Dr. B.R.

Ambedkar National Law University,

Sonepat, Haryana

Role of Judiciary in India in Promoting Sustainable

Development

SUBMITED BY- SUBMITTED TO-

Rohan Verma Dr. Manveer Kaur
Section-A (Faculty-Environment law)
Roll no. 2101058
Semester- IV,
BA LLB (hons.)
1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

On completion of this project, it is my privilege to acknowledge my heartfelt gratitude and indebtedness

towards my teachers for their valuable suggestion and constructive criticism. Their precious guidance and
support kept me on the right path throughout while drafting this petition.

I wish to express my sincere gratitude towards my teacher Manveer Ma’am for her constant support and
guidance throughout. Without her support, I would have never been able to complete this project/petition
draft. Thank you ma’am.

I am also thankful to my institute for they have provided me with all the necessary E-books, journals and
articles via sources like Manupatra, SSC etc.

Thank you.

2
Introduction

Man became more materialistic as civilization progressed. His primary purpose in life was to amass
increasing amounts of material wealth. This sparked scientific innovation and new technology, paving the
door for natural resource exploitation. The deterioration of the environment became a possible threat
because of rapid and unregulated industrialization. Large-scale pollution and damage to the earth’s ecology
occurred as a result of the Second World War and the industrial disaster. People began to realize that if this
persisted, man’s very life would be risked.

Environmental contamination has long been a problem in India. As a result, Articles 47, 48, and 48A were
already included in the Constitution by the framers. The state is entrusted with a set of responsibilities under
these articles to protect the environment and conserve the country’s natural resources. The Parliament added
Article 51(1)(g) into the constitution since India was a signatory to the Stockholm Declaration of 1972.
Individuals have a responsibility to maintain and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes,
rivers, and wildlife, as well as to have compassion for living creatures, according to this article. Apart from
that, the Parliament passed numerous anti-pollution laws, such as the Environmental (Protection) Act 1986,
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution
Act 1981, The Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Act 1972, The Biological Diversity Act
2002, etc. to protect the Environment.

The Supreme Court of India is a well-respected institution; in general, the public views the Supreme Court
of India favourably compared to the state’s legislative and executive branches. The Supreme Court has
successfully dealt with a complex, multifaceted, and rapidly increasing and changing field of technology and
multi-disciplines. Judicial activism has resulted in numerous developments and has provided the valuable
raw material for the development of a comprehensive Indian environmental law. Thus, in the sphere of
environmental justice administration, the Supreme Court of India has stood tallest not only before the
legislature and executive but also before its counterparts in developed and developing countries, whether old
or young.

The Indian Constitution ensures that the judiciary is free from the influence of the legislature and the
executive branch of government, making it less vulnerable to pressure from both organs of government. The
remaining part of the paper is split into five sections. The following part delves into the existing literature on
Sustainable Development. Part 3: the Indian judiciary’s crucial role in interpreting laws to suit the
sustainable development doctrine, followed by a court verdict pertaining to Environment protection in Part
4. The conclusion and Suggestions are presented in the final section.

3
The Supreme Court of India has adopted the sustainable development principles

Sustainable development is not a new notion; many societies throughout history have recognized the
importance of achieving a balance between the environment, society, and economics. The articulation of this
concept of global industrial and information society in the twenty-first century is novel. Sustainable
development means many things to different individuals, but according to the Brundtland Report.

“Sustainable Development is a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Sustainable development focuses on raising the living standards of all people on the planet without risking
the environment’s ability to supply them indefinitely; it necessitates an understanding that actions have
consequences, and we must find innovative ways to change institutional structures and individual behavior,
in other words, it’s about taking action, changing policy, and practice at all levels.

The Supreme Court of India has stated that the United Nations Conference on Human Environment raised
environmental consciousness. The idea of “sustainable development” was also established for the first time
at the Stockholm Conference in 1972, and it is now recognized as a part of Customary International Law

The Supreme Court of India recognizes the following principles of sustainable development, which can be
defined as a programme or strategy for sustained economic and social progress without compromising the
environment and natural resources on which continued activity and development are dependent.

1. Inter-general equity consists of: – “Right development must be accomplished so that equality meets
developmental and environmental demands to current generations,” says Principle 3 of the Rio de
Janeiro Declaration. In the case of Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Bombay Environmental
Action Group, the Supreme Court of India supported this approach. The principle’s major goal is to
ensure that the current generation does not misuse nonrenewable resources in order to deprive future
generations of their benefits.

2. The Precautionary Principle is as follows: – “In order to conserve the environment, the precautionary
approach shall be extensively adopted by States according to their capacities,” says Principle 15 of
the Rio de Janeiro Declaration. “Lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as an excuse to
postpone cost-effective steps to avoid environmental degradation where there is a threat of
catastrophic or permanent damage.” The Indian Supreme Court embraced this approach in a
modified version, explaining that it has resulted in the principle of burden of proof in environmental
matters, where those seeking to change the status quo bear the burden of proof as to the absence of
detrimental effects of the proposed acts.

4
 3. Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration: states that “national authorities should endeavour to promote the
internationalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account
the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard for the
public interest and without distorting international trade and investment.” It is obvious from the
preceding note that the goal of the above concept is to hold polluters responsible not just for
compensating victims, but also for the costs of rehabilitating the ecosystem.

Origin of the doctrine:

The concept of 'Sustainable Development' is not a new concept. The doctrine had come to be known as early
as in 1972 in the Stockholm declaration. It had been stated in the declaration that:

" Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a
quality that permits a life of dignity and well being and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and
improve the environment for present and future generation "

But the concept was given a definite shape in a report by world commission on environment, which was
known as ' our common future'. The commission, which was chaired by the then Norway Prime Minister,
Ms. G.H. Brundtland defined 'Sustainable Development'

The Indian judiciary’s crucial role in interpreting laws to suit the sustainable
development doctrine

The Indian Supreme Court and High Courts have played a significant role in upholding the Sustainable
Development Doctrine. Various laws have been enacted in India to avoid environmental deterioration. In
this case, the higher court has played a critical role in interpreting those statutes in accordance with the
Sustainable Development Doctrine.

