Constitutional Provisions T Damodar Rao v.
Speciai Officer The land which was first reserved as open space,
(Art 21)
Bangalore Medical Trust v. BS
Mudappa (Art 21)
V. Lakshmipathy v. State
(Art 21)
LK Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan
(DPSPs)
Ivory Traders and Manufacturers
Association v. UOI
Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti
Sangharsh Samiti v. State of UP
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar
Murali S Deora v. UOI
Rajni Kant v. State
Moulana Mufti v. West Bengal &
Om Birangans Religious Society v.
State
Vijay Singh Punia v. State of
Rajasthan
Residents of Sanjay Nagar v. State
was converted to be used to build living quarters for
LIC employees. Court held that conversion of open
spaces that are the lungs of a populated urban
residential area would adversely affect Right to Life
under Art. 21 of the Constitution.
Reference was made to the Environment (protection)
Act, 1986 and Article 51(g) & 48A.
SC prevented the use of open spaces for setting up
of a private medical complex in Bangalore.
Karnataka HC prevented the construction of an
industrial complex in open space.
Jaipur Municipality has to keep streets and roads
clean. Court laid emphasis on DPSPs to protect and
improve the environment.
Will the banning of import of Ivory, infringe upon the
rights under Art 14, 19(1)(g) & 300A of Consti. Court
upheld the ban citing Art 48A of Consti i.e. safeguard
and promote ecological balance & biodiversity. Court
prioritises preservation of wildlife over commercial
interest.
Proposed that Art 21 will deal with pollution free air
and water also, but rejected.
Art 32 Writ- Was dismissed as it was filed for
personal interest rather than public interest.
● Enforcement Agency and their responsibility.
● Right to wholesome Environment
Smoking in public places is infringing on right to life of
passive smokers and forbidden in public.
How far can refusal to permit loudspeakers for public
will meet free speech.
The excessive noise made by loudspeakers would
affect human health. Even for freedom of speech &
religion, their use must be regulated.
Right to life & duty to protect environment- 15% of the
turnover of dyeing and printing industries as damages
for causing pollution in the water.
Unauthorised Slaughterhouse in residential area
 of Rajasthan
Harijan Lay Out Sudhar Samiti v.
State of Maharashtra
Vellore Citizen Welfare v. UOI
Public Interest Litigation MC Mehta (Kanpur Tanneries
Case)
Absolute Liability Rylands v. Fletcher (Gives the rule
of strict liability)
must be closed.
Art 51A(g) imposed a fundamental duty on every
citizen to improve the natural environment including
forests, akes, rivers, wildlife & have compassion for
living creatures.
Pollutants from tanneries severely polluting Palar
river. As a result a large piece of land has turned
barren. Notice sent to tanneries to est. Common
Effluent Treatment Plants or Indivisual pollution
control devices. Despite this tanneries polluting.
Court held that tanneries should be shut down until
proper pollution control devices are put in place.
Fine was to be given. Green Benches were to be
formed. Tanneries were to approach the Pollution
Control Board for approval. Loss of Ecology Authority
was set up.
Ganga river was getting polluted due to release of
affluents in the river ganges. Jajmau Tanneries
Pollution Control Association was set up. In a counter
affidavit it was mentioned that tanneries discharge is
first treated then sent to municipal sewerage then to
the river ganga. It was held that financial capacity of
tanneries was to be considered as irrelevant for
wanting them to set up a treatment plant. A tannery
without a primary treatment plant cannot be allowed.
Discharge from tanneries is 10x noxious that
domestic sewage water.
Even if the defendant was not negligent or even if the
defendant did not intentionally cause the harms, or he
was careful, he could still be made liable under the
rule.
Defendant got a reservoir built over his land via
independent contractors. There were old unused
shafts under the reservoir site. When water was filled
in resorvoir, it burst through the shafts and flooded
the plaintiff’s coal mines on the adjourning land.
Defendant was not aware of the shafts, not negligent.
Still was held liable.
RULE IN R v. F
(i) A person on his land must have brought some
dangerous thing
(ii) Thing thus brought or kept by any person on his
land must espace
(iii) It must be non natural use of land
 EXCEPTIONS
(i) Plaintiff’s own default
(ii) Act of God
(iii) Consent of the plaintiff
(iv) Act of 3rd party
(v) Statutory authority

Absolute Liability MC Mehta v. UOI- 1987 Oleum Gas Leakage in the premises of Sriram
Fertilizer, leading to damage to workers and people
living in the neighbourhood.

