Environmental Law

National Forest Policy 1988

(no sustainable development) governs the forests of India i.e. this policy contains objectives
related to the protection, conservation and development of forests. National forest policy of India
keeps environmental balance and livelihood at its center. India’s forest & tree cover have also
increased since the introduction of the National Forest Policy.

National Forest Policy : Historical Background India is among one of the few selected countries
which have enacted a forest policy very early in comparison to other countries. In 1894, the first
National Forest policy in India was adopted by the colonial government to manage forests in a
custodial and timber-oriented manner.

After the Independence, In 1952 the national forest policy was revised by the Government of
India. This national forest policy of post-independence India recommended that 33% of the total
area of the country should be brought under forest cover.
In 1988, the policy was revised as the government developed a greater awareness of ecological
harm, environmental exploitation, and our duty to protect biodiversity and the environment.

Objectives of National Forest Policy 1988 National forest policy was enunciated in 1988 with
the following objectives discussed below:

To maintain environmental stability through preservation & if necessary, restoration of the

ecological balance that has been negatively impacted by the substantial depletion of the forests.

To conserve the natural heritage of the nation by preserving and protecting the remaining natural
forests which are home to a vast variety of flora and fauna, which represent the incredible
biological diversity and genetic resources of the country.

To check soil erosion and denudation in the catchment areas of rivers, lakes, reservoirs in the
interest of conserving soil and water, lessening floods and droughts and delaying reservoir
siltation.

To assess the expansion of sand dunes in Rajasthan's desert regions. National Forest Policy -
1988

Objectives, Features, limitations & More!

To significantly increase the country's forest and tree cover through extensive afforestation
and social forestry programmes, particularly in all deforested, degraded, and unproductive
regions.
To fulfill the needs of the rural and tribal people for fuel-wood, fodder, minor forest produce,
and small timber.

To boost forest productivity in order to satisfy the immediate needs of the country.

To promote effective wood substitution and efficient use of forest products.

To mobilise a large-scale, women-led people's movement for the accomplishment of these

goals and the reduction of strain on already-existing forests.

National Forest Policy 1988: Strategy for Forest Management

The salient features of National Forest Policy 1988 for forest management are discussed below:

Afforestation, Social Forestry & Farm Forestry - The policy outlined the former goal of
increasing the forest and tree cover to 1/3 of the entire land mass. The policy also mentions that
wherever necessary, land regulations should be changed to encourage and enable people and
organizations to engage in tree plantation and cultivate fodder plants, grasses, and legumes on
their own property.

Management of State Forests - No forest should be allowed to be exploited without the approval
of the management plan by the government first. The approval procedure must follow the
prescribed format under the National Forest Policy 1988.

Recognition of Tribal Rights and Concessions - The communities residing in and surrounding
forest regions, especially the tribals, shall have the primary rights to use produces derived from
forest areas. They should have all of their privileges and rights completely preserved.

Emphasize on Wildlife Conservation Practices - The demands of wildlife protection should

receive special attention from the forest management process, and strategies for this should be
included in the plans. In order to preserve genetic continuity between artificially separated sub-
sections of migratory species, "corridors" connecting the protected areas should be constructed.

Relationship between forests and Industries - According to the National Forest Policy 1988,
locals must not only be given precedence when it comes to employment opportunities in forest-
based industries but they must also be fully involved in the production of raw materials and
raising trees.
Study the basics of the environment here.

Constitutional Provisions Related to Forests

Article 48 A - According to article 48 A under Directive Principles of State Policy(DPSP),
the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the
 forests and wildlife of the country.
Article 51 A (g) - According to article 51 A (g) under Fundamental duties, every citizen
should protect and improve the natural environment including forests and Wildlife.
VII Schedule - Under Seventh Schedule, Forests and Protection of Wild Animals and
Birds are included in the Concurrent List of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Center
and the State both can legislate on matters related to Forests.

Essentials Of Forest Management

The National Forest Policy 1988 lays out the essential components for effective forest
management in light of the new goals and priorities. The essentials of forest management are
discussed below :
Existing Forests should be completely protected, and their productivity should be increased. On
hill slopes, in the catchment areas of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs, along the ocean coasts, and
on semi-arid and desert tracts, forest and vegetative cover should be rapidly developed.
Looking toward the increasing need for greater food production, it is advisable to discourage the
conversion of good, fertile and profitable agricultural areas to forests.
The network of national parks, sanctuaries, biosphere reserves, and other protected places should
be appropriately developed and expanded to ensure the preservation of all biological variety.
In order to stop the depletion of forests beyond what can be sustainably maintained, it is essential
to provide enough pasture, fuel, and fodder, especially in areas that are adjacent to forests. Since
fuelwood continues to be the main source of energy in rural regions, the afforestation programme
should be stepped up with a focus on increasing fuelwood production to suit rural residents'
needs.
Tribal populations and other people living in and around the forests are fed by minor forest
products. With adequate consideration for the creation of jobs and revenue, such produce should
be safeguarded, developed, and their production increased.

National Forest Policy,

1988 Draft National Forest Policy, 2018
The principal aim was to Expands on the previous policy's aim, adding
ensure environmental focus on climate change mitigation,
stability and maintenance of safeguarding biodiversity, and ensuring
Objective ecological balance. sustainable forest management.
Emphasized people's Provides a more participatory approach with
involvement in meeting their communities involved in protection,
Community needs for fuelwood, fodder, conservation, and expansion of forests and
Involvement and minor forest produce. wildlife.
Legal Stated the necessity of laws Details the need for a comprehensive legal and
 National Forest Policy,
1988 Draft National Forest Policy, 2018
institutional framework for effective
to regulate community use of implementation, including National and State
Framework forests. Boards of Forestry.
Proposes innovative financial strategies,
including enhancing the budget of forestry
sector of states, and tapping funds from other
Financial Proposed a minor forest national sectors like Rural Development, Tribal
Support produce development fund. Affairs, and others.
Places emphasis on training of frontline staff
and forest-dependent populations, including
Training and The policy mentions training strengthening of various state training
Skill and capacity building but institutions and Forest Skill Development
Development lacks details. Centres.
Private and Only mentioned the Involvement and participation of local
Institutional involvement of village governments, NGOs, corporate houses, trade
Participation communities. unions, and other institutions are emphasized.
Focuses more on protection Encourages extension of forests and creation of
Conservation of existing forest cover. awareness regarding their importance.
There is no explicit mention The policy aims to integrate international
International of international agreements and commitments into forestry
Commitments commitments. programs, strategies and plans.
Provides detailed governance measures
including human resource strategy, reinforcing
Only generally mentions transparency and accountability measures, and
Governance good governance. the use of advanced technology.
Reviewing was more generic Institutes National and State Boards of Forestry
Review without a specific body to review implementation of policy
Mechanism mentioned. periodically.

NATIONAL ZOO POLICY 2000

Preamble
For nature & wildlife conservation
For welfare of captive wild animals in the country
To prevent large number of species of wild fauna from becoming endangered
a potent tool for educating people and sensitizing them about wild life
Objective
Supporting the conservation of endangered species
To inspire amongst zoo visitors empathy for wild animals
Providing opportunities for scientific studies useful for conservation
The zoos shall continue to function as rescue centres for orphaned wild animals

Strategy for Achieving the Objectives

no new zoo shall be set up unless a sustained supply of resources are ensured
Zoos shall prepare a long-term master plan for development to ensure optimum utilisation of the
land, water, energy
Every Zoo shall maintain a healthy, hygienic and natural environment in the zoo
Zoos shall give priority to endangered species in their collection and breeding plans

Strategy for Achieving the Objectives

Zoos shall regulate the number of animals of various species in their collection in such a way
that each animal serves the objectives of the zoo
Every zoo shall endeavor to avoid keeping single animals of non- viable sex ratios of any species
Zoos shall avoid keeping surplus animals of prolifically breeding species and if required,
appropriate population control measures shall be adopted.

Acquisitions of Animals
no zoo shall collect animals from the wild, except for obtaining founder animals for approved
breeding programme
Zoos shall not enter into any transaction involving violation of the law and provisions of
international conventions on wildlife conservation
Zoos shall not enter into any transaction in respect of their surplus animals with any commercial
establishment.
Animal Housing
Every animal in a zoo shall be provided housing, upkeep and health care that can ensure a quality
of life
The enclosure for all the species displayed or kept in a zoo shall be of such size that all animals
get adequate space for free movement
Each animal enclosure in a zoo shall have appropriate shelters, perches, withdrawal areas, Jagha
in cage, when they went inside, wallow, pools drinking water points

Upkeep of Animal Collections

Zoos shall provide diet to each species, which is similar to its feed in nature.
round the clock supply of portable drinking water shall be made available
Zoos shall prevent physical handling of animals by the staff to the extent possible
Zoos shall not allow any animal to be provoked for tortured for the purpose of extracting any
performance or tricks for the benefit of the visitors

Health Care
Zoos shall ensure availability of the highest standards of veterinary care to all the animals in their
collection
Adequate measures shall be taken by every zoos for implementing wildlife health and quarantine
rules and regulations

Research And Training

The zoos shall encourage research on the biology, behaviour, nutrition and veterinary aspects of
animals in their collection
Assistance of Wildlife Institute and India (WII), India Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI) and
other institutions within India and abroad, having appropriate expertise shall be taken for transfer
of technical skills
Zoos shall also endeavour for dissemination of information on scientific aspects of management
through publication of periodicals, journals, newsletters and special bulletins

Breeding programme for species

Before taking up breeding programmes of any species, zoos shall clearly identify the objectives
Breeding programme shall be taken up by zoos after collection of adequate data like biology,
behaviour and other demo-graphic factors affecting the programme
Zoos shall give priority in their breeding programmes to endangered species representing
the zoo-geographic zones in which they are located

Education and Outreach Activity

Each zoo should have a well drawn-up plan for education the visitors as well as other in the
community
The central theme of the zoo education programme being the linkage between the survival of
various species and protection of their natural habitat
The help of universities, colleges and non-governmental organisation shall be taken
for education

Amenities to Visitors
Zoo shall provide basic civic amenities to the visitors like drinking water points, shelters and
first-aid facilities, etc.
Zoos shall not provide any infrastructure for recreation or entertainment of visitors that is
inconsistent with the stated objective of zoos.

Kohima, Nagaland (Feedback by PeTA)

February 2006
Nearly all the enclosures were poorly maintained and foul-smelling. Excrement covered the
floors, contaminating the drinking water in many cages.
There were no roofs to protect animals from the elements.
There were no stand-off barriers to keep visitors at a safe distance from the cages. The keepers'
quarters were located right beside the animal enclosures, separated only by a low wall.
Animals appeared hungry and were seen begging for food. Food items – which apparently had
been thrown in by visitors – were observed on the floor of one of the bear cages.

Udaipur (Feedback by PeTA)

August 2005
The zoo was dirty, unkempt and foul-smelling.
Visitors were permitted to harass and tease the animals.
Two panthers were kept in a small enclosure that did not have any enrichment. There were no
trees to provide shade, and the enclosure smelled terrible.
The crocodile pen was made entirely of concrete and had insufficient space for the animals to
bask (sunbath). The water level was very low. Cleaning equipment was stored inside the cage,
exposing the animals to possible injury and taking up significant space.

Same Kolkata.

TIGER TASK FORCE, 2005

The terms of reference of the Task Force are as follows:
Suggest measures to strengthen tiger conservation in the country.
Suggest measures to incentivise the local community in conservation of tigers.
Suggest measures to improve the methodology of tiger counting and forecasting.
Suggest methods of transparent professional audit of wildlife parks and placing data on tiger
conservation in the public domain.
The Project Tiger Division of the Ministry of Environment & Forests would be facilitating the
working of the Task Force and render all necessary help.
The director, Project Tiger, should be delegated powers to deal with the states under Section (3)
of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, especially for the enforcement of Project Tiger guidelines.

