CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF

ENVIRONMENT WITH RELEVANT CASE LAWS

INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. Article 14 8

3. Article 19(1) (g) 15

4. Article 21 16

5. Article 48(A) 17

6. Article 51 20
 7. Article 51(A) 22

8. Article 253 24

9. Conclusion 25

Cases are attached to respective Articles *

INTRODUCTION

The history of legislative started with Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 268 defined what is

public nuisance. Abatement of public nuisance is also a subject of Section 133 to 144 of I.P.C.

These are only prohibitive provisions. Sections 269 to 278 of the Indian Penal Code are penal

provisions which means that a person guilty of violating any of the provisions is liable to
prosecution and punishment.

Legislative fight against pollution continued in independent India. Now there is a host of
legislation in India aimed at protecting the environment from pollution and maintaining the

ecological balance. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is one major Act for environmental

protection. The Government of India has launched various programmes and made use of audio-
visual media to educate the people and arouse their consciousness for the protection of
environment.

In February 1971, the University Grants Commission (India), in collaboration with other

organizations, launched a symposium on the development of environmental studies in the Indian

Universities. The consensus that emerged at the symposium was that ecology and environmental
issues should form part of the courses of study at all levels.
Further, with the object of generating an awareness of the need to maintain ecological balance. In

order to keep the environment pure and to obviate the hazards of pollution and ecological
imbalance, the Department of Laws, Punjab University, Chandigarh organised a three-day
m
all over India participated in the seminar.

It claimed:
(i) It is fundamental human right to live in an unpolluted environment.

(ii) It is fundamental duty of every individual to maintain purity of environment.

Soon after the Stockholm Conference, many Acts were introduced i.e. Wildlife Act, 1972; Water
Act, 1974; Air Act, 1981 etc. Within five years of Stockholm Declaration, the Constitution of

India was amended to include Protection and Improvement of Environment as constitutional

mandate. The protection and improvement of environment is now a fundamental duty under
Constitution Act of 1976. Govt., of India has set up a National Committee on Environmental

Planning and Coordination.

r cleaning the

rivers including Ganga and Yamuna. Prime Minister, Sh. Rajiv Gandhi constituted Central
Ganga Authority for the purpose of pollution control of Ganga. The enactment of Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 was the immediate off-shoot, of this programme.

The Supreme Court (writ petition (Civil) No. 860 of 1991) has directed the University Grants

UGC issued a circular to various universities to introduce

The main attention in the education on environment is as below:
(i) Over-population and the ways to check its rapid growth.

(ii) Afforestation as a preventive to soil erosion and water pollution

(iii) Methods to prevent air pollution, insisting on smokeless cooking

(iv) Discipline in playing radio and television sets and a ban on use of loudspeaker.

(v) Elementary knowledge of the scientific and philosophical basis of man and the environment

(vi) Rules regarding disposal of household waste; and

(vii) General principles of sanitation

Environment and Constitution of India:

The protect and improve the environment is a constitutional mandate. It is a commitment for a

country wedded to the ideas of a welfare State. The Indian Constitution contains specific
provisions for environment protection under the chapters of Directive Principles of State Policy

and Fundamental Duties. The absence of a specific provision in the Constitution recognizing the
fundamental right to clean and wholesome environment has been set off by judicial activism in

the recent times.

Articles 48-A and 51-A. Clause (g):

Initially, the Constitution of India had no direct provision for environmental protection. Global
consciousness for the protection of environment in the seventies, Stockholm Conference and

increasing awareness of the environmental crisis prompted the Indian Government to enact 42nd

Amendment to the Constitution in 1976. The Constitution was amended to introduce direct
provisions for protection of environment. This 42nd Amendment added Article 48-A to the
Directive Principles of State Policy.

Article49-A:

The Article states:

and wildlife of the

The said amendment imposed a responsibility on every citizen in the form of Fundamental Duty.

Article 51-A, Clause (g):

Article 51-A (g) which deals with Fundamental Duties of the citizens states:
to protect and improve the natural environment

Thus, protection and improvement of natural environment is the duty of the State (Article 48-A)
and every citizen (Article 51- A (g)).

Article 253:

country for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country. In simple
words this Article suggests that in the wake of Stockholm Conference of 1972, Parliament has

the power to legislate on all matters linked to the preservation of natural environment.

Acts were enacted to implement the decisions reached at Stockholm Conference.

Environment and Citizens:
The Constitution of India has made a double provision:
(i) A directive to the State for protection and improvement of environment.

(ii) Imposing on every citizen in the form of fundamental duty to help in the preservation of

worldwide concern. Since protection of environment is now a fundamental duty of every citizen,

it is natural that every individual should do it as personal obligation, merely by regulating the
mode of his natural life. The citizen has simply to develop a habitual love for pollution.

The Constitutional provisions

1. Article 48(A)
2. Article 21
3. Article 253
4. Article 51(A)
5. Article 19(1)(g)
6. Article 51
7. Article 14.

Article 14

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

14.1 The Government and the Contractor recognize that Petroleum Operations will cause some impact on
the environment in the Contract Area. Accordingly, in performance of the Contract, the Contractor shall
conduct its Petroleum Operations with due regard to concerns with respect to protection of the
environment and conservation of natural resources and shall in particular;
 (a) employ modem oilfield and petroleum industry practices and standards including advanced
techniques, practices and methods of operation for the prevention of Environmental Damage in
conducting its Petroleum Operations;

(b) take necessary and adequate steps to:

(i) prevent Environmental Damage and, where some adverse impact on the environment is unavoidable,
to minimize such damage and the consequential effects thereof on property and people;

(ii) ensure adequate compensation for injury to persons or damage to property caused by the effect of
Petroleum Operations; and

(c) comply with the requirements of applicable laws and the reasonable requirements of the Government
from time to time.

14.2 If the Contractor fails to comply with the provisions of paragraph (b)(i) of Article 14.1 or
contravenes any relevant law, and such failure or contravention results in any Environmental Damage, the
Contractor shall forthwith take all necessary and reasonable measures to remedy the failure and the
effects thereof.

