ENVIRONMENT LAW

IA – 2

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Environmental

Jurisprudence in India: A Comprehensive Study

SUBMITTED BY

JLU05831

2020BALLB084

ABHISHEK PARMAR

B.A.LL. B. (HONS.), VIIth SEM.

JAGRAN LAKECITY UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Environmental Jurisprudence in
India: A Comprehensive Study

INTRODUCTION

Public Interest Litigation plays a crucial role in instigating transformative changes and
promoting social welfare. It offers a broader interpretation of the constitutional guarantees
outlined in Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
within Part III of the Indian Constitution. By operating within the writ jurisdiction, PIL has
introduced various forms of relief and remedies. Specifically designed to assist oppressed and
marginalized classes who may face barriers in approaching the court independently, PIL
serves as a vehicle for their representation.

The interconnection between Public Interest Litigation and Judicial Activism is evident.
Judicial activism involves delivering decisions that align with the prevailing sentiments of the
time, emphasizing that it extends beyond mere lawmaking to encompass heightened judicial
involvement. This approach allows public-spirited individuals to bring matters before the
court on behalf of those who may otherwise lack access.

Environmental jurisprudence, rooted in diverse fields such as Basic Sciences, Earth Science,
and Common Law Jurisprudence, focuses on enforceable rights and addresses environmental
pollution.1 Given the profound impact of pollution on individuals and future generations, PIL
assumes a pivotal role in environmental jurisprudence. The court, through PIL, has
implemented several measures to safeguard and conserve the environment, recognizing the
need for substantial changes to protect the well-being of both present and future generations.

The period of emergency in India, spanning from 1975 to 1977 and declared by the then
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, highlighted a dominance of executive authority over the
judiciary. However, in the aftermath of the emergency, a transformation in this dynamic
unfolded. Noteworthy alterations were introduced in the criteria for locus standi. Justices
Krishna Iyer and Bhagwati, for example, relaxed the standing requirements, particularly
benefiting the economically disadvantaged and marginalized communities, thereby fostering
Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The initiation of the PIL movement was foreshadowed by
Justice P.N. Bhagwati in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India.2 This case established the
1
Neha Bhareth, environmental jurisprudence in india and its development, academia, https://www.academia.
edu/11067345/Environmental_Jurisprudence_in_India_and_its_Development, last accessed on 10/11/23.

2
AIR 1982 SC 149
notion that any individual with a sincere intention could invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court and high courts to seek redressal for the violation of constitutional or legal
rights, especially for those unable to approach the court directly.

At this point, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) had begun to broaden its scope, with numerous
cases specifically focusing on environmental concerns prevalent during that period. A pivotal
case in this context is Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand and Ors (1980 AIR 1622,
1981 SCR (1) 97), which addressed the deplorable working conditions endured by
impoverished individuals in factories. A PIL was initiated to tackle these issues, with the
court linking them to the fundamental human right of every individual to access basic health
facilities. The court, in a groundbreaking decision, mandated the municipality to ensure
proper sanitation and drainage facilities for the affected population. This verdict served as a
catalyst, inspiring the filing of PILs related to environmental matters. Subsequently, there was
a notable surge in environmental PILs, indicative of the significant impact of this precedent.

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)

A public interest litigation aims to promote equality and protect the rights of minorities and
disadvantaged individuals, addressing issues of broader public concern. It encompasses both
public and private law considerations and is activated through judicial review, serving as a
mechanism for the judiciary to scrutinize the actions of the legislative and executive
branches.3

Key features of a PIL involve:

 Imposing accountability on the relevant public entity or the government itself.

 Providing clarification on legal provisions.
 Administering justice to marginalized or disadvantaged groups.
 Allowing for initiation by the court without the affected party having to directly
approach, demonstrating flexibility in suo motu proceedings.