The role of the director, Project Tiger, should not remain confined to tiger reserves, but needs to
be extended to other crucial forest areas as well that have viable tiger populations

History of report:
The report of the 1972 task force headed by Karan Singh, Project Tiger: a planning proposal for
preservation of tiger in India, inaugurated the tiger conservation programme in India (and
official conservation as well).
Zoological name
Panthera tigris tigris

The institutional agenda

Following the 42nd amendment to the Indian Constitution in 1976, the subject of forests and
wildlife was transferred from the State List to the Concurrent List.
By the 1990s, the problems between Project Tiger and the states had begun.
In 2000, the Supreme Court, acting on a public interest litigation (Public Interest Litigation writ
number 1474/1998), directed the secretary, Union ministry of environment and forests, to
convene a meeting of chief secretaries of tiger habitat states to evolve a joint strategy for
protection of the tiger. The following points evolve:
There is a shortage of resources in states, which leads to delayed disbursal of funds, non-
payment of staff salaries for up to six months. There are vacancies of staff at the field level — in
some states

Recommendations
the Union ministry of environment and forests to create two separate departments: that of
environment and that of forests and wildlife
Revitalise (revive) the National Board for Wildlife
Strengthen the role of the Project Tiger directorate in monitoring and coordination
Create a state steering committee for Project Tiger with the chief minister of the tiger range state
as its chair.
Special strategy for northeastern forests.
Each reserve must have a specific and detailed strategy for protection eg- tadoba tiger preserve
There should be a clear strategy for protection in the northeastern reserves, where local people
will be the only ones capable of traversing and protecting the tiger
Further recruitment of staff — foresters as well as guards — must be reserved, as far as possible,
for local villagers.

The protection agenda- Link between WLP Act and TTF

Under the WLP Act, sanctuaries and national parks are provided with a higher level of
protection.
It has introduced a permit system under which the chief wildlife warden can grant permits for
use of forest-based biomass or products, but these are restrictive and limited.

Under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, sanctuaries and national parks are provided with a
higher level of protection.
The Act is designed to constrain human activity and presupposes that there will be no human
presence in national parks and minimal human presence in sanctuaries.
It has introduced a permit system under which the chief wildlife warden can grant permits for use
of forest-based biomass or products, but these are restrictive and limited.

Protection agenda
The purpose behind creating a protected area and a tiger reserve
is to provide special and additional protection to the biodiversity, beyond what is
provided in other categories of forests.
In most cases, tiger reserves are created as administrative entities over-arching a national
park, adjoining sanctuaries or reserve forests. The idea works to advantage as it fits in very
well with the logic behind a tiger reserve.
The requirement of a tiger reserve is the demarcation of the area into the core (invariably
protected as a national park) and the buffer (both/either a sanctuary or forest area)
The core is accorded the highest level of protection; no human habitation is recommended
here.
The buffer allows for people to live in. But the basic laws regulating the national park and the
sanctuary continue to be in place.
The creation of a tiger reserve does demand that the entire area of the buffer (which may
have been a sanctuary or a reserve forest earlier) comes under a unified control.
The Tiger Task Force, in collaboration with the Project Tiger directorate, has assembled data
on some vital elements of current infrastructure to understand where the lacunae lie.
The Project Tiger directorate also provided the Task Force with detailed allocation and
expenditure statements for each tiger reserve.
Analysis of these is vital to understand the source of weakness in the field and to see if these
have been misinterpreted, resulting in non-workable strategies.

Infrastructure
There is a constant demand on the part of the
reserves to increase the number of vehicles available to forest officials.
The Task Force has been unable to collect
complete information on the number of guns and other weapons available in each reserve

The illegal trade agenda

The Chinese connection
the 1980s and early 1990s saw a new rush — this time, increased demand for Chinese medicines
and, therefore, tiger bones and claws were in demand.
The early 1990s: flexed muscles
By the early 1990s, international concern had peaked on this issue. China, Taiwan and Japan
were indicted for their role in trade in tiger parts

The underground trade

Four separate reports from international ngos seem to suggest that the international action,
geared to ban trade and tighten enforcement, is not bringing in the benefits that were foreseen.

CITES on tiger trade

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (cites) is
the international agreement that regulates this trade
At the cop (conference of parties) 12, held in Santiago, Chile in 2002, it was agreed that the
standing committee would continue to review progress on these issues
In 2004, at cop 13 in Bangkok, the secretariat's report identified India and Nepal as particularly
good examples of countries where local communities were being encouraged to play a part in

Recommendations
the ministry must be very proactive to shape the agenda at cites to ensure that the international
market for tiger products are investigated
India must work to build its bilateral relationships with China in this regard
The Task Force, therefore, suggests the Union environment minister take the lead in this regard

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT POLICY, 2006

Preamble
The National Environment Policy seeks to extend the coverage, and fill in gaps that still exist, in
light of present knowledge and accumulated experience. It does not displace, but builds on the
earlier policies
Sustainable development concerns in the sense of enhancement of human well-being, broadly
conceived, are a recurring theme in India's development philosophy.
The dominant theme of this policy is that while conservation of environmental resources is
necessary to secure livelihoods and well-being of all, the most secure basis for conservation is to
ensure that people dependent on particular resources obtain better livelihoods from the fact of
conservation, than from degradation of the resource

Key Environmental Challenges: Causes and Impacts

1. Environmental degradation is a major causal factor in enhancing and perpetuating
poverty, particularly among the rural poor, when such degradation impacts soil fertility,
 quantity and quality of water, air quality, forests, wildlife and fisheries -GANGA
POLLUTION AT VARANASI, URBAN POLLUTION IN MUMBAI

2. The loss of the environmental resource base can result in certain groups of people being
made destitute, even if overall, the economy shows strong growth.
3. It is increasingly evident that poor environmental quality has adversely affected human
health

4. Institutional failures, referring to unclear or insufficiently enforced rights of access to,

and use of, environmental resources, result in environmental degradation.
5. Policy failures can emerge from various sources, including the use of fiscal instruments.

Objectives of the National Environment Policy

Conservation of Critical Environmental Resources
Intra-generational Equity: Livelihood Security for the Poor:
Inter-generational Equity:
Integration of Environmental Concerns in Economic and Social Development:
Efficiency in Environmental Resource Use:
Environmental Governance:
Enhancement of Resources for Environmental Conservation:
Human Beings are at the Centre of Sustainable Development Concerns:
The Right to Development:
Environmental Protection is an Integral part of the Development Process:
The Precautionary Approach:

BURDEN OF PROOF, CORPORATE INFLUENCE,PRINCIPLE 6 EARTH CHARTER-

prevent is better than cure, prevent harm rather to cure it.
Refer to printed notes

Principles of The National Environment Policy of 2006

1. **Public Trust Doctrine:**

- **Explanation:** The Public Trust Doctrine asserts that the government holds natural
resources, including environmental resources, in trust for the public. This principle emphasizes
the responsibility of the government to manage and protect these resources for the benefit of
present and future generations. It implies that citizens have a right to expect that natural
resources will be conserved and managed wisely.

2. **Decentralization:**
- **Explanation:** Decentralization involves the distribution of environmental management
responsibilities to local and regional levels of government. This principle recognizes that local
communities often have a better understanding of their specific environmental challenges and
needs. Decentralization aims to empower local authorities to make decisions and implement
policies that are contextually relevant, fostering more effective and responsive environmental
governance.

3. **Integration:**
- **Explanation:** Integration refers to the incorporation of environmental considerations into
various sectors and decision-making processes. This principle recognizes that environmental
issues are interconnected with social, economic, and developmental factors. By integrating
environmental concerns into policies and practices across sectors such as agriculture, industry,
and urban planning, the aim is to achieve a more holistic and sustainable approach to
development.

4. **Environmental Standard Setting:**

- **Explanation:** This principle emphasizes the importance of establishing and enforcing
environmental standards to regulate human activities that may have an impact on the
environment. Setting clear and measurable standards ensures that industries, businesses, and
individuals comply with guidelines that promote environmental sustainability. Environmental
standards may include limits on pollution, resource use, and emissions.

5. **Preventive Action:**
- **Explanation:** The preventive action principle advocates for anticipating and mitigating
environmental impacts before they occur. Instead of addressing problems after they have already
caused harm, preventive action involves taking measures to avoid or minimize negative
environmental consequences. This proactive approach helps to prevent ecological degradation
and supports sustainable development.

6. **Environmental Offsetting:**
- **Explanation:** Environmental offsetting involves compensating for the negative
environmental impacts of a particular activity by undertaking positive actions elsewhere. This
principle recognizes that certain activities may result in unavoidable environmental harm but
seeks to balance it by implementing measures to conserve or restore ecosystems elsewhere. The
goal is to achieve a net environmental benefit over the long term.

These principles collectively form the foundation of the National Environment Policy, providing
a framework for sustainable and responsible environmental management in accordance with the
specific context and challenges of the country.

VULTURE
Policy on conservation of vultures
Extinction of three vultures
The population of three species i.e.
White-backed Vulture,
Slender billed Vulture and
Long billed Vulture
In the wild has declined drastically over the past decade. The decline of Gyps genus in India has
been put at 97% by 2005.
IUCN-International Union for Conservation of Nature
all three vulture species were listed by IUCN, the World Conservation Union, in 2000 as
'Critically Endangered', which is the highest category of endangerment
Reason for extinction
Countries to begin action to prevent all uses of diclofenac in veterinary applications that allow
diclofenac to be present in carcasses of domestic livestock available as food for vultures
Significance for Human Well-Being
The ecological, social and cultural significance of vultures in India may be summed up as:
scavenging on animal carcasses of animals and thereby helping keep the environment clean; and
the disposal of dead bodies as per the religious practices of the Parsi community. (tower of
silence)
Vultures are the primary removers of carrion in India and Africa
Status of Population of Gyps Vultures in the Indian Subcontinent
Decline of vulture populations in India was first recorded at the Keoladeo Ghana National
Park, Rajasthan during mid 1980's to mid 1990's, followed by Northern India road counts.
Declines have been projected in excess of 97% over a 12 year period in India
The Probable Cause of the Sudden Decline in Vultures Population
Toxicological studies did not indicate heavy metal poisoning, toxic residues of
organophosphates, or organo chlorines. Accordingly, no conclusive evidence of epidemic disease
was found
Identification of Diclofenac as the Probable Cause
Experiments showed that captive vultures are highly susceptible to Diclofenac, and are killed by
kidney failure within a short time of feeding on the carcass of an animal treated with the normal
veterinary dose
Modeling Results
Diclofenac poisoning is the sole or main cause of the population decline
Actions Taken so Far
International workshop at Kathmandu, Nepal in February 2004
National Workshop at New Delhi in April 2004
International Conference on Vulture Conservation at New Delhi on 31st January 2006 - 1st
February 2006
Alternatives To Diclofenac
A phased programme of safety testing for an alternative drug, Meloxicam, was started on 24
vultures in 3 groups of 8 birds
All birds in phases I-III survived and no adverse reactions were observed in vultures at any
administered dose
All birds survived at a higher dose of Meloxicam and no loss of body weight was observed
over 7 days.
Safety Trials of Meloxicam in India
it has been concluded that oral administration of Meloxicam at a dose rate equal to or more
than the amount the scavenging birds could consume as drug residue though feeding on
animal carcass may be considered safe.
Ex-Situ – Out side the natural habitat Conservation Of Vultures
Conservation Breeding Centre, Pinjore, Haryana

GUIDELINES ON BOTANICAL GARDENS

Why do we need botanical garden when we have forests?
Answer-For research and education purpose of endangered species of plants and materials
and conservation of the same for maintaining bio-diversity
Introduction
Conservation of plant diversity assumes greater importance when the world is facing
unprecedented loss of biological diversity
8321 species are now on the IUCN Red List 2004
Global Strategy for Plant Conservation
The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) , a recent initiative adopted by Sixth
Conference of Parties ( COP) to CBD, aims at
Development of models with protocols for plant conservation and sustainable use, based on
research and practical experience (Target 3, GSPC);
Global Strategy for Plant Conservation
60 percent of threatened plant species in accessible ex-situ collections, preferably in the
country of origin, and 10 percent of them included in recovery and restoration programmes
Networks for plant conservation activities established or strengthened at national, regional
and international levels
 Responsibilities of Lead Gardens in the Post-CBD(convention of bio-diversity) Period
undertaking research and development programmes on documenting bio-prospecting and
sustainable use of biodiversity
Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD] is a dynamic and comprehensive international
legal framework on biodiversity conservation.
Article 6 ( General Measures for conservation and sustainable use),
Article 7 ( Identification and Monitoring of the components of Biological Diversity),
Afticle 8 ( in situ conservation) and
Article 9 ( ex situ conservation),
Article 12 ( Research and Training),
Article 13 ( Education and Awareness),
Article 15 ( Access to Genetic Resources and benfit sharing),
Article 17 (Exchange of Information) and
Article 18 ( Technical and Scientific Cooperation) are the important provisions in CBD for
conservation of biodiversity, which the botanic gardens of the world can implement in
several ways.

Aims & Objectives for ex-situ conservation of indigenous plants

Ex-situ conservation and multiplication;
Establish seed banks, arboreta and mist propagation facilities.
Promote education and public awareness in respect of above said plants ; and
Reintroduce said plants in natural habitats in collaboration with State Forest Department on
project basis.