14.3 If the Government in accordance with the laws has good reason to believe that any works or
installations erected by the Contractor or any operations conducted by the Contractor are endangering or
may endanger persons or any property of any person, or are causing or may cause pollution, or are
harming or may harm fauna or flora or the environment to a degree which the Government deems
unacceptable, the Government may require the Contractor to take remedial measures within such
reasonable period as may be determined by the Government and to repair any damage to the environment.
If the Government deems it necessary, it may also require the Contractor to discontinue Petroleum
Operations in whole or in part until the Contractor has taken such remedial measures or has repaired any
damage caused.

14.4 The measures and methods to be used by the Contractor for the purpose of complying with the terns
of paragraph (b)(i) of Article 14.1 shall be determined in timely consultation with the Government upon
the commencement of Petroleum Operations or whenever there is a significant change in the scope or
method of conducting Petroleum Operations and shall take into account the international standards
applicable in similar circumstances and the relevant environmental impact study carried out in accordance
with Article

14.5. The Contractor shall notify the Government, in writing, of the measures and methods finally
determined by the Contractor and shall cause such measures and methods to be reviewed from time to
time in the light of prevailing circumstances. The Contractor shall cause a person or persons with special
knowledge on environmental matters, to carry out two environmental impact studies in order:

(a) to determine at the time of the studies the prevailing situation relating to the environment, human
beings and local communities, the flora and fauna in the Contract Area and in the adjoining or
neighbouring areas; and
(b) to establish the likely effect on the environment, human beings and local communities, the flora and
fauna in the Contract Area and in the adjoining or neighbouring areas in consequence of the relevant
phase of Petroleum Operations to be conducted under this Contract, and to submit, for consideration by
the Parties, methods and measures contemplated in Article 14.4 for minimizing Environmental Damage
and carrying out Site Restoration activities. 14.5.1 The first of the aforementioned studies shall be carried
out in two parts, namely, a preliminary part which must be concluded before commencement of any field
work relating to a seismographic or other survey, and a final part relating to drilling in the Exploration
Period. The part of the study relating to drilling operations in the Exploration Period shall be approved by
Government before the commencement of such drilling operations, it being understood that such approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld.

14.5.2 The second of the aforementioned studies shall be completed before commencement of
Development Operations and shall be submitted by the Contractor as part of the Development Plan, with
specific approval of Government being obtained before commencement of Development Operations, it
being understood that such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.

14.5.3 The studies mentioned in Article 14.5 above shall contain proposed environmental guidelines to be
followed in order to minimize Environmental Damage and shall include, but not be limited to, the
following, to the extent appropriate to the respective study taking into account the phase of operations to
which the study relates

(a) proposed access cutting;

(b) clearing and timber salvage;

(c) wildlife and habitat protection;

(d) fuel storage and handling:

(e) use of explosives;

(f) camps and staging;

(g) liquid and solid waste disposal;

(h) cultural and archaeological sites;

(i) selection of drilling sites;

(j) terrain stabilization;

(k) protection of freshwater horizons;

(I) blowout prevention plan;

(m) flaring during completion and testing of Gas and Oil Wells;

(n) abandonment of Wells;

(o) rig dismantling and site completion;

(p) reclamation for abandonment;

(q) noise control;

(r) debris disposal; and

(s) protection of natural drainage and water flow.

14.5.4 Government shall convey its decision regarding any proposal for environmental clearances
submitted by the Contractor pursuant to the provisions of this Article or Contract or required under any
laws of India within one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of submission of application by
Contractor seeking such clearance. My clarifications/additional information required by the Government
shall be asked by it within sixty (60) days from the date of submission of the application by Contractor.
The final decision by the Government shall be conveyed within sixty (60) days from the receipt of such
clarifications/additional information from the Contractor. In case Government fails to convey any
decision to the Contractor, such application for the clearance by the Contractor shall be deemed to have
been approved by the Government.

14.6 The Contractor shall ensure that:

(a) Petroleum Operations are conducted in an environmentally acceptable and safe manner consistent with
modern oil field and petroleum industry practices and that such Petroleum Operations are properly
monitored;

(b) the pertinent completed environmental impact studies are made available to its employees and to its
contractors and Subcontractors to develop adequate and proper awareness of the measures and methods of
environmental protection to be used in carrying out the Petroleum Operations; and

(c) the contracts entered into between the Contractor and its contractors and Subcontractors relating to its
Petroleum Operations shall include the provisions stipulated herein and any established measures and

Contract.

14.7 The Contractor shall, prior to conducting any drilling activities, prepare and submit for review by
the Government contingency plans for dealing with Oil spills, fires, accidents and emergencies, designed
to achieve rapid and effective emergency response. The plans referred to above shall be discussed with
the Government and concerns expressed shall be taken into account.

14.7.1 In the event of an emergency, accident, Oil spill or fire arising from Petroleum Operations
affecting the environment, the Contractor shall forthwith notify the Government and shall promptly
implement the relevant contingency plan and perform such Site Restoration as may be necessary in
accordance with modem oilfield and petroleum industry practices.

14.7.2 In the event of any other emergency or accident arising from the Petroleum Operations affecting
the environment, the Contractor shall take such action as may be prudent and necessary in accordance
with modem oil field and petroleum industry practices in such circumstances.
14.8 In the event that the Contractor fails to comply with any of the terms contained in Article 14.7 within
a period specified by the Government, the Government, after giving the Contractor reasonable notice in
the circumstances, may take any action which may be necessary to ensure compliance with such terms
and to recover from the Contractor, immediately after having taken such action, all costs and expenditures
incurred in connection with such action together with such interest as may be determined in accordance
with Section 1.7 of Appendix C of this Contract.