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)

Before the advent of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the emphasis was on the concept of suo
motu. Under this approach, only the aggrieved party had the right to approach the court,
seeking justice for injuries inflicted by the injurer. However, the dynamics shifted after the

3
About public interest litigation, the pils project, https://www.pilsni.org/about-public-interest-litigation, last
accessed on 10/11/23.
1980s, specifically in the post-emergency period, marked by a surge in human rights
violations and an imbalance favoring the executive over the judiciary. A pivotal moment in
the emergence of PIL in India occurred during the Bihar under trial case, resulting in the
release of over 40,000 under trial prisoners.

In the case of S P Gupta v Union of India, Justice P N Bhagwati argued that "any member of
the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for
redressal of such public wrong or public injury." Justices Krishna Iyer and P N Bhagwati
sought to broaden the scope of the suo motu concept. The trend of PILs became evident in
cases like the Dehradun limestone mining case, followed by M.C Mehta's litigation
addressing pollution in the Ganga and vehicular pollution in Delhi. Subsequently, the
Godavarman Thirumulpad case further solidified the trajectory of PILs in India.4

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is not confined to addressing a singular issue; it can also
encompass potential consequences that may arise in the future. The relief sought through a
PIL is aimed at benefiting both the government and the broader society. It is crucial to
emphasize that a petitioner initiates a PIL for a cause that holds significance for the public,
intending to bring about societal benefits. An essential aspect to highlight is that in cases like
Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar, the petitioner engaged in the collection and sale of sludges,
had a contractual arrangement with Tata Iron and Steel Company for gathering sludges from
a pond. Subhash Kumar sought a similar contract for collecting sludges from the Bokaro
River, but the company declined the proposal. Subsequently, he filed a petition against the
company, alleging environmental pollution. However, the court noted that his petition
appeared to stem from personal animosity toward the company rather than a genuine concern
for the public interest.

ASSESSING THE IMPACT AND EFFICACY OF PIL

PIL serves as a crucial tool, with environmental NGOs and activists filing numerous petitions
to ensure the effective enforcement of environmental laws. It has significantly contributed to
the development of environmental jurisprudence. However, courts have tended to emphasize
cases related to various forms of pollution, often overlooking environmental damage caused
by infrastructure. The roots of PIL strengthened post-emergency, as the executive began
exceeding its authority, prompting the need for judicial control. An important aspect of PIL is

4
Armin Rosencranz, Ayesha Khan, Geetanjoy Sahu, How effective are environmental PILs, downtoearth, june
01 2019, https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/how-effective-are-environmental-pils--34403, last accessed on
10/11/23
the concept of 'continuing mandamus,' wherein the court issues periodic interim orders
instead of resolving the case in a single judgment, enhancing efficiency and eliminating
unnecessary delays.5

In 1995, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad initiated a petition to safeguard the Nilgiris forest
from illegal activities. The Supreme Court, in this instance, broadened the scope of forests
under the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, issuing directions and orders over several years
instead of providing a final judgment. A significant issue concerning PIL was the doctrine of
locus standi, which restricted people's access to the court based on the title of the petitioner
rather than the subject matter. Previously, a third party could not approach the court without
experiencing personal injury. The doctrine has evolved to allow individuals with a sufficient
interest in the case, especially in situations where the affected parties are numerous and
dispersed, and there is no evidence of immediate personal injury; the harm is collective.

Public-spirited citizens, such as M.C. Mehta, have leveraged PIL provisions to approach the
court. M.C. Mehta, renowned for his tireless efforts in addressing environmental concerns,
fought numerous battles single-handedly. His dedication earned him the Goldman
Environmental Prize in 1996.

Several notable cases handled by M.C. Mehta include M.C. Mehta & ANR.ETC. V. Union of
India & Ors. ETC 1987 AIR 965, 1986 SCR (1) 312, addressing the Oleum gas leak from the
Shriram chemical factory in 1986. This case marked the establishment of the concept of
absolute liability and led to the subsequent enactment of the Environmental Protection Act.
Mr. M.C. Mehta initiated the Taj Trapezium case in 1984 to safeguard the Taj Mahal from
pollution emitted by the Mathura refinery. The court responded by prohibiting coal and coke
use and encouraging Compressed Natural Gas.