T. Damodhar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corporation Case, 1987

The case primarily focused on maintaining environmental balance by respecting the area
reserved for recreational purposes in development plans. It challenged the legal basis of
unauthorized residential constructions on such land, invoking environmental laws and the
constitutional right to life.
In the case of T. Damodhar Rao v. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the crux of the dispute
revolved around the use of land designated for a public recreational park in Hyderabad, as
specified in a developmental plan, by entities such as the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) and
the Income-tax Department for residential purposes. The contention centered on whether these
entities, based on their land ownership, could legally repurpose the area contrary to the
established developmental plan in place of public recreational park area.

The government had formulated and published a developmental plan for Hyderabad,
categorizing land usage for various purposes such as residential, commercial, recreational, etc.
This plan underwent a public consultation process and received approval, rendering it final and
enforceable. It designated a specific portion of land for a recreational park, prohibiting its use for
any other purpose.

Residents of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation filed a writ petition, contending that the land
should adhere to the developmental plan and be developed into a public park rather than utilized
for residential purposes.

The petitioners argued on several grounds. Firstly, they highlighted the lack of open spaces in the
city and the need for recreation areas, particularly for the well-being of economically backward
residents. They emphasized the statutory obligation of the Municipal Corporation to provide
public parks and recreational grounds, citing Section 112 of the Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation Act, 1955, to support their claim.

The respondents, however, contended that an exemption from the developmental plan had been
granted by the State Government concerning the land acquired for park development, thereby
legally permitting its use for residential purposes.

The court deliberated on the intersection of common law property rights and statutory
restrictions imposed by the developmental plan. It underscored that while property rights exist
under common law, they are subject to statutory constraints. The judgment highlighted the
necessity for adherence to statutory procedures, such as public notice and comment, for any
exemptions or modifications to the developmental plan.
The court broadened the interpretation of Article 21 to encompass the right to a healthy
environment. They reasoned that the right to life includes the protection and preservation of
nature's gifts, and environmental pollution is a violation of this right.
The Stockholm Declaration of 1972 asserts that humans have a fundamental right to freedom,
equality, and adequate conditions of life in an environment of quality that permits a life of
dignity and well-being. In T. Damodhar Rao case, the court's decision aligns with the
declaration's principles by acknowledging environmental preservation as an obligation to ensure
future generations' welfare (inter-generation equity). The court emphasized that allowing the
construction of residential buildings in a designated recreational area violated this principle,
leading to environmental imbalance.
International environmental concerns greatly influenced the T. Damodhar Rao case.
This case set a precedent for future environmental cases in India by reinforcing that
environmental law takes precedence over common law. The right to a healthy environment was
held as an intrinsic part of the right to life under Article 21.

Moreover, the court invoked the broader perspective of environmental preservation and
communal well-being. It emphasized that private land ownership must be balanced against the
collective good of environmental preservation and pollution prevention. The court referred to
constitutional provisions like Article 51-A(g) and Article 48A, underlining the state and citizens'
obligation to protect the environment, safeguard wildlife, and preserve natural resources—a
sentiment echoed in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

The judgment reaffirmed that while the private law doctrine grants landowners the liberty to
utilize their land, this freedom is circumscribed by the larger societal interests of environmental
conservation and adherence to the developmental plan. The purpose of the plan was deemed
crucial in maintaining ecological balance and environmental harmony, emphasizing the need for
its compliance.

In essence, the ruling highlighted the paramount importance of statutory regulations, the
preservation of communal interests in environmental conservation, and the prioritization of
developmental plans for maintaining societal equilibrium.

Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.

Introduction:
The case revolves around the alleged pollution of the Bokaro River resulting from the discharge
of sludge/slurry from the washeries of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and West Bokaro Collieries.
The petitioner sought relief under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming a violation of the right
to a clean environment under Article 21. The case delves into the legal intricacies surrounding
the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, particularly Sections 17, 24, 25, and
26.

Factual Background:
Kumar had been buying slurry from the respondent-company for years. When the company
refused to increase the supply of slurry, he filed various lawsuits against them. He was accused
of unauthorised removal of the company's slurry, leading to criminal charges against him.
Kumar filed several proceedings, including a writ petition, requesting the court to allow him to
collect slurry from certain lands. However, these petitions were dismissed due to an existing
dispute over land ownership.
The petitioner contended that the discharge of slurry into the Bokaro River adversely affected the
environment, agricultural land, and public health. The respondents, including Tata Iron & Steel
Co., countered these claims, asserting that effective measures had been taken to prevent
pollution. The company argued that it had obtained necessary approvals from the State Pollution
Control Board (SPCB) and had implemented directives to manage effluents responsibly.
Petitioner's Arguments:
The petitioner relied on provisions of the Water Act, emphasizing Section 17's mandate for the
Board to set standards for sewage or trade effluent discharge. The harmful effects of
sludge/slurry on agricultural land and river water quality were outlined. The petitioner asserted
that despite representations, the State of Bihar and the Pollution Control Board failed to take
action, exacerbating the problem.

Respondent's Counterarguments:
The respondents, especially Tata Iron & Steel Co., vehemently denied any discharge into the
Bokaro River. They presented evidence of seeking and obtaining sanctions under Sections 25
and 26 of the Water Act. The company highlighted measures taken, such as constructing
settlement tanks and following SPCB directives. They contended that the slurry had market value
and was not recklessly discharged.

State Pollution Control Board's Position:

The SPCB asserted that it had issued directions to improve effluent quality, construct settlement
tanks, and monitor compliance. An inspection confirmed the completion of four ponds with
negligible seepage. The SPCB argued that the river remains dry for a significant period,
minimizing the alleged pollution impact.

Judgment and Analysis:

The Supreme Court, in favor of the respondents, dismissed the petitioner's claims. The court
questioned the petitioner's motives, alleging a personal interest rather than public welfare. It
noted the petitioner's past business dealings with the respondent-company and the criminal case
filed against him. The court emphasized that Article 32 remedies must be genuinely aimed at
societal welfare, not personal vendettas. A petition under Article 32 for the prevention of
pollution is maintainable at the instance of affected persons or even by a group of social workers
or journalists. If such petitions under Article 32 are entertained it would amount to abuse of
process of the Court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from this Court.

Additionally, the court highlighted the dismissal of previous Article 226 petitions seeking
permission to collect slurry and the pendency of a related appeal. The court concluded that the
petitioner's actions seemed driven by personal interests, rendering the petition an abuse of the
court process.
The judgment reinforced the principle that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) must genuinely serve
the public good and not be a tool for settling personal scores. While acknowledging the
importance of environmental protection under Article 21, the court emphasized the need for
sincerity in PILs.

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
Residents of Sanjay Nagar v State of Rajasthan
certain miscreants in the residential colony of petitioners set up an unauthorized slaughterhouse.
Blood of slaughtered animals was running on the land, and in the drains without being treated.
Trade effluents were not released according to norms, and strong stench was emanating from the
area.
It is not surprising that, in such circumstances, the court ordered that the illegal slaughterhouse
be closed down, and directed the Pollution Control Board, municipal council, and the police to
submit a report. The court also issued orders for closure of five godowns in the vicinity which
were run without authorization to store skins of animals slaughtered in the said illegal
slaughterhouse. Art Art 21 and 48 A- state to provide healthy environment as well as 47.

M/S. Ivory Traders And ... vs Union Of India [AIR 1997 Delhi 267]
Main issue was whether import is also ban, apart from export? Article 48A enjoins upon the
State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and the wild life of the
country. Therefore, what is destructive of the environment, forest and wild life is contrary to the
said directive principles of the State policy.
The State has the power to completely prohibit a trade or business which has an adverse impact
on the preservation of species of wild life which are on the verge of extinction both because it is
inherently dangerous practice to destroy such animals in terms of ecology and also because of
the directive principles contained in Article 48A of the Constitution. When the Legislature
prohibits a pernicious, noxious or a dangerous trade or business it is in recognition of society's
right of self protection.
Maa Bhawani Timber vs The State Of Jharkhand 2008 (1) JCR 346 Jhr
In view thereof, the petitioner cannot claim absolute right to run the business of saw-mill
contrary to the directions and the policy decision. He cannot claim fundamental right to run its
saw-mill contrary to the legal provisions, as to art 19(1) g of trade and business. Also art 48A to
protect environment.

Article 51 A
51A. Fundamental duties It shall be the duty of every citizen of India
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life,
and to have compassion for living creatures;
42nd Amend 1976 why?- Bhopal tragedy, Oleam gas leak, Deforestation & Corporate
Environment Responsibility.
Imposition of damages on a defaulting industry for causing disturbance to water is justified on
the touchstone of right to life, and duty to protect environment.
Vijay Singh Punia. v State of Rajasthan [AIR 2004 Raj 1] imposing 15 percent of the turnover of
the dyeing and printing industries as damages for causing water pollution done by Rajasthan
High Court.
Harijan Lay Out Sudhar Samiti And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra (1997) 99 BOMLR 434
The word 'environment' is of broad spectrum which brings within its ambit hygienic atmosphere
and ecological balance. It is, therefore, not only the duty of the State but also the duty of every
citizen to maintain hygienic environment.

Stockholm Declaration UN Convention for Human Environment (UN-CHE)

“Magna Carta of our environment”
Both development and ecology are essential
Recognition of Human Environment
Proclamation 1. Man is both creature and moulder of his environment, which gives him physical
sustenance.
Development depends on protection
Proclamation 2. The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue
which affects the well-being of peoples.

Is environment a fundamental right?

Principle 1 Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life.
What natural resources to be protected?
Principle 2 The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and
especially representative samples of natural ecosystems must be safeguarded for the benefit of
present and future generations.
Principle 5 The non-renewable resources of the earth must be used in such a way as to guard
against the danger of their future exhaustion.
Principle 6 The discharge of toxic substances or of other substances and the release of heat, in
such quantities or concentrations as to exceed the capacity of the environment to render them
harmless (or else treat them at source then discharge)
Principle 7 States shall take all possible steps to prevent pollution of the seas by substances that
are liable to create hazards to human health.
Principle 8 Economic and social development is essential for ensuring a favorable living and
working environment for man and for creating conditions on earth that are necessary
How can environment of under developed countries be improved?
Principle 9 by accelerated development through the transfer of substantial quantities of financial
and technological assistance as a supplement to the domestic effort of the developing countries
and such timely assistance as may be required.
12-16 planing and management of recources,
18-20 natiao have sovering right to usilise the natural resource, but does not cause harm to other
nation natural resources.
21-25 transboundry dispute resolution for enviromental degradation
Eg- there is one developed country and developed country, to become developed, developing
country indulging in lot of facoreis work, and create pollution, so the solution is to make bilateral
treateis, and come to a peace
The Declaration, 'therefore, says that' in the developing countries most of the environmental
problems are caused by underdevelopments. The Declaration suggests to safe actions with
prudent care for ecological balance. It is necessary to avoid massive and irreversible harm to the
earthly environment and strife for achieving present generation and the posterity a better life is
an environment more in keeping with the needs and hopes.
The Declaration of the 1972 Stockholm Conference referred obliquely to man's environment,
adding that 'both aspects of man's environment, the natural and the man-made, are essential for
his well-being and enjoyment of basic human rights'.
Taji hawa bhi chaiye or ac bhi chaiye
World Charter for Nature 1982
Achievement of international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic
social, cultural, technical, intellectual or humanitarian character
What are the reasons behind the degradation of environment?
The degradation of natural systems owing to excessive consumption and misuse of natural
resources, as well as to fauna to establish an economic order among peoples and among States,
leads to the breakdown of economical, social and political framework of civilization.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Nature shall be respected and its essential processes shall not be impaired. [Principle 1] - That
means Different environmental components to be protected Eco-system should not be disturbed
What about diversity of bio-resources“? - Principle 2 The genetic viability on the earth shall
not be compromised, the population levels of all life forms, wild and domesticated, must be at
least sufficient for their survival, and to this end necessary habitats shall be safeguarded
Who should be the subject matter of these principles? - Principle 3 All areas of the earth
both land and sea, shall be subject to these principles conservation, special protection shall be
given to unique areas, to representative sample of all the different types of ecosystems and to the
habitats of rare or endangered species
Principle 4 - Was there any trace of sustainable development?
Ecosystems and organisms as well as the land, marine and atmospheric resources that are
unutilized by man, shall be managed to achieve and maintain optimum sustainable
productivity, but not in such a way as to endanger the integrity of those other ecosystems or
species with which they coexist. [Principle 4]
What about degradation by war? - Principle 5 Nature shall be secured against degradation
caused by warfare or other hostile activities. WWI and WWII

FUNCTIONS
What shall be the primary function?
In the decision-making process it shall be recognized that man's needs can only be met by
ensuring the proper functioning of natural systems - and by following principles of the Charter
How economic development shall be planned?
In formulating long-term plans for economic development, population growth and the
improvement of standards of living, due account shall be taken of the long-term capacity of
natural systems to ensure the subsistence and settlement of the populations - which can be
capacity may be enhanced through science and technology
How natural resources shall be utilized?
Natural resources shall not be wasted, but used with a restraint appropriate to the principles
set forth in the present Charter, in accordance with the following rules.
Living resources shall not be utilized in excess of their natural capacity for regeneration
The productivity of soils shall be maintained or enhanced through measures which safeguard
their long-term fertility and the process of organic decomposition, and prevent erosion and
all other forms of degradation;
Resources, including water, which are not consumed as they are used shall be reused or recycled
How Non-renewable resources shall be utilized?
Non-renewable resources which are consumed as they are used shall be exploited with restraint,
taking into account their abundance, the rational possibilities of converting them for
consumption, and the compatibility of their exploitation with the functioning of natural systems.