14.9 On expiry or termination of this Contract or relinquishment of part of the Contract Area, the
Contractor shall:

(a) subject to Article 27, remove all equipment and installations from the relinquished area or former
Contract Area in a manner agreed with the Government pursuant to an abandonment plan; and

(b) perform all necessary Site Restoration in accordance with modern oilfield and petroleum industry
practices and take all other action necessary to prevent hazards to human life or to the property of others
or the environment.

14.10 The Contractor shall prepare a proposal for the restoration of site including abandonment plan and
requirement of finds for this and any annual contribution in accordance with the scheme framed by
Government to the Site Restoration find. This will be submitted along with the annual Budget for the
consideration and approval of the Management Committee.

14.11 Subject to Section 3.2 of Accounting Procedure, any Site Restoration fund scheme formulated by
Government and subject to provisions of this Contract, any and all costs incurred by Contractor pursuant
to this Article shall be cost recoverable including but not limited to sinking funds established for
abandonment and restoration of Contract Area.

14.12 In this Article, a reference to Government includes the State Government.

14.13 Where the Contract Area is partly located in areas forming part of certain national parks,
sanctuaries, mangroves, wetlands of national importance, biosphere reserves and other biologically
sensitive areas passage through these areas shall generally not be permitted. However, if there is no
passage, other than through these areas to reach a particular point beyond these areas, permission of the
appropriate authorities shall be obtained.

14.14 The obligations and liability of the Contractor for the environment hereunder shall be limited to
damage to the environment which: (a) occurs after the Effective Date; and results from an act or omission
of the Contractor.

KAMAL NATH CASE:

In the State of Himachal Pradesh, Span motel, owned by the family members of Shri Kamal Nath,
Minister for Environment and Forests, Govt. of India diverted the Course of river Beas to beautify the
motel and also encroached upon some forest land. The apex court ordered the management of the Span
motel to hand over forest land to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh and remove all sorts of encroachments.
The Court delivered a land mark judgment and established principle of exemplary damages for the first
time in India. The Court said that polluter must pay to reverse the damage caused by his act and imposed
a fine of Rs Ten Lakhs (Rs 10,00,000) on the Span motel as exemplary damages. The Supreme Court of
India recognized Polluter Pays Principle and Public Trust Doctrine.

Protecting the environment OLEUM GAS LEAK CASE, 1986

M C MEHTA, who was single-handedly responsible for making environmental

degradation a part of public discourse, says it is vital that PILs have no ulterior motive

Environmental lawyer Mahesh Chander Mehta relives what he told the Chief Justice of India
P.N. Bhagwati on December 4th, 1985. Oleum gas had just leaked from the Shriram Chlorine
plant in Najafgarh, and Delhi had panicked.

By a strange coincidence, M.C. Mehta had filed a public interest litigation against the Chlorine
plant a month earlier (before the gas leak), and was scheduled to argue another case before the
Chief Justice of India on December 4th. When the matter came up, Mehta referred to the Oleum

heard at 2 pm; the court immediately issu

punished the company heavily; the entire complex eventually shut down. More far reaching, the
Supreme Court created companies engaged in inherently
hazardous activities had absolutely no excuse when an accident occurred.

JUDGMENT
The court held that any enterprise that is engaged in an inherently dangerous activity is

IMPACT

The case took place soon after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and was keenly watched as an instance
of how the courts would deal with companies responsible for environmental disasters.
Unfortunately, the complex court litigation around the Bhopal Gas Tragedy was an example of
what not to do in such cases.
Article 19(1)(g)
(g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

Khoday Distilleries Ltd vs State of Karnataka on 19 October, 1994

Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6) spells out a fundamental right of the citizens to practise
any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business so long as it is not prohibited or is
within the framework of the regulation, if any, if such prohibition or regulation has been imposed
by the State by enacting a law in the interests of the general public. It cannot be disputed that
certain professions, occupations, trades or businesses which are not in the interests of the general
public may be completely prohibited while others may be permitted with reasonable restrictions
on them. For the same purpose, viz., to subserve the interests of general public, the reasonable
restrictions on the carrying on of any profession, occupation, trade, etc., may provide that such
trade, business etc., may be carried on exclusively by the State or by a Corporation owned or
controlled by it. The right conferred upon the citizens under Article 19(1)(g) is thus subject to
the complete or partial prohibition or to regulation, by the State. However, under the provisions
of Article 19(6) the prohibition, partial or complete, or the regulation, has to be in the interests of
the general public.

The right given by this article to freely carry on trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the
territory of India is undisputedly subject to the same restrictions as is the right
under Article19(1)(g).

Apart from the restrictions placed on the right under Article 301, by the provisions of
Articles 19(6), 47, 302 and 303, the provisions of Article 304 also place such restrictions on the
said right. So do the provisions of Article 305, so far as they protect existing laws and laws
creating State monopolies. The provisions of the aforesaid articles, so far as they are relevant for
our purpose, read together, therefore, make the position clear that the right conferred
by Article19(1)(g) is not absolute. It is subject to restrictions imposed by the other provisions of
the Constitution. Those provisions are contained in Articles 19(6), 47, 302, 303, 304 and 305.
ARTICLE 21
Article 21 of the constitution of India provides for the right to life and personal liberty. It states

Kendra v State of UP, also known as the Dehradun quarrying case, the Supreme Court of India
has held that pollution caused by quarries adversely affects the health and safety of people and
hence, the same should be stopped as being violative of Article 21.In this case, the Supreme
Court for the first time held that the right to wholesome environment is a part of right to life and
personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Further, in the case of Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar, again the apex court held that the right
to get pollution free water and air is a fundamental right under Article 21. Following this
decision, the right to pollution free environment was incorporated under the head of right to life
and all the law courts within the Indian territory were bound to follow the same. This laid down
the foundation of environmental litigation in India.

Similarly, public health and ecology3 were held to be the priorities under Article 21 and the
constitution of a green bench was also ordered by the Supreme Court.

In the case of Ratlam Muncipality v Vardicharan, where the problem of pollution was due to
private polluters and haphazard town planning, it was held by the Supreme Court that pollution
free environment is an integral part of right to life under Article 21.