Court devised the principle of ABSOLUTE LIABILITY.

(i) Industry engaged in HAZARDOUS activity

(ii) Resulting in ESCAPE of toxic gas
(iii) Industry absolutely liable to compensate those
effected
(iv) NO EXCEPTION APPICABLE

Absolute Liability Union Carbide Corpn v. UOI - Rule of absolute liability has been done away
by passing the BHOPA GAS LEAK
DISASTER (PC) ACT 1985
- Under the Act the govt is authorised as
parents partite exclusively to represent the
victims of the disaster so that their interest is
fully protected & claims of compensation is
pursued quickly
- So India now recognises Polluter’s Pay Prin.

Now India, apply the Polluter Pays Principle over

Absolute Liability.

Sustainable Development Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board 2006
- Agriculturists in Karnataka filed a writ against
Appellate, as their grazing land was acquired
and was being converted for non-agri
purpose.
- Agricuturists argued that this would affect
environment.
- Court held that before land acquisition, EIA
must be carried out.
- Also the allottee of the acquired land must
obtain necessary clearances from the
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board &
Department of Ecology & Environment.
- Sustainable Development was emphasised
upon- Stockholm Conference 1972, by the
above 2 pointers: Court has taken a firm
stance in favour of environmental protection in
keeping with the developing policy of the
 nation.
Precautionary Principle People’s Union for better living in Precautionary measures were made to protect
Calcutta v. State of WB wetland.

S. Jagannath v, UOI Extensive, semi-intensive and intensive aquaculture

was ordered to be dismantled to prevent possible
disaster on constal eco-system.

Vellore Case 1992 Closure of tanneries in certain districts of TN with a

view to preventing serious damage.

AP Pollution Board v. MV Nayudu

MC Mehta v. UOI (Taj Trapezium

TTZ)

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. UOI Regarding the building of Sardar Sarovar Dam over
the Narmada River. Narmada Bachao Andolan
started to stop the building of dam on grounds of
environmental concerns

NBA argued that no proper assessment carried out

before clearance grant of the project thus violating
Art. 21. Dam will have adverse downstream impact;
also a threat to biological/acquatic diversity therein.
Onus of proof lies on the actor to show that there will
be no env degradation on them carrying out the
project.

UOI argued that first studies were carried out.

Second, the benefits of the dam outweigh the
immediate costs

Court held that Precautionary Principle would have

applied if dam construction would have been a
polluting industry. As dam is neither a polluting
industry nor a nuclear establishment PP will not
apply. Additionally, YES dam construction will cause
changes in the environment but a presumption that
this change will result in ecological disaster is wrong
thus MV Nayudu (Ones of proof) will not apply.

Enviro has different facts- lack of adequate data

for some of these facts does not mean that the
decision taken in this regarded is vitiated.

Public Trust Doctrine Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois

• In that case, the Illinois legislature granted to the
Illinois Central Railroad Company a mile long section
of the bed of Lake Michigan, which underlay almost
 all of Chicago's harbor, then tried to revoke the grant a
few years later. The Illinois Attorney General sued for
a judicial determination to quiet title to the land.
• The State holds the title to the lands under the
navigable waters of Lake Michigan, within its limits,
in the same manner that the State holds title to soils
under tide water, by the common law ... . It is a title
held in trust for the people of the State that they may
enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce
over them, and have liberty of fishing therein freed
from the obstruction or interference of private parties

United States v. Beebe

• In that case, the United States sought to cancel certain
land patents issued to a private citizen by the United
States decades earlier that purported to give him title to
property on which part of a city had been built since.

• In holding that the Attorney General had the authority

to bring suit on behalf of the United States to cancel
these patents, the Supreme Court recognized that "the
public domain is held by the [Federal] Government as
part of its trust[,] ... the title [to] which [is] ... common
to all the people as the beneficiaries of the trust."

Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v.