What about discharge of pollutants?

Discharge of pollutants into natural systems shall be avoided and:
Where this is not feasible, such pollutants shall be treated at the source, using the best
practicable means available;
What about discharge of radioactive or toxic wastes?
Special precautions shall be taken to prevent discharge of radioactive or toxic wastes.

IMPLEMENTATION
Is there any need of environmental education?
Knowledge of nature shall be broadly disseminated by all possible means, particularly by
ecological education as an integral part of general education.
Sovereignty over natural resources: Taking fully into account the sovereignty of states over
their natural resources, each State shall give effect to the provisions of the present Charter
through its competent organs and in co-operation with other States
Participatory decision: All persons, in accordance with their national legislation, shall have the
opportunity to participate, individually or with others, in the formulation of decisions of direct
concern to their environment, and shall have access to means of redress when their environment
have suffered damage or degradation
Duties of Individuals: Each person has duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the
present charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the
political process, each person shall strive to ensure to meet objectives and requirements of this
Charter

RIO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, 1992- 2nd Earth

Submit
Created the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), or the ‘Rio
Convention’
Called on the world to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions by 2000
Agenda 21 a comprehensive plan of action for environmental development and the statement of
principles of sustainable managmenet of forest adopted in 1992 in Rio.
Background
Reaffirming the Declaration of Stockholm on 16 June 1972;
establishing a new and equitable global partnership through the creation of new levels of
cooperation among States;
Working towards international agreements which respect the integrity of the global
environmental and developmental system;
Who is at the centre of SD? Whether is right to healthy life recognized under Rio?
Principle 1
Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development.
They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.
What is sovereignty over natural resources?
Principle 2
States have the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own
environmental and developmental policies,
Restriction in accordance with the United Nations and the principles of international law
Responsibility to ensure that activities should not cause damage to the environment of other
States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
How is SD defined in Rio?
Principle 3
The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and
environmental needs of present and future generations

Whether is environmental protection part of development as well?

Principle 4
In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral
part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.
Is poverty eradication an integral part of SD?
Principle 5
All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an
indispensable requirement for sustainable development, in order to decrease the disparities in
standards of living and better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world.
Whether will developing countries get any priority?
Principle 6
The special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly the least developed and
those most environmentally vulnerable, shall be given special priority.
What is participatory management?
Principle 10
Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant
level and in decision-making processes as well.
How environmental laws to be enacted?
Principle 11
States shall enact effective environmental legislation. Environmental standards, management,
objectives and priorities should reflect the environmental and development context together.
What about liability and compensation laws?
Principle 13
States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of
pollution and other environmental damage.
India has enacted Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.
What is Precautionary Principle?
Principle 15
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States
according to their capabilities.
Important:-Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific
certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation.
What is Polluter Pays Principle?
Principle 16
The polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest
and without distorting international trade and investment.
Environment impact assessment and protection. Is it really effective?
Principle 17
Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed
activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
How trans-boundary hazard to be informed to affected states.
Principle 19
States shall provide prior and timely notification and relevant information to potentially affected
States on activities that may have a significant adverse transboundary environmental effect and
shall consult with those States at an early stage and in good faith.
Why traditional knowledge should be protected?
Principle 22
Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in
environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional
practices.
How environmental disputes to be handled?
Principle 26
States shall resolve all their environmental disputes peacefully and by appropriate means in
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
The Rio+20 document 2012
Titled "The Future We Want" reflects a collective commitment to sustainable development
and outlines key principles and actions for global progress. It emphasizes a common vision
embracing peace, human rights, gender equality, and democratic societies. This vision
reaffirms past agreements like the Rio Principles, Agenda 21, and the Johannesburg Plan
while addressing gaps in implementing sustainable development. The right to an adequate
standard of living, including the right to food, the rule of law, gender equality, women’s
empowerment and the overall commitment to just and democratic societies for development.
The future we want
Green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication green
economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication should be guided
by Rio Principles, Agenda 21 and Johannesburg Plan

Important cases:--
1. Vellore case AIR 1996 SC 2715-
In 1996, the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum took a significant step by filing a Public Interest
Litigation against the excessive pollution caused by tanneries and industries in Tamil Nadu,
specifically impacting the Palar River and the surrounding environment. This case, Vellore
Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715, resulted in a monumental
judgment by the Supreme Court of India, exploring the essence of sustainable development,
environmental protection, and the responsibilities of industries.
Facts:
The pollution caused by tanneries had rendered the Palar River water unfit for consumption by
local inhabitants.
A substantial area of agricultural land was adversely affected, becoming unsuitable for
cultivation due to contamination.
Despite repeated directives and assistance provided for the installation of pollution control
mechanisms, the tanneries had failed to comply.
Arguments by the Petitioner:
The contamination affected both surface and sub-soil water, making it hazardous for
consumption.
A significant number of wells used for drinking and irrigation were contaminated, creating water
scarcity issues, forcing women and children to travel long distances to fetch drinking water.
Various surveys highlighted the alarming levels of chemicals in tannery effluents, stressing the
excessive pollution generated.
The absence of pollution control devices despite government assistance was a crucial contention.
Arguments by the Respondent:
Challenges were raised regarding the legitimacy of set standards by the Tamil Nadu Pollution
Control Board (TNPCB).
The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEF) cited issues in fully setting standards for
surface water release, leaving certain decisions to state pollution control boards.
Judgment:
The Court recognized the need to balance industrial development with environmental protection,
referencing the Rio Summit and the principles of Sustainable Development, particularly the
"Precautionary Principle" and "Polluter Pays." We have no hesitation in holding that
"Sustainable Development' as a balancing concept between ecology and development has been
accepted as a part of the Customary International Law (article 253)though its salient features
have yet to be finalised by the International Law jurists.

Articulating Article 21 (Right to Life), Article 47 (Duty of the State to improve public health),
Article 48A (Protection and improvement of the environment), and Article 51A(g) (Fundamental
duties to protect the environment) of the Constitution to include these principles.
The "Polluter Pays" principle was interpreted to impose absolute liability not just for
compensating victims of pollution but also for restoring environmental damage.
The Court ordered the shutdown of tanneries until they installed the required pollution control
devices, allowing reopening only after obtaining consent from TNPCB.
It imposed fines on tanneries and directed appreciation for Mr. M. C. Mehta for his
environmental protection efforts.
The Court emphasized the creation of Green Benches for speedy environmental issue
resolutions.
Additionally, it directed Pollution Control Boards to inspect the units and file reports, offering
provisions for units to approach boards post-installation of treatment devices.
Outcome:
This authority was mandated to oversee compensation computation for affected individuals,
families, and environmental restoration costs.
Industries failing to comply with compensation payments could face closure.
In sum, this case emphasized the need for environmental protection, signaling a paradigm shift
by enforcing the "Polluter Pays" principle, and establishing an authority to monitor
compensation and environmental restoration, thereby setting an essential precedent for
environmental jurisprudence in India.

2. KM Chinnappa AIR 2003 SC 724

Introduction:
The legal battle encapsulated in the case of KM Chinnappa and TN Godavarman Thirumalpad v.
Union of India, reported in AIR 2003 SC 724, unfolds against the backdrop of Kudremukh
National Park, recognized as a "Hotspot" for biodiversity conservation. The petitioner, KM
Chinnappa, a trustee of Wildlife First NGO, initiated proceedings questioning the legality of
orders from the States of Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh, allegedly violating the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972. The crux of the matter lies in the clash between economic interests,
represented by Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. (KIOCL), and environmental preservation within the
ambit of national and international legal frameworks.
Background and Illegal Mining Activities:
Kudremukh National Park, a sanctuary for diverse flora and fauna, became the battleground for
legal contestation. The court, through an order on 14th February 2000, restrained the removal of
certain trees from National Parks, Game Sanctuaries, and Forests. Despite this injunction,
KIOCL persisted in mining activities, drawing attention to environmental violations. The relief
sought by the petitioner encompassed compelling the Ministry of Environment and Forest
(MoEF) to revoke the illegal "temporary working permission," halt mining activities, prevent
pollution of the Bhadra River due to open-cast mining, and take action against illegal
encroachments and forest destruction.
Legal Arguments by KIOCL:
KIOCL, defending its actions, asserted non-violation of forest and environmental laws,
emphasizing that the land fell outside the purview of the Wildlife Protection Act, Forest
Conservation Act, and the Environmental Act. Citing the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and
Development) Act, 1957, KIOCL argued for a renewal of the mining lease for twenty years,
asserting an existing legal right. The company contended that the drafted notification under
Section 35(1) of the Act excluded the land from mining and highlighted that 900 hectares were
beyond the notification's coverage. Economic considerations were underscored, including
foreign exchange earnings and job sustenance, while KIOCL portrayed itself as eco-friendly,
having conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Counterarguments by Amicus Curiae / KM Chinnappa:
The Amicus Curiae and KM Chinnappa challenged the role of the Karnataka State Government
and the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forest, citing inconsistencies in
granting a 20-year renewal period without an environmental impact assessment. They criticized
the State Government's exclusion of land while issuing notifications under Section 35(4) of the
Act, alleging a violation of the court's orders.
Judicial Pronouncement: Striking a Balance:
The court grappled with the central dilemma: whether to adopt a "dollar-friendly" or "eco-
friendly" approach. The judgment delved into the challenging task of defining the environment,
citing Einstein and the Indian Chief of Seattle, emphasizing the duty of the State and citizens to
maintain a hygienic environment. It linked a hygienic environment to the right to a healthy life,
invoking constitutional imperatives under Articles 21, 47, and 48-A..
Reference to International Conferences/Instruments:
The case drew heavily on international conventions and declarations, reflecting the global
significance of environmental issues. The Stockholm Declaration (1972) stressed the
interdependence of economic and social development with environmental protection with their
article 9, 6, 7, 2, 1. The World Charter (1982) underscored the importance of living in harmony
with nature, while the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) emphasized conservation,
sustainable use, and fair benefit-sharing.
Sustainable Development and Government Obligations:
The court articulated the concept of sustainable development, portraying it as a policy and
strategy for continued economic and social development without harming the environment. It
emphasized the duty owed to future generations and the urgent need for the government to take
immediate, determined, and effective steps to address ecological imbalances and environmental
damage.
Final Decision:
In arriving at a final decision, the court invoked Section 2(ii) of the Forest Conservation Act,
which ruled out non-forest activities. The court accepted the time-period proposed by the Central
Empowered Committee, allowing mining for four years, subject to fulfilling conditions such as a
restoration plan and compensation. This decision sought to strike a balance between economic
interests and environmental preservation, respecting the international obligations and
constitutional imperatives outlined throughout the judgment.
JOHANNESBURG SUMMIT 2002 (goldberg nai john berg)

Outcome
Full implementation of Agenda 21 strongly reaffirmed on sustainable development.
The Summit reaffirmed sustainable development as a central element of the international
agenda and gave new impetus to global action to fight poverty and protect the environment.
The understanding of sustainable development was broadened and strengthened as a result
of the Summit, particularly the important linkages between poverty, the environment and the
use of natural resources
Goals
Governments agreed to and reaffirmed a wide range of concrete commitments and targets for
action to achieve more effective implementation of sustainable development objectives.
Energy and sanitation issues were critical elements of the negotiations and outcomes to a
greater degree than in previous international meetings on sustainable development.
Support for the establishment of a world solidarity fund for the eradication of poverty was a
positive step forward
The views of civil society were given prominence at the Summit in recognition of the key
role of civil society in implementing the outcomes and in promoting partnership initiatives
Key Commitments
Poverty Eradication
Water and Sanitation
Sustainable Production and Consumption
Energy
Renewable energy, Access to Energy, Energy Markets, Energy efficiency

Chemicals
Aim, by 2020, to use and produce chemicals in ways that do not lead to significant adverse
effects on human health and the environment.
Promote the ratification and implementation of relevant international instruments on
chemicals and hazardous waste, including the Rotterdam Convention so that it can enter into
force by 2003 and the Stockholm Convention so that it can enter into force by 2004.
Management of the natural resource base
Water, Oceans and fisheries, Atmosphere, Biodiversity, Forests
Corporate responsibility
Actively promote corporate responsibility and accountability, including through the full
development and effective implementation of intergovernmental agreements and measures,
international initiatives and public-private partnerships, and appropriate national regulations
Health
Sustainable development of small island developing States
Sustainable development for Africa
Means of implementation
Ensure that, by 2015, all children will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling
and that girls and boys will have equal access to all levels of education relevant to national
 needs
Institutional Framework for sustainable development
Adopt new measures to strengthen institutional arrangements for sustainable development at
international, regional and national levels.
Enhance the role of the Commission on Sustainable Development, including through
reviewing and monitoring progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and fostering
coherence of implementation, initiatives and partnerships.
Institutional Framework for sustainable development
Facilitate and promote the integration of the environmental, social and economic dimensions
of sustainable development into the work programs UN regional commissions.
Establish an effective, transparent and regular inter-agency coordination mechanism on
ocean and coastal issues within the United Nations system.

