranz, Armin. Environmental Law and Policy in India. 2nd ed.,
Oxfor Press, 2001

JOURNAL ARTICLES
1. Upadhyay, Dr. Minal, “P.I.L. and Environment Protection” in International Journal of
Research in all Subjects in Multi Languages. (2014)
2. Sahu, Geetanjoy, “Public Interest Environmental Litigations in India” in Indian Political
Science Association. (2008)

WEBSITE REFERENCES
1. https://moef.gov.in/moef/index.html
(Visited on 22.02.2024)
2. https://academic.oup.com/book/44917/chapter
abstract/384771726?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
(Visited on 22.02.2024)
3. https://legalvidhiya.com/environment-protection-through-public-interest-litigation/
(Visited on 22.02.2024)
4. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/1057/1/012004
(Visited on 22.02.2024)

19