The Indian judiciary has played a vital role in promoting sustainable development and fostering public and
private industry while minimising the risk of irreversible damage to the natural environment, which is
necessary to maintain the planet’s and India’s healthy flora and fauna. It should be mentioned that all
lawsuits involving environmental issues have been brought before the court through Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court of India has made a tremendous contribution to environmental and ecological
protection, as well as the protection of forest wildlife, among other things. Despite the court’s limited
jurisdiction, it has played an important role in this regard. True, we have enough environmental regulations,

5
but their execution is in the hands of administrative authorities, and in this regard, excellent governance
devoid of corruption is the most important requirement for environmental protection.

But before Vellore Citizen's case, the Supreme Court has in many cases tried to keep the balance between
ecology and development. In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
which was also known as Doon valley case, dispute arose over mining in the hilly areas. The Supreme Court
after much investigation, ordered the stopping of mining work and held that:

This would undoubtedly cause hardship to them, but it is a price that has to be paid for protecting and
safeguarding the right of the people to live in healthy environment with minimal disturbance of ecological
balance and without avoidable hazard to them and to their cattle, homes and agricultural land and undue
affection of air, water and environment."

However in 1991, in the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P. the Supreme Court
allowed a mine to operate until the expiry of lease as exceptional case on condition that land taken on lease
would be subjected to afforestation by the developer. But as soon as the notice was brought before the court
that they have breached the condition and mining was done in most unscientific way, the Supreme Court
directed the lessee to pay a compensation of three lacs to the fund of the monitoring committee. This has
been directed on the principle of 'polluter pays'.

Likewise, various forests have also been protected. In a landmark case Tarun Bhagat Singh vs. Union of
India, the petitioner through a PIL brought to the notice of the supreme court that the state government of
Rajasthan though empowered to make rules to protect environment, failed to do so and in contrary allowed
mining work to continue within the forest area. Consequently, the Supreme Court issued directions that no
mining work or operation could be continued within the protected area.

But it would be unwise to hold that the courts always favour environment without giving any significance to
the development aspect when dispute arises between environment and development.

Court verdicts pertaining to the environmental protection

This should be noted that the Indian judiciary has taken a leading role in environmental protection and
sustainable development in India. The judiciary’s commitment to social good in general, and environmental
protection in particular, has resulted in the innovative use of “public interest litigation” under Articles 32
and 226 of the Indian Constitution as a tool for social and environmental justice.

The right to a healthy environment has been incorporated directly and indirectly into Indian top court
judgments, with the first link between environmental quality and the right to life being established in the
case of Charan Lal Sahu Etc. vs. Union of India and Others, also known as the Bhopal Case.

6
In Subhash Kumar vs. the State of Bihar, the Supreme Court of India construed Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution to hold that the right to life includes the right to a healthy environment, which includes the right
to pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. The Supreme Court has recognized the right to a
healthy environment as a basic right in this judgment.

The Supreme Court introduced the new concept of “absolute liability” for disasters arising from the storage
or use of hazardous materials from their factories in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & others, also known as
the Oleum Gas Leak case. The enterprise must ensure that no harm has been caused whether negligence
occurred or not.

The Supreme Court of India held in Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum vs. Union of India while businesses are
important for a country’s development, the doctrine of sustainable development must be adopted by them as
a balancing concept, and the ‘precautionary principle’ and the ‘polluter pays principle’ must also be
accepted as part of the law.

The Supreme Court stated in M. C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath that “any disruption of the basic environment
elements, namely air, water, and soul, which are necessary for existence, would be hazardous to life.” As a
result, a court exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 can award not only damages but also fines for
environmental degradation.

The Gujarat High Court stated in Abhilash Textiles vs. Rajkot Municipal Corpn. that “the petitioners cannot
be allowed to harvest profit at the expense of the public health.”

Conclusion

The environment and development are two sides of the same coin, and none can be sacrificed for the sake of
the other. Both, on the other hand, are equally important for our better future. In this situation, it is up to the
Supreme Court and the High Courts to handle these matters with extreme caution; only then will we be able
to fulfil our goal of ensuring a pollution-free developed country for our next generation.

Another issue that needs to be addressed is the location of the industry. In this regard, it is recommended
that, when an industry is hazardous, it is not to be in a location where many people live or near a colony,
considering the happiness and health of the inhabitant. It pertains to the provisions of Directives Principles
of State Policy Articles 48A and 51A (g).

We always kept in mind Resource management, which is another major issue that focuses on the idea of
“sustainable development,” which emphasizes that the right to development should not have an adverse
impact on the potentiality of natural resources.

7
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution has also played an
essential part in protecting the environment, as most of the Supreme Court’s environmental cases are the
outcome of this Public Interest Litigation.

The World Commission on Environment and Development observes, “What is required is a new approach in
which all nations aim at a type of development that integrates production with resource conservation and
enhancement, and that links both to the provision for all of an adequate livelihood base and equitable access
to resources.”

These industries or businesses/trades are sometimes found to be carried on in a way that endangers
vegetation cover, animals, aquatic life, and human health, but we now know that any trade or business that is
harmful to flora and fauna or human beings cannot be carried on in the name of the fundamental right. In
this light, we can only hope that the judiciary would play an essential role in protecting the environment and
assisting India’s industrial development by adopting a sustainable development policy.