Reliance Industries
• the Indian Supreme Court recognized in the
context of resolving a complex, intra-family
business dispute that the public trust doctrine
applies to natural gas deposits located in Indian
waters.
• Article 297 declares in relevant part that "all lands,
minerals and other things of value underlying the
ocean within the territorial waters, or the
continental shelf, or the exclusive economic zone,
of India shall vest in the Union and be held for the
purposes of the Union." The Court observed that
the word "vest" must be interpreted in the light of
the public trust doctrine

MC Mehta v. UOI (Kamalnath case) - S.2 of FCA

(1997) - Spas Resort on Beas River
- changed the river flow which was detrimental
to environment.
- Cite Illinious, Mono lake case
- PTD states some resources have great imp
to a people as whole and it should not
make the subject of private ownership.
- PTD, PTD restrictions- three restriction
MI Builders v. Radhay Shyam Sahu
Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v.
State of A.P. case (2006)
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board
of Trustee, Port of Mumbai
- UP Nagar Palika Adhiniyam- Section 114,
119, 128, 129 & 131- Violation
- Referred Easement Act- Section 52, 53,
60(b) and 62 (f).
- Public Trust Doctrine - MC Mehta kamal nath
relied on.
- Construction was demolished as going
against the PTD.
- Preservation of 2 tanks that had historical
significance, being destroyed for urbanisation
and development in the area.
- Q whether urban development will be given
priority over the need to protect enviro.
- PTD cited used MC Mehta
- This is an articulation of the doctrine from the
angle of the affirmative duties of the State with
regard to public trust. Formulated from a
negatory angle, the doctrine does not exactly
prohibit the alienation of the property held as
a public trust. However, when the State holds
a resource that is freely available for the use
of the public, it provides for a high degree of
judicial scrutiny on any action of the
Government, no matter how consistent with
the existing legislations, that attempts to
restrict such free use.
- To properly scrutinise such actions of the
Government, the courts must make a
distinction between the Government's general
obligation to act for the public benefit, and the
special, more demanding obligation which it
may have as a trustee of
certain public resources
- Sustainable Dev(Essar Oil) &
Intergenerational Equity
- Decision cannot be based on the ‘investment’
committed by any party.
- Further construction in the area stopped
and rain water harvesting structures
encouraged to be built.
held that the State's actions and the actions of its
agencies / instrumentalities must be for
the public good, achieving the objects for which they
exist and should not be arbitrary or capricious. In the
field of contracts, the State and its instrumentalities
should design their activities in a manner which would
ensure competition and not discrimination. They can
augment their resources but the object should be to
 serve the public cause and to do public good by
resorting to fair and reasonable methods.

Fomento Resorts and Hotels

Limited case
• The public trust doctrine enjoins upon the
Government to protect the resources for the
enjoyment of the general public rather than to
permit their use for private ownership or
commercial purposes
• The heart of the public trust doctrine is that it
imposes limits and obligations upon government
agencies and their administrators on behalf of all
the people and especially future generations.
• The State cannot transfer public trust properties
to a private party, if such a transfer interferes with
the right of the public and the court can invoke
the public trust doctrine and take affirmative
action for protecting the right of people to have
access to light, air and water and also for
protecting rivers, sea, tanks, trees, forests and
associated natural ecosystems.

Intergenerational Equity State of HP v, Ganesh Wood
Products
- GWP applied for setting up of khair industry-
Khair (katha) used in producing Pan Masala.
But denied by HP Govt. GWP argued that (i)
We can set up any small industry as per
the New Liberalisation Policy (ii) There was
not legislation in HP under which such
rejection is being made.
- The Court pointed out that there was no
enactment made by the legislature of the
State of Himachal Pradesh governing the
establishment of the industries in question. In
the absence of an enactment, the executive
power of the State extended to the said
subject matter.
- State has to extend a fair and equitable
treatment to all persons coming before it.
- In 1992-93 all khair industries were
approved. Has led to cutting of so many
trees. Thus contrary to public policy of
sustainable growth as present gen had
depleted the resources for future gen.
Balance should have been maintained.
- The SC applied the doctrine of inter-
generational equity, which laid down that
present generation has no right to imperil the
safety and well-being of the next generation or
the generations to come thereafter.
 - Court referred matter to HC but ordered
stoppage of setting up of industry.

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Inter-generational equity and sustainable

Ors vs State Of Karnataka (ONLY development had come to be firmly embedded in
RATIO IS IMP) constitutional jurisprudence as an integral part of
fundamental rights conferred by Article 21 of
Constitution

TN Godavaram It is the obligation of all to conserve the environments

and for its utilization, it is necessary to have regard to
the principles of sustainable development and inter-
generational equity.