Directive Principles of State Policy

Article 48(A)
48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life The
State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and
wild life of the country.

Sher Singh vs State Of Hp on 6 February, 2014

The citizens of the country have a fundamental right to a wholesome, clean and decent
environment. The Constitution of India, in terms of Article 48A, mandates that the State is under
a Constitutional obligation to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest
and wild life in the country. By 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, the Parliament, with an
object of sensitizing the citizens of their duty, incorporated Article 51A in the Constitution, inter
alia, requiring a citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including the forests,
lakes, rivers and wild life and to have a compassion for living creatures. The legislative intent
and spirit under Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution find their place in the definition of
'environment' under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short the 'Act of 1986'). The
legislature enacted various laws like the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981,
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,
the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Biological Diversity
Act, 2002 and other legislations with the primary object of giving wide dimensions to the laws
relating to protection and improvement of environment. It is true that Part III of the Constitution
relating to Fundamental Rights does not specifically devote any Article to the Environment or
protection thereof per se. However, with the development of law and pronouncement of
judgments by the Supreme Court of India, Article 21 of the Constitution has been expanded to
take within its ambit the right to a clean and decent environment.

Not only this, there is still a greater obligation upon the Centre, State and the Shrine Board in
terms of Article 48A of the Constitution where it is required to protect and improve the
environment. Article 25(2) of the UDHR ensures right to standard of adequate living for health
and well-being of an individual including housing and medical care and the right to security in
the event of sickness, disability etc. The expression 'life' enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a
much wider meaning which includes right to livelihood, better standard of living, hygienic
conditions in the workplace and leisure. The right to life with human dignity encompasses within
its fold, some of the finer facets of human civilization which makes life worth living. The
expanded connotation of life would mean the tradition and cultural heritage of the persons
concerned. In the case of Consumer Education & Research Centre (supra), the Court discussing
the case of C.E.S.C. Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra Bose (1992) 1 SCC 441) stated with approval that
in that case the Court had considered the gamut of operational efficacy of human rights and
constitutional rights, the right to medical aid and health and held the right to social justice as a
fundamental right. The Court further stated that the facilities for medical care and health to
prevent sickness, ensure stable manpower for economic development and generate devotion to
duty and dedication to give the workers' best performance, physically as well as mentally. The
Court particularly, while referring to the workmen made reference to Articles 21, 39(e), 41, 43
and 48-A of the Constitution of India to substantiate that social security, just and humane
conditions of work and leisure to workmen are part of his meaningful right to life.
Small Hydro Power Developers' ... vs Transmission Corporation of A.P. ... on
8 May, 2008

The said decision itself is an authority for the proposition that what is granted can be withdrawn
by the Government except in the case where the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies. The
said decision is also an authority for the proposition that the promissory estoppel operates on
equity and public interest.

Thus, the State has discretion to alter its policy. The courts cannot interfere with the policy
decision unless it is found that the decision to change the policy is arbitrary, unreasonable and
unfair. In the instant case, the State Government has not changed or withdrawn its policy of
incentivising the generation through renewable sources of energy. The policy directives
contained in GOMs are also not inconsistent with the expressed or implied provisions of any
statute. Rather the policy is in conformity with the preamble to the Electricity Act, 2003
and Article 48A of the Constitution.

As seen from above the thrust of the National Electricity Policy is upon the use of non-
conventional sources of energy to augment generation and for production of green energy. In fact
the electricity policy as also the MNES policy, the preamble to the Electricity Act, 2003 and
Section 61(h) thereof and GOMS 93 are in tune with the provisions of Article 48A and 51A (g)
of the Constitution and treaties, conventions and protocols on the issues relating to environment.

In order to support conservation of environment, Constitution was amended by 42nd

Amendment Act, 1976. By virtue of the amendment, Articles 48A and Article 51A(g) were
inserted in the Constitution. Article 48A, interalia, provides that the State shall endeavour to
protect and improve the environment. Similarly Article 51A(g), inter alia, casts a duty on every
citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment. Articles 48A, Article 51 A(g),
the Preamble to the Electricity Act, National Electricity Policy, MNES policy and GOMS 93
reflect the concern for ecology. This concern stems from the ill effects of pollution and global
warming. Since the environment needs to be protected, adequate and pre-empting measures are
required to be taken to incentivise the generation of power through renewable sources of energy.
But in case the original PPAs are re-opened for fixing higher wheeling charges than what is
provided in the G.O.Ms. No. 93., there is bound to be a set back to the generation of power
through renewable sources of energy.
The hike in the wheeling charges of power generated by plants based on renewable sources of
energy does not serve the purpose of promotion of power generation through non- conventional
sources. Setting up of power plant requires heavy investment and it has a long gestation period. It
is also well known that till the technologies are improved, the cost of production of power
through renewable sources of energy could be higher than the production of power through
conventional sources of energy. The impugned increase in wheeling charges of energy produced
by renewable sources is against the preamble and Sections 61(h) of the Electricity Act, the
National Electricity Policy, GOMs 93 & 112 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, MNES
policy and thrust of Article 48A of the Constitution.

In Chhattisgarh Biomass Energy Developers Association and Ors. v. Chhattisgarh S.E.R.C. and
Ors. 2007 APTEL 711, it was observed that where Power Purchase Agreements between
distribution licensees and the generating companies utilizing renewable sources of energy are in
conformity with MNES guidelines or various policy guidelines, the agreements are not to be
tinkered with.

The Commission has not considered the impact of the aforesaid decisions, the preamble and
Section 61(h) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the National Electricity Policy, MNES guidelines,
Article 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution and the aspect relating to protection of environment,
which has been the subject matter of various treaties and conventions.

Article 51
Promotion of international peace and security The State shall endeavour to

(a) promote international peace and security;

(b) maintain just and honourable relations between nations;
(c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised
peoples with one another; and encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration
PART IVA FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES.