Another significant case is M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors 1988 AIR 1115, commonly
known as the Ganges polluting case, which tackled the deteriorating condition of the river
Ganga. As a result of the petition, approximately 600 tanneries were closed and relocated. In
M.C. Mehta v Union of India & Ors 1991 SCC (2) 353, the vehicular pollution case aimed to
combat vehicular pollution in India. The court mandated lead-free petrol, introduced in four
metropolitan cities in April 1995, and promoted the use of natural gas and alternative fuels.

5
Geetanjoy Sahu,Public interest environment litigations in India: contributions and complications,69 IPSA,
745,749- 750
M.C. Mehta's proactive approach extended to challenging government officials and policies,
exemplified in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors (1997) 1 SCC 388. In this instance, a motel
called Span in Himachal Pradesh diverted the course of the river Beas for beautification,
encroaching on forest department land. The court introduced the concept of polluter pays,
requiring Span Motel to pay exemplary damages of around 10 lakhs and return the land to the
forest department.

Beyond these cases, M.C. Mehta has actively advocated for coastal areas. These instances
contribute to the evolving history of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in environmental
jurisprudence, illustrating its development as a facet of judicial activism. PIL serves as a
means for public-spirited individuals to champion environmental causes when nature cannot
advocate for itself, encapsulating the true spirit of PIL concerning environmental issues.

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND IT’S EFFECT ON JUDICIARY

Before the advent of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), individuals turned to criminal and civil
laws for environmental protection. However, the lack of awareness meant people were
uninformed about established laws, making it challenging to bring environmental issues to
the court's attention. Additionally, there was no legal provision enabling a third party to
approach the court, even if not directly linked to the matter, as the concept of locus standi
posed a hindrance. During this era, courts prioritized the petitioner's title rather than the core
issue of the case. This coincided with the proliferation of various industries, diverting the
government's attention from environmental concerns. In contrast, the contemporary approach
allows any public-spirited citizen to approach the court. In environmental litigation, the
parties affected by pollution are typically numerous and dispersed, leading to collective rather
than individual or personal injuries.

The environment, being inanimate, lacks the capability to present itself in court.
Consequently, the judiciary has mandated that any concerned member of the public can
initiate legal proceedings and engage with the court on environmental matters. Despite the
existence of various established laws, there is a notable absence of authorities tasked with
overseeing their enforcement. The reliance on Public Interest Litigation (PIL) without
considering alternative legal avenues has its consequences. Provisions such as representative
suits and class action suits exist in the legal framework, offering potential applicability in
cases like the Bhopal gas tragedy involving mass torts. Both criminal and civil law present
viable alternatives, though they remain underutilized. Exploring these alternatives could yield
optimal solutions. However, the direct approach to higher courts precludes the option of
appeal, concentrating the decision-making process heavily on the preferences of the presiding
judge.

Moreover, it possesses the potential to impede the progress of judicial proceedings, given the
inundation of the Supreme Court with Public Interest Litigations (PILs). Some petitioners,
lacking a comprehensive understanding, file PILs with the expectation that the court will
somehow deliver justice. Justice Khalid astutely observes that certain PILs are initiated
without a clear rationale, constituting a genuine threat to the judicial framework. He
emphasizes the risk of these baseless cases diverting attention from legitimate ones.
Consequently, there is an imminent need to establish definitive guidelines for filing PILs,
discouraging frivolous petitions. The PIL cell within the Supreme Court should exercise
greater vigilance in this regard.

CONCLUSION

According to Mahatma Gandhi, "the needs of every individual are met by the Earth,
providing enough for satisfaction, but it cannot fulfill every person's greed." Hence, both the
State and citizens bear the responsibility of striking a balance between fulfilling essential
needs and desires. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) emerges as a vital tool in this process,
utilized by citizens to safeguard the environment. In the context of a democratic nation like
India, public participation in governance stands as a crucial precursor to democracy, with PIL
cases serving as a pivotal mechanism in empowering the public within the democratic
participation framework. Achieving a sustainable, efficient, and effective ecosystem
necessitates the attainment of several milestones, such as enhancing public awareness about
existing environmental protection laws and ensuring the proper implementation of court
verdicts.