Brundtland Commission Report 1987- World Commission on Environment and

Development (WCED)
The Brundtland Report, officially titled "Our Common Future," was published in 1987 by the
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). This report is a landmark
document that brought the concept of sustainable development to the forefront of global
discussions.

1. Definition of Sustainable Development:

The report coined the term "sustainable development," defining it as development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs. This definition recognizes the interconnectedness of economic, social, and environmental
aspects of development.

2. Interconnected Challenges:

The report highlighted the interdependence of environmental and development issues. It

stressed that poverty, environmental degradation, and inequity are intertwined challenges that
require integrated solutions. The emphasis was on breaking away from compartmentalized
thinking and addressing these challenges holistically.

3. Global Cooperation:

Brundtland underscored the need for international cooperation to tackle global environmental
issues. It called for collaborative efforts among nations to address problems like climate change,
deforestation, and loss of biodiversity. The report emphasized that these issues could not be
effectively addressed by individual countries acting alone.
4. Role of Economic Growth:

The report acknowledged the importance of economic growth but argued for a more
sustainable approach. It rejected the notion that environmental protection and economic
development were mutually exclusive, advocating for strategies that would promote both.

5. Intra- and Intergenerational Equity:

Brundtland emphasized the principle of equity, both among current generations and between
present and future generations. It called for social and economic policies that would reduce
disparities and ensure that the benefits of development are shared equitably.

6. Precautionary Principle:

The report introduced the precautionary principle, suggesting that lack of scientific certainty
should not be used as a reason to postpone measures to prevent environmental degradation. This
principle implies a proactive approach to environmental protection.

7. Responsibility of Developed Nations:

The report acknowledged the historical responsibility of developed nations in environmental

degradation and emphasized their role in supporting sustainable development efforts in
developing countries.

Moreover, the Brundtland Commission played a pivotal role in shaping the global environmental
agenda. Its recommendations informed the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The
Earth Summit resulted in the adoption of Agenda 21, a comprehensive plan of action for
sustainable development, and the establishment of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Kyoto Protocol 1997

GHG Emissions-

Carbon dioxide (CO2)

Methane (CH4)
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
Article 3 - The Parties shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic
carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed
their assigned amounts.
Emission Reduction Targets: Industrialized countries committed to reducing their greenhouse
gas emissions by specific targets within a set timeframe (2008-2012).
Cap-and-Trade Mechanism: It introduced the cap-and-trade system, where countries could trade
emissions allowances. Those exceeding their allocated emission limits could buy surplus
allowances from countries that had reduced emissions below their targets.
Carbon Sink Projects: The protocol recognized the role of carbon sinks (such as forests) in
absorbing carbon dioxide, allowing countries to gain credits by investing in and maintaining
these sinks.
Adherence and Compliance: It outlined a compliance system to ensure countries fulfilled their
commitments, imposing penalties for non-compliance.
There is a Kyoto Protocol as per which by use of CFLs, under a detailed procedure which is in
place being followed, 'carbon credits' are earned.
Limited practical effectiveness of the goals under the Kyoto Protocol

Participation: Major emitters like the United States did not ratify the protocol, limiting its global
impact.
Exclusions: It didn’t include binding targets for developing countries, which are now significant
contributors to emissions.
Even if the Kyoto Protocol were to be strictly observed, the reduction in global greenhouse gas
emissions during the period 2008 to 2012 would still be considerably lower than 5.2% as
developing nations have no clear-cut obligations.

The ‘Hot Air’ Problem

The Kyoto Protocol takes the year 1990 as a baseline. This was a time of upheaval in the former
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, when greenhouse gas emissions in the region decreased at the
same drastic rate at which national economies shrank. For this reason, even if no emission
reduction measures were adopted by Russia, the Ukraine or other Eastern European nations, their
emission levels during the period 2008–2012 would still be considerably lower than those
stipulated in the Protocol. The difference between emission quotas and emission quantity has
come to be known as ‘hot air’. Russia, Ukraine, and other nations in that region could, according
to the Protocol emissions trading mechanism, sell their ‘hot air’ surplus emission quotas to the
West for foreign currency. This approach could help realize the emission reduction goals
stipulated in the Protocol but, from the point of view of mitigating global warming, would
essentially be without benefit. Thus, the Kyoto Protocol’s is primarily symbolic and its actual
effectiveness is ‘virtually non-existent’.

Absolute LIablity
In India previously environmental cases were dealt with tort, like nuisance, negligence strike
liability. But due to the exceptions of strict liability most of the environmental cases were
escaped. Then, the Supreme Court of India re-innovated the term absolute liability i.e. liability
without exception. In other words it is also called no fault liability. Indian constitution also
accepted the views of United Nations concept of “Polluter Pays Principle” which means the
Polluter shall pay the cost for remediation of damage. Absolute liability is a developed term
while polluter pays principle is a developing term. Before analyzing the theory of absolute
liability it is necessary to elaborate what strict liability means?
The theory of strict liability
In environmental law there are the acts for which a man is responsible irrespective of the
existence of either wrongful intent or negligence. They are the exceptions to the general
requirement of fault. It may be thought, indeed, that in the civil as opposed to the criminal law,
strict liability should be the rule rather than the exception. The expression formerly used was
‘absolute” liability, but since exceptions are always recognized to so-called absolute liability. Sir
peery Winfield suggested that a better term was ‘strict” liability and this suggestion has since
been judicially adopted.
The rule in Rylands V. Fletcher
In 1868 the House of Lords laid down in Rylands V. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3.H.L. 330 the rule
Recognizing ‘No fault’ liability. The recognized was ‘strict liability’ i.e. even if the defendant
was not negligent or rather, even if the defendant did not intentionally cause the harms or he was
careful, he could still be made liable under the rule.
In Rylands v. Fletcher the defendant got a reservoir constructed, through independent
contractors, over his land for providing water to his mill. There were old disused shafts under the
site of the reservoir, which the contractors failed to observe and so did not block them. When the
water was filled in the reservoir, it burst through the shafts and flooded the plaintiff’s coal-mines
on the adjoining land. The defendant did not know of the shafts and had not been negligent
although the independent contractors had been. Even though the dependant had not been
negligent, he was held liable.
For the application of the rule, therefore, the following three essentials should be there:
A person on his land must have brought some dangerous thing.
Things thus brought or kept by a person on his land must escape.
It must be non-natural use of land.
Exceptions to the rule
The following exceptions to the rule have been recognized by Rylands v. Fletcher and some later
cases.
(i) Plaintiff’s own default
(ii) Act of God;
(iii) Consent of the plaintiff;
(iv) Act of third party;
(v) Statutory Authority.
Position in India
The rule of strict liability is applicable as much in India as in England. There has, however, been
recognition of some deviation both ways, i.e., in the extension of the scope of the rule of strict
liability as well as the limitation of its scope. Interestingly, the liability without fault has been
recognized in case of motor vehicle accidents. The Motor vehicles Act. 1939 recognizes ‘liability
without fault’ to a limited extent. Such Liability was first recognized by an insertion of Sec 91 –
A in 1982 by an Amendment of the motor Vehicle, Act, 1939.
Recognition of ‘liability without fault’ in case of motor vehicle accident is a welcome measure. It
is submitted that the recognition of such a liability will in fact be the application of the rule in
Rylands v. Fletcher in its true spirit because the activity of running the motor vehicles today is in
no way less hazardous than the escape of water in that case, more than a century ago.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [AIR 1987 S.C. 1086.
This case was decided by a bench consisting of 7 judges on a reference made by a Bench of three
judges. ]the Supreme Court was dealing with claims arising from the leakage of Oleum gas on
4th and 6th December, 1985 from one of the unites of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries,
in the city of Delhi, belonging to Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. As a consequence of this leakage, it was
alleged that one advocate practicing in the Tis Hazari Court had died and the same affected
several other.
The action was brought through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by way of
public interest litigation (PIL). The court had in mind that within a period of one year this was a
second case of large-scale leakage of delay gas in India, a year earlier due to leakage of MIC gas
from the Union Carbide Plant in Bhopal more than 3000 persons had died and lacs of theirs were
subjected to serious diseases of various kinds.
If the rule of strict liability laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher was applied to such like situations
then those who had established ‘hazardous and inherently dangerous’ industries in and around
thickly populated areas could escape the liability for the havoc caused thereby pleading some
exception to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. For instance, when the escape of the escape of the
substance causing damage was due to the act of a stranger, say due to sabotage, there was no
liability under that rule.
The Supreme Court took a bold decision holding that it was not bound to follow the 19th century
rule of English law and it could evolve a rule suitable to the social and economic conditions
prevailing in India at the present day. It evolved the rule of ‘absolute liability’ as part of
Indian Law in preference to the rule of strict liability laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher. It
expressly declared that the new rule was not subject to any of the exceptions under the rule in
Rylands v. Fletcher.
After laying down the above mentioned rule the court directed that the organisations who had
filed the petition may file actions in appropriate court writhing a period of 2 months to claim
compensation on behalf of the victim of the gas leak. Bhagwati, C.J. observed in this context:
The Supreme Court thus evolved a new rule creating absolute liability for the harm caused by
dangerous substances as was hitherto not there. The following statement of Bhagwati, C. J. that
laid down the new principle may be noted.
“We are of the view 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 areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the
community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity which it has undertaken.
The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standard of safety 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 taken all
reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part.”
The rule was summed up in the following words, with the assertion that this rule will not be
subjected to any of the exceptions recognised under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.
The Court gave two reasons justifying the rule:
“Firstly that the enterprise carrying on such hazardous and inherently dangerous activity for
private profit has a social obligation to compensate those suffering there from and it should
absorb such loss as an item of overheads, and secondly, the enterprise alone has the resources to
discover and guard against such hazards and dangers.
. This principle is also sustainable on the ground that the enterprise also has the resource to
discover and guard against hazards or dangers and to provide warring against potential hazard.”
The court also laid down that the measure of compensation payable should be correlated to the
magnitude and capacity of the enterprise, so that the same can have the deterrent effect.

Union Carbide Corpn. V. Union of India [AIR 1990 SC 273]

The Supreme Court held that the damages payable by the alleged tort feaster must be correlated
to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise. One aspect of this matter was dealt with by this
court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [AIR 1987 SC 1086], which marked a significant stage in
the development of the law.
----- scholarThe criticism of the Mehta principle, perhaps, ignores the emerging postulates of
tuitions liability whose principal focus is the social – limits on economic adventurism. There are
certain things that a civilized society simply cannot permit to be done to is members, even if they
are compensated for their resulting losses.
Later in 1993
The Supreme Court traced the importance of the concept of absolute liability. On 29th March
1985 the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act. 1985 was passed authorizing the
Government of India, as parents partite exclusively to represent the victims so that interests of
the victims of the disaster are fully protected, and that claims for compensation were pursued
speedily, effectively, quotably and to the best advantage of the claimants.
Now India recognises the Polluter Pays Principle in the place of Absolute Liability to avoid
firstly, the label of hazardous and non-hazardous industries to fix the liability and , Secondly,
status of ‘state’ under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution who protects fundamental rights.
Only one legislation was framed to promote the principle of Absolute liability was the National
Environment Tribunal Act 1995 [NET], however, the recent National Green Tribvellunal Act
2010 replaces the NET.