State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab on 26 October,

2005

By enacting clause (g) in Article 51-A and giving it the status of a fundamental duty, one of the
objects sought to be achieved by the Parliament is to ensure that the spirit and message of
Articles 48 and 48A is honoured as a fundamental duty of every citizen. The Parliament availed
the opportunity provided by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 to improve
the manifestation of objects contained in Article 48 and 48-A. While Article 48-A speaks of
"environment", Article 51-A(g) employs the expression "the natural environment" and includes
therein "forests, lakes, rivers and wild life". While Article 48 provides for "cows and calves and
other milch and draught cattle", Article 51-A(g) enjoins it as a fundamental duty of every citizen
"to have compassion for living creatures", which in its wider fold embraces the category of cattle
spoken of specifically in Article 48.

In Mohan Kumar Singhania & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 594, a
governmental decision to give utmost importance to the training programme of the Indian
Administrative Service selectees was upheld by deriving support from Article 51-A(j) of the
Constitution, holding that the governmental decision was in consonance with one of the
fundamental duties.

In State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra & Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 7, this Court interpreted the
object of writing the confidential reports and making entries in the character rolls by deriving
support from Article 51-A(j) which enjoins upon every citizen the primary duty to constantly
endeavour to strive towards excellence, individually and collectively.

In T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 606, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court read Article 48-A and Article 51-A together as laying down the foundation
for a jurisprudence of environmental protection and held that "Today, the State and the citizens
are under a fundamental obligation to protect and improve the environment, including forests,
lakes, rivers, wild life and to have compassion for living creatures".

In State of W.B. & Ors. v. Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 129, Articles 48 and 51-A(g) of the
Constitution were read together and this Court expressed that these provisions have to be kept in
mind while interpreting statutory provisions.

One of the other reasons which has been advanced for reversal of earlier judgments was that at
the time when these earlier judgments were delivered Article 48(A) and 51(A) were not there
and impact of both these Articles were not considered. It is true that Article 48(A) which was
introduced by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976 with effect from 3.1.1977
and Article51(A) i.e. fundamental duties were also brought about by the same amendment.
Though, these Articles were not in existence at that time but the effect of those Articles were
indirectly considered in the Mohd. Hanif Qureshi's case in 1958. It was mentioned that cow dung
can be used for the purposes of manure as well as for the purpose of fuel that will be more echo-
friendly.

Article 51(A)
Fundamental duties It shall be the duty of every citizen of India

(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national Flag and
the National Anthem;

(b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;
(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;
(d) to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;
(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India
transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices
derogatory to the dignity of women;
(f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life,
and to have compassion for living creatures;
(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;
(i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;
(j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the
nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement PART V THE UNION
CHAPTER I THE EXECUTIVE The President and Vice President.

State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab on 26 October, 2005

the contexts in which article 51(a) appears in the document

By enacting clause (g) in Article 51-A and giving it the status of a fundamental duty, one of the
objects sought to be achieved by the Parliament is to ensure that the spirit and message of
Articles 48 and 48A is honoured as a fundamental duty of every citizen. The Parliament availed
the opportunity provided by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 to improve
the manifestation of objects contained in Article 48 and 48-A. While Article 48-A speaks of
"environment", Article 51-A(g) employs the expression "the natural environment" and includes
therein "forests, lakes, rivers and wild life". While Article 48 provides for "cows and calves and
other milch and draught cattle", Article 51-A(g) enjoins it as a fundamental duty of every citizen
"to have compassion for living creatures", which in its wider fold embraces the category of cattle
spoken of specifically in Article 48.
In Mohan Kumar Singhania & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 594, a
governmental decision to give utmost importance to the training programme of the Indian
Administrative Service selectees was upheld by deriving support from Article 51-A(j) of the
Constitution, holding that the governmental decision was in consonance with one of the
fundamental duties.

In State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra & Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 7, this Court interpreted the
object of writing the confidential reports and making entries in the character rolls by deriving
support from Article 51-A(j) which enjoins upon every citizen the primary duty to constantly
endeavour to strive towards excellence, individually and collectively.

In T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 606, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court read Article 48-A and Article 51-A together as laying down the foundation
for a jurisprudence of environmental protection and held that "Today, the State and the citizens
are under a fundamental obligation to protect and improve the environment, including forests,
lakes, rivers, wild life and to have compassion for living creatures".

In State of W.B. & Ors. v. Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 129, Articles 48 and 51-A(g) of the
Constitution were read together and this Court expressed that these provisions have to be kept in
mind while interpreting statutory provisions.

It is thus clear that faced with the question of testing the constitutional validity of any statutory
provision or an executive act, or for testing the reasonableness of any restriction cast by law on
the exercise of any fundamental right by way of regulation, control or prohibition, the Directive
Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties as enshrined in Article 51-A of the
Constitution play a significant role. The decision in Quareshi-I in which the relevant provisions
of the three impugned legislations was struck down on the singular ground of lack of
reasonability, would have decided otherwise if only Article 48 was assigned its full and correct
meaning and due weight age was given thereto and Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) were available in
the body of the Constitution.

Article 253

Legislation for giving effect to international agreements notwithstanding anything in the

foregoing provisions of this Chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any
part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other
country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other
body.