ND Jayal The weighty concepts like inter-

generational equity(cited State of HP v Ganesh
Wood Products, 1996), Public Trust Doctrine (MC
Mehta v Kamal Nath) and Precauionary Principle
(Vellore Citizens)……… which we declared as
inseparable ingredients of our environmental
jurisprudence, could only be nurtured by ensuring
sustainable development.

Held- Before closing the diversion of tunnels for the

impoundment of water in the reservoir, evacuation,
resettlement and rehabilitation are completed in all
aspects.

Dissenting- The dam built by the Public funds with the

aim to satisfy the energy and water needs but what
benefit ultimately it would give to the displaced
people (poor and marginalised, who dependent on
natural surroundings etc)should also be taken care
of.

No categoral topic as DDA v. Rajender Singh - Common Wealth Games Village (CWGV)
such - but Water Pollution setting up was in question. Rajender contends
can be seen the passing of HC order in favour of CWGV as
it was being set up on the floodplain and river
bed of Yamuna river.
- Here, NEERI reports of 1999, 2005 & 2008
becomes important. In 1999 & 2005 NEERI
said that construction on the selected site
cannot happen. In 2008, NEERI says that the
selected site is neither Riverbed nor
Floodplain of Yamuna so yes construction of
CWGV can happen there.
- Rajender says that 2008 report finding are
invalid but Court relies on 2008 and allows for
the construction.
 - A High Powered Committed also was directed
by court to set up so as to examine the
Yamuna’s operation.
- Riverbed is the area over which the river
flows. Floodplain is the land adjacent to rivers,
which floods if river overflows.

Wildlife protection Act Center for Environmental Law - Test of Species Best Interest
WWF-I v. UOI

Indian Hadicrafts Emporium - Ivory Dealing was in Question

- Section 49C WPA is important

● The judgment is very The Lafarge case: ● Lafarge Surma Cement Ltd. ('LSCL' for short)
important for two 2011(7)SCALE242 is a company incorporated under the laws of
reasons. Bangladesh.
● Firstly, it clarifies the ● Lafarge started commercially operating a 100-
extent of judicial hectare limestone mine in October 2006 at the
review in a situation East Khasi Hills district in Meghalaya. It sent
where environmental the limestone across the India-Bangladesh
clearances had border on a conveyor belt as raw material for
already been granted its 2-million-tonne a year capacity cement
and where questions plant in Bangaldesh.
are subsequently
raised with respect to ● Lafarge made representations that the
the validity of the limestone mines did not involve the diversion
process. of forest land and in support provided letters
● Secondly, it lays down from the Khasi Hills Autonomous District
a set of Council (“the KHADC”), the local authority with
comprehensive jurisdiction over the Khasi division, and a
guidelines for future certificate from the Divisional Forest Officer
projects that involve (“the DFO”) of the Khasi Hills Division stating
both forest and that the mining site was not in the forest area.
environmental ● Lafarge also stated that limestone mines had
clearances existed in Nongtrai since the 1850s and that
several unorganised small players were
already exploiting the limestone reserves.
● After several rounds of queries from the MoEF
and consequent responses from Lafarge, the
MoEF finally gave environmental clearance for
the mines in 2001 and Lafarge commenced
mining operations in Nongtrai.
● Trouble started in 2006 when the Chief
Conservator of Forests (“the CCF”) for
Meghalaya wrote to the MoEF stating that he
had visited the mining area and noted that the
mining site was surrounded by thick natural
vegetation.
 ● The CCF expressed the view that the land
where the mine was located was forest land
and accordingly Lafarge could not carry out
operations without the necessary forest
clearance.
● The matter reached the Supreme Court when
a group of 21 tribal activists under the banner
of the Shella Action Committee filed a petition
alleging that Lafarge was mining on forest
land, and did not have the required
clearances. Later, the court stayed Lafarge’s
mining operations. Against this, a writ was
filed and thus, it came before the SC.
● The crucial questions in the case were
whether Lafarge had willfully subverted the
process of getting clearance to mine on
forest land, and whether it was aware of
the fact that the land was classified as
forest as per law.

The Court has made it mandatory for these

guidelines to operate in all cases of forest and
environment clearances, until a regulatory
mechanism is instated.

Overall, this judgment finds a balance between

economic growth and environmental protection.
(Sustainable Development)

It lays down the specific scenarios in which a court

can interfere with the decision of the MoEF.

It also lays down guidelines which suggest that

approval process must be improved. But, how it
should be done is missing.