Concept of Sustainable Development in Relation to Environment

The right to development does have certain limitations
For example, a state cannot, in the name of development make applications of nuclear energy in
such a way as to harm the environment and imperil human life.
The Supreme Court of India in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India [AIR1996 SC
2715 at 2720] elaborated and discussed the concept of sustainable development, which has been
accepted as part of the law of the land.
A strategy or sustainable living and the guiding rules are:
(i) People must respect the rights of each other
(ii) Humanity must take no more from nature than man can replenish; and
(iii) People must adopt life styles and development paths that respect and work within
nature’s limits.
Sustainable Development and Inter-generational Equity
Brundtland Commission, “development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India [2000 (10) SCC 664 at p.727].
Commonly known as the Narmada Dam case, is a landmark judgment that delves into the
intricate balance between development and environmental protection. The dispute centered
around the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River and the potential
adverse impacts it posed on the environment, specifically in relation to agricultural and forest
land, biological diversity, aquatic life, downstream fisheries, and the overall ecological balance.
Facts of the Case:
The Sardar Sarovar Dam, a key component of the Narmada Valley Development Project, was
proposed to harness the water resources of the Narmada River for irrigation, power generation,
and drinking water supply. However, the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), an environmental
activist group, raised concerns about the potential environmental and social consequences of the
dam. The issues highlighted by NBA included threats to agricultural and forest land, loss of
biodiversity, disruption of downstream fisheries, increased risk of insect-borne diseases, and the
lack of proper environmental clearances.

Petitioner Arguments:
The NBA argued that the execution of the Sardar Sarovar Project without a comprehensive
environmental impact assessment violated the constitutional rights of the affected people under
Article 21. They contended that the environmental clearance granted lacked proper application of
mind and that the downstream impacts of the dam were inadequately considered. The NBA
emphasized the need for the precautionary principle, asserting that the burden of proof should be
on those proposing potentially harmful activities to the environment.

Union of India/States' Arguments:

The Union of India and the concerned states countered the NBA's claims, arguing that the
petitioners had exaggerated the potential negative impacts of the project. They asserted that the
benefits of the Sardar Sarovar Project far outweighed the immediate costs, claiming that without
the dam, there would be greater long-term costs and pressure on the environment. The
government argued that the dam would lead to increased water availability, improved soil
moisture, and support for various plants and animals.

Judgment:
The judgment addressed two key legal principles: the precautionary principle and the issue of
environmental clearance.

Precautionary Principle:
The court acknowledged the precautionary principle, which places the burden of proof on those
proposing potentially harmful activities to the environment. It emphasized that the principle
applies when there is an identifiable risk of serious or irreversible harm. However, the court
made a crucial distinction by stating that the precautionary principle is relevant when the extent
of damage or pollution is not known due to a lack of data.

The court held that the construction of a dam, in this case, the Sardar Sarovar Dam, did not fall
under the category of a polluting industry or a nuclear establishment. It reasoned that the
construction of the dam would lead to a change in the environment, but it would be incorrect to
presume that it would result in ecological disaster. The court concluded that the precautionary
principle and the case of MV Nayudu did not apply in this scenario.
Environmental Clearance:
Regarding environmental clearance, the court acknowledged that the construction of the dam
would result in submergence and that the effects on the ecology were known. It noted that
various studies on environmental impact had been carried out. The court asserted that the
absence of adequate data for certain facets of the environment did not vitiate the decision to grant
environmental clearance.

The court emphasized that care for the environment is an ongoing process and that the system in
place would ensure that ameliorative steps are taken to counter any adverse effects on the
environment resulting from the dam's construction.

In summary, the judgment in the Narmada Bachao Andolan case struck a balance between
development and environmental protection. It recognized the importance of sustainable
development, emphasizing that when the effects of a project on the environment are known,
mitigative steps should be taken to preserve ecological balance. The court rejected the
application of the precautionary principle in the context of dam construction, asserting that dams
are not inherently polluting industries and that the potential environmental impact can be
managed through ongoing care and ameliorative measures.
Taj Trapezium case [AIR 1997 SC 734]. (per Kuldip Singh, J.)
It is often referred to as the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) case, is a pivotal legal battle addressing
the severe air pollution affecting the iconic Taj Mahal. Filed by M.C. Mehta, the petition aimed
to protect the Taj Mahal from the detrimental effects of air pollution caused primarily by
industries and refineries in the Mathura region, which emit sulfur dioxide (SO2) leading to acid
rain and deterioration of the monument's exterior and interior.

The Court, in this case, engaged various expert reports and studies over several years to
comprehend and address the air pollution concerns in the Taj Trapezium Zone.

Facts of the Case:

M.C. Mehta filed the writ petition based on the premise that effluents from industries and
refineries in Mathura were causing significant damage to the Taj Mahal. The emissions,
particularly sulfur dioxide (SO2), were reacting with oxygen to form sulfuric acid, leading to
acid rain. This acid rain was causing severe deterioration to both the exterior and interior of the
Taj, tarnishing its pristine white surface with yellow, brown, and black spots. The petition also
referenced the "Report on Environmental Impact of Mathura Refinery" by the Varadharajan
Committee, published by the Government of India in 1978.

Petitioner's Submissions and Progression of the Case:

The petitioner, M.C. Mehta, raised several crucial questions during the progression of the case.
Firstly, the impact of carbon emissions on Taj's pollution was assessed. Secondly, the potential
substitute for conventional fuels was explored, with natural gas identified as a preferable
alternative. Thirdly, the challenge of safely transitioning industries to natural gas and
establishing the necessary infrastructure, including pipelines, was addressed.
The case evolved through different phases, primarily focusing on:

Identification of Sources of Pollution: Reports like the Varadharajan Committee Report,

Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, and the NEERI report
highlighted the major sources of pollution in the Agra-Mathura region, emphasizing industries
using coal or coke.

Effects of Pollution on Taj Mahal: Studies revealed that pollutants like SO2 and Suspended
Particulate Matter (SPM) significantly exceeded prescribed limits, leading to the yellowing and
deterioration of the Taj Mahal. The reports emphasized the need for urgent action to prevent
further damage.

Alternative Solutions: Natural gas was identified as a viable substitute for coal or coke.
Various reports suggested its use as a cleaner fuel and proposed its implementation in industries
within the TTZ. However, concerns regarding industry readiness, safety measures, and
infrastructure were raised.

Relocation of Industries: Recommendations emerged for the relocation of industries,

particularly those emitting high levels of pollutants, to areas outside the TTZ. The Court stressed
the importance of protecting the Taj Mahal while promoting sustainable industrial development.

The Court invoked the principles of sustainable development, emphasizing the need to balance
industrial progress with environmental conservation. It underscored the 'Polluter Pays' and
'Precautionary Principle' doctrines, holding industries accountable for environmental damage
and mandating preventive measures even in the absence of absolute scientific certainty.

The case involved active monitoring and directives to the industries, Uttar Pradesh Pollution
Control Board, and other authorities. Notices were issued for anti-pollution measures, closure of
non-compliant industries, and directives for the use of natural gas as a cleaner fuel. Additionally,
there were mandates for relocating industries to designated areas outside the pollution-sensitive
zone.

The judgment articulated that the burden of proof lay on industries to demonstrate that their
operations did not cause environmental harm. It emphasized the need for environmental
measures to anticipate and prevent degradation, particularly when prestigious monuments like
the Taj Mahal were at risk.

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. Sri Kenchappa & Ors.

Background:

In this legal saga, the Respondents, including Sri Kenchappa and others, found themselves
challenging the acquisition of their gomal (grazing) and residential lands by KIADB for the
benefit of Gee India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. The Respondents, predominantly agriculturists,
contended that the acquisition, especially of grazing lands, would have adverse environmental
consequences. Their plea extended to the assertion that lands within the green belt designated for
gomal and residential purposes should be shielded from non-agricultural developments,
including industrial projects.

Claims of the Respondents:

The Respondents' primary argument centered on the alleged violation of due procedure by the
State of Karnataka, rendering the land acquisition unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 21.
They contended that the acquisition notification was issued without affording them an
opportunity to be heard.

The impact on the environment should be a crucial consideration in land acquisition. They
insisted that the clearance from the State Pollution Control Board must be mandatory, reflecting
a commitment to environmental protection.

Counterclaims of the Appellants:

KIADB, the appellant, countered these claims by arguing that the lands were no longer utilized
for gomal purposes due to urbanization. They clarified that the intended project was a research
initiative, not a manufacturing plant that would significantly contribute to pollution.
Additionally, KIADB maintained that the acquisition adhered to the provisions of the KIADB
Act, 1966, as some of the acquired land was government-owned, and the rest was procured from
private parties with due compensation. They highlighted the positive aspects of the project, such
as its potential to generate employment and foster research and development.

Judgment:

It mandated that the appellant must conduct an environmental impact assessment before pursuing
development. Furthermore, the court declared obtaining necessary clearance from the Pollution
Control Board as a mandatory requirement. In framing its decision, the court invoked Articles
21, 48A, and 51(g) of the Constitution, emphasizing their collective concern for environmental
protection.

Key Points from the Judgment:

Environmental Impact Assessment: The court's insistence on an environmental impact

assessment signifies a paradigm shift in recognizing the interconnectedness of development and
environmental consequences.

Mandatory Clearance: The court's emphasis on obtaining mandatory clearance from the Pollution
Control Board underscores a commitment to environmental protection as an integral part of the
developmental process.

Constitutional Concern for the Environment: Articles 21 (right to life), 48A (protection and
improvement of the environment), and 51(g) (fundamental duty to protect and improve the
natural environment) collectively formed the constitutional basis for the court's decision,
aligning with global environmental imperatives.
Sustainable Development: The judgment positions sustainable development as the key to
addressing environmental challenges while acknowledging the importance of striking a balance
between development and ecology. Vellore Case, Subhash Kumar

International Principles: By referencing international conferences such as the Stockholm

Conference (1972) and the Rio Declaration (1992), the court sought to establish a global
standard for treating sustainable development in harmony with constitutional provisions.

Clearance from Pollution Control Board: The court's insistence on mandatory clearance from the
Pollution Control Board signifies a robust stance in favor of environmental protection, aligning
with the evolving policy landscape of the nation.

Conclusion:

The court's nuanced approach, drawing on international principles and conventions,

demonstrates a holistic perspective on sustainable development. It reflects a judicial
consciousness of the urgency in protecting the environment and achieving a harmonious
coexistence between industrialization and ecological preservation. The case serves as a beacon,
guiding future legal interpretations and policy formulations in the intersection of development
and environmental welfare. The court's commitment to mandatory clearances and environmental
impact assessments signals a proactive and environmentally responsible stance, paving the way
for a more sustainable and ecologically conscious developmental trajectory in the nation.

State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ganesh Wood Products (AIR 1996 SC 149),

The central conflict arose from the Government of Himachal Pradesh's refusal to allow the
establishment of katha factories within the state. Ganesh Wood Products filed a writ petition
challenging this decision, contending that the new Industrial Policy of India granted citizens an
absolute right to establish small-scale industries anywhere, anytime, and of any capacity they
desired. They argued that the government was obligated to register any application for such
industries and had no authority to cancel or disapprove such registrations.

The crux of the issue lay in the absence of a specific legislative enactment by the Himachal
Pradesh legislature governing the establishment of these particular industries. Consequently, the
executive power of the state extended to this subject matter. The Court noted that while
exercising executive functions, the government was entitled to formulate policies and
preferences in the interest of the state, its economy, and in line with the Himachal Pradesh Forest
Policy.

The government's stance rested on the ecological impact, emphasizing that the establishment of
these factories could lead to excessive felling of khair trees, causing detrimental effects on the
environment and ecology of the state. Moreover, they argued that the raw material available,
namely the khair trees, was insufficient to sustain the proposed industries.
The Court acknowledged the government's authority to approve or disapprove applications for
industries and highlighted the obligation of the state to provide fair and equitable treatment to all
applicants. It underlined the significance of sustainable development, emphasizing that the
present generation had no right to exhaust all existing forest resources, leaving nothing for future
generations. Sustainable growth demanded a careful assessment of forest wealth and restrictions
on the establishment of industries based on forest produce to maintain ecological balance.
Additionally, whether the trees used came from private or government forests was deemed
immaterial concerning forest wealth and environmental preservation.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel was also deliberated upon. The Court recognized this as an
equitable doctrine, subject to adaptation based on the specific circumstances. It emphasized that
if equity demanded allowing the promisor to retract while compensating the promisee
appropriately, that action should be taken. Conversely, if equity demanded that the promisor be
held to their representation due to actions taken by the promisee based on that representation,
that course of action should be followed.