CONCLUSION

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.
 ISSN : 2394-1405

Environment Protection through Public Interest

Litigation-A Judicial Approach

REEMA AGRAWAL
Assistant Professor-II
Department of Law, M.M.H. College, Ghaziabad (U.P.) India

Key Words : Environment protection, Public interest, Managerial expertise

INTRODUCTION
Environment is the life of all creatures and includes things like water, air, soil, etc. Growth and
improvement of humanity depend upon environment. If the environment is not clean and safe then we
can’t develop. The concept of environmental protection is not new; it has been in existence from
prehistoric civilizations. Ancient India’s texts highlight that it is the ‘dharma’ of each individual in the
society to protect nature. ‘Atharva Veda’; the ancient Hindu Scepters stated “What of thee I dig out
let that quickly grow over”.1
Today’s world is modern and advanced and includes the use of high technology in every
system.But many dangerous chemicals, atomic plants, thermal power and deforestation create
hazardous situations. new innovations like, thermal power, atomic plant and so on without any sufficient
natural assurance pose another danger to the situations, the aftereffect of which results in issues like
global warming, climate change, acid rain, etc. Moreover, according to pattern of Indian legislature to
make a number of legislations as opposed to addressing the reason for failure and disappointment,
and passing new bills consistently is just like ‘old wine in new bottle’. Therefore, there arises a
requirement for a comprehensive analysis of the protection of the environment. In recent years, there
has been a sustained focus on the role played by the higher judiciary in devising and monitoring the
implementation of measures for pollution control, conservation of forests and wildlife protection.
Many of these judicial interventions have been triggered by the persistent incoherence in policy-
making as well as the lack of capacity-building amongst the executive agencies. Devices such as
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) have been prominently relied upon to tackle environmental problems,
and this approach has its supporters as well as critics.2

Need for environmental laws :

Today we are living in nuclear arena. No one can overlook the harm caused to the environment
by the nuclear bombs, dropped by airplanes belonging to the United States on the Japanese urban
communities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki amid the last phases of World War II in 1945. Day to day
innovation and advancement of technology, apart from development additionally expands the risk to
human life. Accordingly, there arises an intense and an acute need of the law to keep pace with the
need of the society along with individuals. So now the question of environmental protection is a

How to cite this Article: Agrawal, Reema (2014). Environment Protection through Public Interest Litigation-
A Judicial Approachs. 1 (1) : 29-36.
 REEMA AGRAWAL

matter of worldwide concern, it is not confined to any country or territory.3

Need of Public interest litigation :

Under Article 21of Indian Constitution, we have a right to live and breathe in a safe and non-
polluted environment in factpart iv of our constitution contains directive principles which states that
it is the duty of the state to protect the environment{ArticleArticle 48-A tArticle 51-A (g)} 4 .Our
constitution has given various right to us but in case of their infrrigment,most of us are unable to
exercise the remedies available to us since the procedure to avail those remedies is out of our reach
and quite expensive and complicated.therefore, Supreme Court thus expanded and liberalized the rule
of ‘Locus Standi’. As a result of this expansion, all the social activists, NGO’s, lawyers, public spirited
citizens, etc. are now entitledto file a writ on behalfof the person whose right has been infringed. In
addition to this, a court is also entitled to take suomoto cognizance of matters involving the abuse of
environment, prisoners, bondedlabourers and inmates of mental institutions, through letters addressed
to sitting judges.
Supreme Court started Public Interest Litigation (litigation filed in a court of law, for the protection
of “Public Interest”) to safeguard us against such infringement and entitle every citizen to file a
petition for punishing such offender. , the Supreme Court of India has played an active role in dropping
the increase of pollution levels through PIL PIL has proved to be an effective tool for the society .
There are many cases where Supreme Court has issued various guidelines and directions for the
protection of environment. Some of the leading cases are:

Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand 5

The judgment of the Supreme Court in instant case is a land mark in the history of judicial
activism in upholding the social justice component of the rule of law by fixing liability on statutory
authorities to discharge their legal obligation to the people in abating public nuisance and making the
environmental pollution free even if there is a budgetary constraints., J. Krishna Iyer observed that,”
social justice is due to and therefore the people must be able to trigger off the jurisdiction vested for
their benefit to any public functioning.”Thus he recognized PIL as a Constitutional obligation of the
courts.

M.C Mehta v/s Union of India6

In a Public Interest Litigation brought against Ganga water pollution so as to prevent any further
pollution of Ganga water. Supreme Court held that petitioner although not a riparian owner is entitled
to move the court for the enforcement of statutory provisions, as he is the person interested in
protecting the lives of the people who make use of Ganga water.

Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India7

The court now permits Public Interest Litigation or Social Interest Litigation at the instance of
“Public spirited citizens” for the enforcement of constitutional and legal rights of any person or group
of persons who because of their socially or economically disadvantaged position are unable to
approach court for relief. Public interest litigation is a part of the process of participate justice and
standing in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal reception at the judicial door steps.

Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industries and others8

It was held by the Supreme Court that when there is manufacture and sale of hazardous products
then necessary steps should be taken for reducing hazard to workman and community living in
neighborhood. There was leakage of Oleum gasfrom one of units of S and as a result several persons
were affected and it was alleged that one advocate practicing in Court died. The leakage was from the
(30) | Oct., 2014 | 1 (1)
 ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION THROUGH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION-A JUDICIAL APPROACH

caustic chlorine plant. There was prohibiting order under the Factories Act under which the plants
were not allowed to work till safety measures were adopted. Number of Expert Committees was
appointed to report in the matter. The reports showed that the recommendations were compiled with
and the possibility of risk or hazard to the community had been considerably minimized and it was also
opined that it was reduced to nil.
It was held that pending consideration of the issue whether the caustic chlorine plant should be
directed to be shifted and relocated at some other place; the caustic chlorine plant should be allowed
to be restarted by the management subject to certain stringent conditions, which were specified.

M C Mehta vs. Union of India9

Supreme Court directed to government to constitute a committee to monitor Taj Mahal and
Yamuna River. Supreme Court warned 212 industrial units that they will be shut down if they adopt anti
environment means. Districtmagistrate Agra ordered for the closing of 140 industrial units in order to
protect Jai mahal and other monuments.

M.C Mehta vs. Union of India and others10

A taxi driver sleeps at a cabstand in New Delhi.It was the beginning of green litigation in IndiaA
prominent decision was made in a petition that raised the problem of extensive vehicular air pollution
in Delhi. The Court was faced with considerable statistical evidence of increasing levels of hazardous
emissions on account of the use of diesel as a fuel by commercial vehicles. The Supreme Court
decided to make a decisive intervention in this matter and ordered government-run buses to shift to
the use of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), an environment-friendly fuel. 34 This was followed some
time later by another order that required privately-run ‘auto rickshaws’ (three-wheeler vehicles which
meet local transportation needs) to shift to the use of CNG. At the time, this decision was criticized as
an unwarranted intrusion into the functions of the pollution control authorities, but it has now come
to be widely acknowledged that it is only because of this judicial intervention that air pollution in
Delhi has

M.C. Mehta vs. Kamalnath and others11

It was held by the Supreme Court that as per Article 21 of Indian Constitution, polluting any
element of environment like air, water and soil is injurious and troublesome for life. An illusionary
compensation can be imposed on a person polluting the environment but court clearly stated that fine
cannot be imposed unless the accused is proved guilty.

M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India12

In this case, as per Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the petition wasto…...the constitutional
bench of Supreme Court through the three bench judges of Supreme Court who had earlier passed a
judgement in this case because when the petition was heard in its real sense, many important
constitutional questions were raised at that time.

Rural Litigation and Entitlementcentre Dehradun Vs. Uttar Pradesh13

In this case, by presenting a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the court was informed that due to
digging of stone mines in Dehradun, the surrounding environment had got polluted and even the
nearby residents were getting harmed.
Court constituted a committee to investigate into the matter and after seeing the report of
committee, the court ordered to stop the work of digging the stone mines.

| Oct., 2014 | 1 (1) (31)

 REEMA AGRAWAL

M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India14

In this case, the court by accepting a Public Interest case held that only Law can’t play the
primary role in protection of environment unless there is an exchange of social pressure and social
acceptance or will.
The court ordered the central and state government to deliever the notice and message concerning
environment in cinema halls and spread this information through radio and T.V.
The court further directed that the liscense of cinema halls should be cancelled if they do not
show the slides concerning the environment in cinema halls.
UGC was also adviced to think of making environment as a mandatory subject in the college.
Council For Environment Legal Action V. Union Of India15
In this case, a Public Interest Litigation was filed by a registered voluntary organisation regarding
economic degradation in coastal area. Supreme Court issued appropriate orders and directions for
enforcing the laws to protect ecology.

Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar16

Supreme Court held that the “right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution
and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If
anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have
recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be
detrimental to the quality of life.”

M.C. Mehta and Another v. Union of India and Others17

The court in this case has clearly laid down that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous
or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the
persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding area owes an absolute and non-
delegable duty to the community to ensure that no such harm results to anyone on account of
hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The court directed
that the enterprise must adopt highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such
activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no
answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without
any negligence on its part.

Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P. and amp; Others18
It was observed that every citizen has fundamental right to have the enjoyment of quality of life
and living as contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Anything which endangers or
impairs by conduct of anybody either in violation or in derogation of laws, that quality of life and
living by the people is entitled to take recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution.

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and amp; others19

This court ruled that precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the
environmental law of the country. This court declared Articles 47, 48A and 51A (g) to be part of the
constitutional mandate to protect and improve the environment. The Supreme Court of India, in
Vellore Citizens Forum Case, developed the following three concepts for the precautionary principle:
– Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental
degradation
– Lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures
– Onus of proof is on the actor to show that his action is benign

(32) | Oct., 2014 | 1 (1)

 ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION THROUGH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION-A JUDICIAL APPROACH

Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti and amp; Others20

While maintaining the balance between economic development and environmental protection,
the court observed as under:
Certain principles were enunciated in the Stockholm Declaration giving broad parameters and
guidelines for the purposes of sustaining humanity and its environment. Of these parameters, a few
principles are extracted which are of relevance to the present debate. Principle 2 provides that the
natural resources of the earth including the air, water, land, flora and fauna especially representative
samples of natural eco-systems must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations
through careful planning and management as appropriate. In the same vein, the 4th principle says
“man has special responsibility to safeguard and wisely manage the heritage of wild life and its habitat
which are now gravely imperiled by a combination of adverse factors.
Nature conservation including wild life must, therefore, receive importance in planning for
economic developments”. These two principles highlight the need to factor in considerations of the
environment while providing for economic development. The need for economic development has
been dealt with in Principle 8 where it is said that “economic and social development is essential for
ensuring a favourable living and working environment for man and for creating conditions on earth
that are necessary for improvement of the quality of life”.”

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. Sri C. Kenchappa and Others21

It was observed that there has to be balance between sustainable development and environment.
This Court observed that before acquisition of lands for development, the consequence and adverse
impact of development on environment must be properly comprehended and the lands be acquired for
development that they do not gravely impair the ecology and environment; State Industrial Areas
Development Board to incorporate the condition of allotment to obtain clearance from the Karnataka
State Pollution Control Board before the land is allotted for development. The said directory condition
of allotment of lands be converted into a mandatory condition for all the projects to be sanctioned in
future.

Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. S. P. Satyanarayana22

This Court referred to the White Paper published by the Government of India that the vehicular
pollution contributes 70% of the air pollution as compared to 20% in 1970. This Court gave
comprehensive directions to reduce the air pollution on the recommendation of an Expert Committee
of BhureLal appointed by this Court.

Re. Noise Pollution23

This Court was dealing with the issue of noise pollution. This Court was of the opinion that there
is need for creating general awareness towards the hazardous effects of noise pollution. Particularly,
in our country the people generally lack consciousness of the ill effects which noise pollution creates
and how the society including they themselves stand to benefit by preventing generation and emission
of noise pollution.

Indian Council for Envirolegal Action v. Union of India and amp; Others24
The main grievance in the petition is that a notification dated 19.2.1991 declaring coastal stretches
as Coastal Regulation Zones which regulates the activities in the said zones has not been implemented
or enforced. This has led to continued degradation of ecology in the said coastal areas. The court
observed that while economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology
or by causing widespread environment destruction and violation; at the same time, the necessity to

| Oct., 2014 | 1 (1) (33)

 REEMA AGRAWAL

preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other developments. Both
development and environment must go hand in hand, in other words, there should not be development
at the cost of environment and , but there should be development while taking due care and
ensuring the protection of environment.