In conclusion, the Court remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision on the writ
petitions. It also restrained the factory units from progressing further towards setting up until the
High Court issued its final orders.

INDIAN JUDICIARY AND POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE

Beneficiary-Pays Principle / The User-Pays Principle
With the PPP having been applied relatively rarely to agriculture, the cost-sharing rule typically
used in its place has been the Beneficiary-Pays Principle (BPP). The BPP favours the costs of
providing conservation goods (i.e., prevention or repair of environmental degradation) being
allocated to those who benefit from those goods.
Finally Polluter Pays Principle means:
that absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of
pollution but also of the cost of restoring the environmental degradation.
Further, Remediation of the damaged environment is a part of the process of Sustainable
Development’ and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual suffers as well as the
cost of reversing the damaged ecology.

(Bichri Village) Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Union of
India (UOI) 1996
For the first time Indian Judiciary dealt with Polluter Pays Principle
Facts
Bichri is a small village in Udaipur district of Rajasthan. To its north is a major industrial
establishment, Hindustan Zinc Limited, a public sector concern.
The real calamity occurred when a sister concern, Silver Chemicals [Respondent No. 5],
commenced production of 'H' acid in a plant located within the same complex.
'H' acid was meant for export exclusively. Its manufacture gives rise to enormous quantities of
highly toxic effluents – in particular, iron-based and gypsum-based sludge - which if not
properly treated, pose grave threat to mother Earth.
Because of the pernicious wastes emerging from the production of 'H' acid, its manufacture is
stated to have been banned in the western countries. But the need of 'H' acid continues in the
West.
That need is catered to by the industries like the Silver Chemicals and Jyoti Chemicals in this
part of the world.

ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION
Since the toxic untreated waste waters were allowed to flow out freely and because the untreated
toxic sludge was thrown in the open in and around the complex, the toxic substances have
percolated deep into the bowels of the earth polluting the aquifers and the sub-terrain supply of
water.
The water in the wells and the streams has turned dark and dirty rendering it unfit for human
consumption. It has become unfit for cattle to drink and for irrigating the land.
The consequences remain - the sludge, the long-lasting damage to earth, to underground water,
to human being, to cattle and the village economy.
It is with these consequences that SUPREME COURT to ENTERTAIN this writ petition.
STEPS TAKEN DURING THE PERIOD 1989-1992
the Court requested the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute [NEERI] to
study the situation in and around Bichri village and submit their report "as to the choice and scale
of the available remedial alternatives".
NEERI was requested to suggest both short-term and long-term measures required to combat the
hazard already caused.
This leaches the sludge mixed soil from the abandoned dumpsite ' and the contaminated water
flows by gravity towards east and finds its way into a nallah flowing through the compound and
conveys the contaminated water to an irrigation canal which originates from Udaisagar lake
Damage to Crops and Trees
trees like eucalyptus planted in contaminated fields show leaf burning and stunted growth.
Treatment plant- remedial measure
There was no treamtment plant they are directly dumping the toxic waste in the ground. Land
treatment, soil washing, re-vegetation, control over the flow of the contaminated water to
adjoining lands through canals, leaching of soluble salts, design of farm to development Agro-
forestry and/or forestry plantation with salt tolerant crops/plants and ground water
decontamination.
RESTORATION COST AND COMPENSATION
The Report suggests that compensation should be paid under two heads, viz., (polluter pays
principle)
(a) for the losses due to damage and
(b) towards the cost of restoration of environmental quality.

Conclusion
This cost needs to be borne by the management of the industry in keeping with the Polluter Pays
principle and the doctrine of Strict/Absolute liability, as applied to SriRam Food and Fertilizers
Industry in the case of Oleum leak in 1985.
The polluter pays principle demands that the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage
caused by pollution should lie with the undertakings which cause the pollution, or produce the
goods which cause the pollution.
Under the principle it is not the role of government to meet the costs involved in either
prevention of such damage, or in carrying out remedial action, because the effect of this would
be to shift the financial burden of the pollution incident to the taxpayer.
As per A.21 of the Constitution, the right to life of the people of Bichhri village was getting
jeopardized, A.48A and 51A of the Directive Principles of State policy, which lays emphasis on
the protection of environment have been emphasized. S.24 and 25 of Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 which lays down measures to discharge sewage.(V) Sections 3
and 5 of the Environment [Protection] Act, 1986, apart from other provisions of Water and Air
Acts empower the Government to make all such directions and take all such measures as are
necessary or expedient for protecting and promoting the 'environment',
INTER-GENERATIONAL EQUITY

contains two distinct components regarding the utilization of resources

The first calls for fairness in the utilization of resources between human generations past, present
and future. This component will be referred to as "inter-generational" equity.
The second component is referred to as "intra-generational" equity, namely, fairness in
utilization of resources among human
The "intra-" and "inter-" generational dimensions have distinct international, national and local
implications.

The integration of environmental, development, and human rights objectives, as reflected in

international instruments and declarations, is aimed at ensuring a holistic and sustainable
approach to addressing the needs and rights of various communities, including indigenous
peoples. The excerpts you provided from the 1994 U.N. Draft Declaration on Indigenous Peoples
highlight specific rights related to traditional medicines, health practices, and the protection of
cultural manifestations for indigenous communities.

1. **Rights to Traditional Medicines and Health Practices (Article 24):** Indigenous peoples
have the right to their traditional medicines and health practices. This includes the right to protect
vital medicinal plants, animals, and minerals. Recognizing and respecting the traditional
knowledge and practices of indigenous communities in matters related to health and medicine is
a crucial aspect of this right.

2. **Rights to Sciences, Technologies, and Cultural Manifestations (Article 29):** Indigenous

peoples are entitled to special measures to control, develop, and protect their sciences,
technologies, and cultural manifestations. This encompasses a wide range of elements such as
human and other genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of fauna and flora properties,
oral traditions, literature, designs, and visual and performing arts. The emphasis here is on
safeguarding and promoting the rich cultural heritage and intellectual property of indigenous
communities.

CONCEPT OF PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT

Taj Trepezium, Vellore case.
The case of AP Pollution Control Board v. MV Nayudu (1999) AIR SC 812

The case of AP Pollution Control Board v. MV Nayudu (1999) revolved around the
establishment of an oil manufacturing unit within a restricted environmental zone. The company,
M/s Surana Oils and Derivatives, sought permission to set up this unit despite the area being
designated off-limits due to environmental concerns.

The heart of the dispute lay in the conflicting perspectives between the company and the AP
Pollution Control Board. The Board rejected the company's applications multiple times, citing
potential severe pollution issues resulting from the nature of the industry. They contended that
the establishment of such an industry within the specified zone could lead to environmental
degradation and posed risks to surrounding areas.

Conversely, the company argued that it employed eco-friendly technology and claimed that the
by-products of its processes were marketable, thereby minimizing the environmental impact.
They emphasized their use of technology acquired from the Indian Institute of Chemical
Technology, stating that it prevented the discharge of harmful effluents and assured the
saleability of the by-products.

The legal proceedings delved into the decisions made by the Pollution Control Board,
highlighting inconsistencies and discrepancies in their approach. The High Court, upon review,
identified these inconsistencies and emphasized the need for specialized expertise to handle
environmental disputes effectively. It pointed out the challenges in reconciling the technical
aspects of environmental issues with legal interpretations and decisions.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, it underscored the complexities inherent in
environmental matters. The apex court recognized the inadequacies of the existing systems in
resolving these intricate issues. It stressed the urgency of establishing specialized tribunals with a
combination of judicial and technical expertise to ensure fair adjudication in environmental
disputes.
The Court's judgment emphasized the critical need for specialized bodies capable of navigating
the complexities of environmental law and scientific intricacies. It recommended amendments to
the legal framework to integrate scientific inputs into the decision-making process, thereby
ensuring more informed and fair resolutions in environmental disputes.

Public Trust Doctrine

The public trust doctrine is the principle that certain natural resources are preserved for public
use, and that the government must protect and maintain these resources for the people.
The public trust doctrine is one of the oldest environmental law doctrines.
The United States adopted the doctrine from England's common law system, but the doctrine's
origin stretches much further back into history.
Modern Public Trust Doctrine
First, certain interests, such as navigation and fishing, were sought to be preserved for the benefit
of the public, accordingly, property used for those purposes was distinguished from general
public property which the sovereign could routinely grant to private owners.
Second, while it was understood that in certain common properties - such as the seashore,
highways, and running water - "perpetual use was dedicated to the public," it has never been
clear whether the public had an enforceable right to prevent infringement of those interests.
Restrictions
• Three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the
public trust:

• First, the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must
be held available for use by the general public;

• Second, the property may not be sold, even for a fair cash equivalent; and
• Third, the property must be maintained for particular types of uses.
The Indian Public Trust Doctrine
• In 1996, the Indian Supreme Court essentially imported the American variant of the
traditional public trust doctrine, declaring it to be part of Indian law - although even in that
case the Court began to stretch the public trust doctrine beyond its traditional bounds.

Article 297 of IC
• In Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries (2010) 7 SCC 1, 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

• “It must be noted that the constitutional mandate is that the natural resources belong to the
people of this country. The nature of the word "vest" must be seen in the context of
the public trust doctrine (PTD). Even though this doctrine has been applied in cases
dealing with environmental jurisprudence, it has its broader application.”

Four features that shows the shift from traditional to modern concept
• First, they evince the Indian Supreme Court's ongoing desire to ground its public trust
jurisprudence in India's English common law heritage.
• Second, these cases manifest an ongoing shift away from the Court's initial reliance on
American law as the touchstone for the trust's content toward a uniquely Indian conception
that the Court deems to spring from some set of Indian constitutional principles.
• In Mehta v. Nath, the court clearly looked to American jurisprudence and scholarship for its
conception of the trust's purposes, content, and scope.
• Third, Reliance Industries demonstrates the Court's willingness, in defining the universe of
resources to which the doctrine applies, to go far beyond its dictum in Mehta v. Nath
regarding the applicability of the public trust doctrine to "all ecosystems operating in our
natural resources."
• Finally, these cases make clear that the Indian public trust doctrine is solely a creature of
Indian law, and is not, like its American cousin, dependent on state law for any of its content.
Since declaring in Mehta v. Nath that the public trust doctrine is "part of [Indian]
jurisprudence,"

Indian Position
• SC for the first time accepted the PTD in Kamalnath case (1997) 1 SCC 388
• “The doctrine of public trust, which was evolved in Illinois Central Railroad Company v.
People of the State of Illinois 146 U.S. 387 (1892), has been held by this Court to be a part
of the Indian jurisprudence”

• “This doctrine is part of Indian law and finds application in the present case as well. It is
thus the duty of the Government to provide complete protection to the natural resources as a
trustee of the people at large.”

MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath Case 1997

Introduction

The case of Span Club and Kamal Nath, a legal saga that unfolded in response to the activities of
Span Resorts, offers a profound exploration of environmental law, public trust doctrine, and the
delicate equilibrium between development and ecological preservation. The matter reached the
Supreme Court's attention following an Indian Express article exposing the diversion of the Beas
River's course by Span Club, a venture associated with Kamal Nath and family. This narrative
delves into the intricate legal arguments, contrasting perspectives, and the consequential
judgment that reshaped the landscape of environmental jurisprudence.

Background

The genesis of the dispute lies in the allocation of land by the state government to Span Club
under a lease agreement. This land, later regularized and leased during Kamal Nath's tenure as
the Union Minister for Environment and Forests, became the site for the Span Resort. The
resort's construction encroached upon forest land, sparking environmental concerns.
Subsequently, the Beas River, in a natural course of events, eroded parts of the Span Club. In
response, the management initiated a five-month-long endeavor to redirect the river's flow,
employing machinery to counter the erosion.

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner raised two key contentions. Firstly, they alleged that the respondent, Span Club,
encroached upon forest land in violation of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Secondly, the petitioner contended that the alteration of the river's direction by the respondent
resulted in environmental degradation.

Respondent's Counterarguments:

Span Club, in its defense,. Additionally, Kamal Nath, a stakeholder in Span Resort, disclaimed
any involvement in the management and asserted no right, title, or interest in the property. The
respondent argued that their actions aimed to restore the river's original course and protect both
their land and neighboring villages. They justified the 99-year lease as necessary for reclamation
and protection.

SC held that:

• Our legal system -- based on English common law -- includes the public trust doctrine as
part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature
meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea-shore,
running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a
legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be
converted into private ownership.

• If there is a law made by Parliament or the State Legislatures the courts can serve as an
instrument of determining legislative intent in the exercise of its powers of judicial review
under the Constitution. But in the absence of any legislation, the executive acting under
the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resources and convert them into
private ownership, or for commercial use.