Narmada BachaoAndolan v. Union of India and Ors.25

The Supreme Court of India upheld that “Water is the basic need for the survival of human
beings and is part of the right to life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India … and the right to healthy environment and to sustainable development are fundamental human
rights implicit in the right to life.

A. Jagannath v. Union of India 26

This Court dealt with a public interest petition filed by the Gram Swaraj Movement, a voluntary
organization working for the upliftment of the weaker section of society, wherein the petitioner sought
the enforcement of Coastal Zone Regulation Notification dated 19.2.1991 and stoppage of intensive
and semi-intensive type of prawn farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas. This Court passed
significant directions as under:
1. The Central Government shall constitute an authority conferring on the said authority all the
powers necessary to protect the ecologically fragile coastal areas, seashore, waterfront and
other coastal areas and specially to deal with the situation created by the shrimp culture
industry in coastal States.
2. The authority so constituted by the Central Government shall implement “the Precautionary
principle” and “the Polluter Pays” principles.
3. The shrimp culture industry/the shrimp ponds are covered by the prohibition contained in
para 2(i) of the CRZ Notification. No shrimp culture pond can be constructed or set up within
the coastal regulation zone as defined in the CRZ notification. This shall be applicable to all
seas, bays, estuaries, creeks rivers and backwaters. This direction shall not apply to traditional
and improved traditional types of technologies (as defined in Alagarswami report) which are
practised in the coastal low lying areas.
4. All acquaculture industries/shrimp culture industries/shrimp culture ponds operating/set
up in the coastal regulation zone as defined under the CRZ Notification shall be demolished
and removed from the said area before March 31, 1997.
5. The agricultural lands, salt pan lands, mangroves, wet lands, forest lands, land for village
common purpose and the land meant for public purposes shall not be used/converted for
construction of the shrimp culture ponds.
6. No acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds shall be constructed
up within 1000 meter of ChilkaLake and PulicatLake (including Bird Sanctuaries namely
Yadurapattu and Nelapattu).
7. Acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds already operating and
functioning in the said area of 1000 meter shall be closed and demolished before March 31,
1997.
8. The Court also directed that the shrimp industries functioning within 1000 meter from the
Coastal Regulation Zone shall be liable to compensate the affected persons on the basis of
the “polluter pays” principle.
9. The authority was directed to compute the compensation under two heads namely, for
reversing the ecology and for payment to individuals.
10. The compensation amount recovered from the polluters shall be deposited under a separate
head called “Environment Protection Fund” and shall be utilised for compensating the
(34) | Oct., 2014 | 1 (1)
 ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION THROUGH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION-A JUDICIAL APPROACH

affected persons as identified by the authority and also for restoring the damaged
environment.

Conclusion and suggestions:

After discussingthe above cases, we can say judicial activism in respect of protection of
environment is notable.The Supreme Court is quite activeand issued several directions and different
legal provisions for environmental protection through the application of public Interest Litigation.
The Supreme Court is constantly trying to filling the gaps which have been left by the legislation.
Through our judicial activism Supreme Court recommended many new ideas for the protection of
environment. These new innovations by the judicial activism open the numerous approaches to help
the country. In India, the courts are tremendouslyaware and cautious about the special nature of
environmental rights, considering that the loss of natural resources can’t be renewed.
There are some recommendations which need to be considered:
– As we all know that media is the most powerful weapon in today’s scenario. So, why not to
make use of it when it comes to protection of our environment. We must take advantage of the reach
and power of the media to create awareness among the public and to communicate the need of
protecting our environment from this devil called pollution. We must telecast the clippings of various
judgements and directions given by the courts regarding the protection of our environment since
people are generally unaware of such directions and thus do not take any steps which can contribute
towards our vision of a pollution free country.
– If we want to fulfill our vision of a clean and green country then we must issue stringent
guidelines for the lawbreakers. A huge amount of penalty must be imposed on the person who does
not follow the given directions of the court or anyhow contribute in polluting the environment.
– Another step which we can take is to create separate courts which can deal with the matters
of environmental protection so that all the issues concerning environmental degradation can be
resolved and given speedy justice.

REFERENCES
1. Mehta, M.C. (1999). Growth of environmental jurisprudence in India, p.71.
2. Dr. Jai Jai Ram Upadhyay, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, p.2, Allahabad: Central Law Agency, (2005).
3. AtishaSisodiya The Role of Indian Judiciary in Protection of Environment in India, School of Law, Christ
University
4. “The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife
of the country.”The Amendment also inserted Part VI-A (Fundamental duty) in the Constitution, which
reads as follows: “It shall be duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes,, and wildlife and to have compassion for living creature.”
5. AIR 1980 SC 1622
6. AIR 1988 SC 1126
7. 1982 AIR 1473
8. AIR 1987 SC 1086
9. AIR 2001 SCC 1509
10. AIR 2001 SC 1948
11. AIR 2000 SC1997

| Oct., 2014 | 1 (1) (35)

 REEMA AGRAWAL

12. AIR 1987 SC 1086

13. AIR1985SCC176
14. AIR 1992 SCC 137
15. AIR (1996)5SCC 281
16. AIR (1991) 1 SCC 598
17. AIR 1987 SC 1086
18. AIR 1990 SC 2060
19. AIR 1996 SC 2715
20. AIR 2004 SC 1834
21. AIR 2006 SC 2038
22. AIR 1998 SC 2962
23. AIR 2005 SC 3136
24. AIR(1996) 5 SCC 281
25. VrindaNarain,WATER AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT : A PERSPECTIVE FROM INDIA Vol. 34 available
at
26. AIR(1997) 2 SCC 811, Dr. HarimohanmittalLok hit mukadamavidhiksevaye, Sheel sons Jaipur, Pg.139

********

(36) | Oct., 2014 | 1 (1)