• The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and the
ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any
other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public good and
in public interest to encroach upon the said resources. Central Ellinis, monolake
Court's Directive:

In a landmark decision, the court annulled the letter and lease granted to Span Club, tasking the
Himachal Pradesh government with reclaiming and restoring the area to its original-natural
conditions. The resort was held liable for compensating the restitution of the environment and
ecology, with the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) assessing the
costs. The Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board (HP PCB) was entrusted with preventing
untreated effluent discharge into the Beas River and inspecting all relevant establishments in the
area.

M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v Radhey Shyam Sahu 1999

The Supreme Court of India deliberated on the violation of public trust doctrine and various
statutory provisions relating to the construction of an underground shopping complex in the
Jhandewala Park, known as Aminuddaula Park, located in the bustling Aminabad Market of
Lucknow. Here's a comprehensive breakdown of the case:

The controversy arose when Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika (municipal corporation) permitted M.I.
Builders Pvt. Ltd. to construct an underground shopping complex within the historical and
environmentally significant Jhandewala Park. The High Court of Allahabad intervened, declaring
the construction illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. It quashed the permissions granted by the
Mahapalika and mandated the restoration of the park. M.I. Builders appealed this decision.

The respondents (led by Radhey Shyam) argued that the park held historical significance, was
vital for the environment, and the construction violated several constitutional articles and local
laws. They highlighted that the construction would deteriorate residents' quality of life and that
the permissions granted were arbitrary, against established procedures, and favored the builder
without fair tendering processes.

On the other hand, the appellants (M.I. Builders) contended that there was no property disposal
to the builder as per Section 128 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. They defended the
project's uniqueness and feasibility, criticizing the High Court's interference in questioning the
project's merit. They also argued that the Mahapalika could not retract its earlier stance
supporting the project.

The Supreme Court's judgment extensively cited various legal provisions. It emphasized that the
Uttar Pradesh Parks Act, the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, and other regulations mandated the
preservation of parks and obligated the Mahapalika to maintain public spaces, including parks
and open areas.

Sections 128 and 129 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam were crucial in this context,
stating that any property disposal required specific authorization from the Mukhya Nagar
Adhikari and that contracts involving immovable property must explicitly represent the
Corporation's interests.

The Court underscored the importance of the public trust doctrine, derived from Article 21 of
the Constitution, stating that the Mahapalika acted as a trustee of the park for the citizens of
Lucknow and could not alienate or transform it for purposes other than its designated use as a
park.

Highlighting violations of these statutory provisions and the public trust doctrine, the Court ruled
against the builder. It condemned the Mahapalika's actions, stating they had unlawfully granted a
license to construct the underground complex and lease out shops, contrary to the provisions of
the law.

The Court deemed the agreement between the Mahapalika and the builder unjust, irrational, and
against public interest. It criticized the one-sided nature of the agreement, which favored the
builder and sacrificed public interest and public funds. Consequently, the Court ordered the
demolition of the entire construction.

Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2006 SC 1350)

Balancing Sustainable Development, Public Trust Doctrine, and Intergenerational Equity

The case of Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, heard by the Supreme
Court, revolves around the preservation and restoration of two historical tanks, Avilala and
Peruru Tank, dating back to 1500 AD. The appellants, representing a society called Intellectuals
Forum, contested the systematic destruction of these tanks for urban development, alleging
adverse effects on percolation, irrigation, and drinking water resources. The case delves into the
conflict between urban development and environmental protection, invoking principles like
sustainable development, the public trust doctrine, and intergenerational equity.

Factual Background

The dispute originated from the destruction of Avilala and Peruru Tanks and the allocation of the
tank bed land to the Urban Development Authority and the A.P. Housing Board for housing
projects. The appellants argued that these tanks served not only irrigation but also as vital
contributors to percolation and groundwater improvement, catering to the needs of the local
populace.

Contentions of the Appellant

The Intellectuals Forum contended that the development focus on economic growth often
neglects the importance of preserving the environment and vital freshwater resources.

Contentions of the Respondent

The respondents claimed that the tank in question was abandoned in 1992, and the land was
leveled after applying for abandonment. They argued that public notices were published, inviting
objections, but none were received. The respondents also highlighted the money already spent on
developing the land.

Key Issues
Primacy of Urban Development vs. Environmental Protection: The central question revolved
around whether urban development could be prioritized over the protection of the environment
and freshwater resources.

Sustainable Development vs. Environmental Harm: The case questioned whether the pursuit of
sustainable development could justify causing harm to the environment in the name of urban
development.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court, employing a multi-faceted analysis, delivered a comprehensive judgment:

Public Trust Doctrine (PTD): The court invoked the PTD, emphasizing that the executive, acting
under this doctrine, cannot relinquish natural resources for private or commercial use. It affirmed
the duty of the state to protect common heritage, including streams, lakes, and tidelands.

Affirmative Duties of the State: The judgment highlighted the affirmative duties of the state
concerning public trust. It emphasized the duty to protect natural resources and surrender the
right only when consistent with the purposes of the trust.

Sustainable Development: Referring to its previous judgment in the Essar Oil Case, the court
rejected the notion of a deadlock between development and the environment. It stressed the need
for harmony between developmental needs and environmental protection, promoting the
principle of sustainable development.

Intergenerational Equity: The court explored the concept of intergenerational equity, viewing the
environment as a resource for the present and future generations. It underscored the importance
of considering principles like intergenerational equity in environmental law decisions.

Balancing Competing Claims: The court acknowledged the competing claims of environment
and housing needs. While regretting the irreparable loss of natural resources due to persistent
developmental activities, it underscored the need to balance environmental concerns.

Legal Implications of Investments: The judgment cautioned against solely basing decisions on
investments committed by any party, avoiding a situation where investments made in a project
would automatically deem it legal.

Disposal of Appeals with Directions: In conclusion, the court directed that no further
constructions were allowed, existing houses had to implement rooftop rainwater harvesting, and
stormwater in built colonies had to recharge groundwater. Moreover, no borewell or tubewell
was permitted in the area.

The Aruna Rodrigues Case, documented in 2012 (5 SCC 331),

It was a pivotal legal battle in India focusing on the regulation and assessment of Genetically
Modified Organisms (GMOs). It was asserted that GMOs were being introduced into the
environment without adequate scientific scrutiny regarding biosafety concerns, leading to
potential hazards to both the environment and human health.

Under Article 32, the petitioners sought a direction from the Court to the UoI to establish
protocols for the scientific examination of GMOs' biosafety and prohibit their release into the
environment through import, manufacturing, usage, or any other means. They further requested
the formulation and implementation of rules governing GMOs.

The Court, through previous orders, had directed that field trials of GMOs could only proceed
with the approval of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). Despite this, by
2007, around 91 varieties of GMOs were undergoing open-field trials, contrary to the Court's
orders, sparking debates about whether these trials should be partially or entirely banned across
the country.

In response to the ongoing controversy, the Court, despite acknowledging its limitations in
handling technical matters, had lifted the moratorium on open-field trials but imposed specific
conditions. These conditions included directives regarding isolation distances during field tests
and a mandate for maintaining a specific level of detection during trials.

However, the controversy persisted, leading to several applications being filed, all aiming for a
complete ban on GMOs in the country. Simultaneously, due to non-compliance with principles
and based on expert reports, the government had imposed its ban on Bt Brinjal.

During the proceedings, minutes from a Ministry of Environment and Forests meeting were
submitted, proposing the constitution and terms of reference for an Expert Committee.
Subsequently, the Court accepted the consensus on the composition of the Expert Committee and
its terms of reference. It was suggested that the Committee should hear all concerned parties
before submitting its final report to the Court.

The Court then constituted a Technical Expert Committee comprising distinguished professors
and experts in various relevant fields. The Committee's terms of reference included a
comprehensive review of risk assessment studies for GMOs, recommending sequencing and
conditions for open-field trials, evaluating testing facilities, and advising on necessary safeguards
to prevent environmental risks.

The Court directed the Committee to submit its report within a specified timeframe and allowed
it to hear the government or other interveners in the case to formulate recommendations
regarding the necessity of a complete or partial ban on open-field tests of GMOs and the
protocols to be followed.

In essence, the case underscored the critical need for scientific evaluation and regulatory
oversight concerning the introduction of GMOs into the environment. It established a mechanism
for a specialized Expert Committee to comprehensively review biosafety concerns and
recommend protocols for GMO field trials in India, emphasizing the importance of rigorous
assessment and public consultation in decision-making regarding GMOs.

Goa Foundation vs. Konkan Railway 1992

involved a significant legal dispute centered around the development of a railway line from
Bombay to Mangalore, extending further to Kerala, which was managed by the Konkan Railway
Corporation (KRC). This railway alignment traversed various terrains in multiple states,
involving the construction of numerous tunnels and projects across rivers.

The Goa Foundation, a concerned entity, challenged this project through an Article 226 writ
petition, citing several environmental and legal concerns:

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Management Plan: Allegations were made that the
rail line's construction lacked a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment and an
Environmental Management Plan, posing threats to the environment and ecosystem, thus
violating Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to life.

Statutory Clearances: The petition emphasized the necessity for statutory clearances under the
Environment Protection Act for the railway line crossing rivers, creeks, basins, and backwaters,
and the need for prior approval under the Forest Conservation Act for passing through forest
lands.

Impact on Khazan Lands and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ): Concerns were raised about the
adverse impact on Khazan islands due to construction and violations of the Coastal Regulation
Zone guidelines regarding the disturbance of natural water courses.

Konkan Railways Corporation countered these contentions by presenting:

Expert Reports: Reports by retired railway officials and renowned technical and environmental
experts suggested that the project would have minimal adverse effects on air quality, noise
pollution, forests, and marine life.

Non-binding Nature of Environmental Acts: KRC argued that while it ensured minimal
environmental impact, the provisions of the Environment Protection Act were not binding
beyond ensuring the environment's protection.

Legal Standpoint: They invoked Section 11 of the Railways Act, asserting that railway
construction was beyond the purview of the Environment Act and that railway development was
not an "industry" subject to the Coastal Regulation Zone restrictions.

The Court deliberated on these issues and rendered the following key judgments:
Balancing Interests: Acknowledging the potential adverse impact on a small portion of Khazan
lands, the Court emphasized the larger public benefit derived from the railway project. It
underscored the necessity of striking a balance between public utility projects and environmental
preservation.

Railway Construction Not an Industry: It ruled that providing railway lines did not qualify as an
"industry" under the relevant legal provisions, thereby exempting the project from certain
environmental restrictions.

Non-application of Environment Act: The Court invoked Section 11 of the Railways Act, which
granted the Railway Administration extensive powers to construct railways without the bindings
of the Environment Protection Act.

In essence, the Court's decision prioritized the larger public interest served by the railway project
while recognizing the necessity to mitigate environmental impacts. It underscored the specialized
nature of balancing developmental needs with environmental conservation and upheld the
Railway Administration's authority under Section 11 of the Railways Act to carry out
construction without strict adherence to the Environment Protection Act.

Mrs. Susetha vs State of Tamil Nadu - ARTIFICIAL/NATURAL TANK CASE

The case of Mrs. Susetha vs State of Tamil Nadu revolves around the dispute concerning the
takeover of an abandoned village tank by the government for the construction of a shopping
complex. The background involves the surrender of the Gangaiamman temple tank by the
Panchayat and the Kancheepuram District Collectorate to the Highways Department for the
purpose of building a shopping complex. These shops were intended for traders who had given
up their land for an I.T. corridor project and for the resettlement of individuals displaced due to
the highway expansion project.

A local ward councillor of Thoraipakkam filed a petition in the High Court challenging the
proposed takeover. The petition raised concerns about the encroachment upon village ponds by
builders, leading to the construction of housing and shopping complexes, and highlighted the
water shortage faced by the public. However, the Highways Department contended that the tank
in question was an abandoned one, functioning as a dumping yard and sewage collection pond.
The High Court appointed a Commissioner to inspect the tank land, and based on the report,
dismissed the writ petition, taking into account the dilapidated condition of the tank and its
history of being used as a dumping ground.

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the importance of protecting natural lakes and ponds
as fundamental to the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, differentiated
between artificial tanks and natural water bodies. It refused relief to the petitioner, Mrs. Susetha,
stating that since the tank in question was in disuse and categorized as artificial, it couldn't be
equated with natural water bodies. However, the court emphasized the duty of the government
under Articles 47 and 48A of the Constitution to protect the environment, improve living
standards, and preserve ecological balance.
The Supreme Court directed the State and Gram Panchayat to ensure the proper maintenance of
other tanks in the village and take necessary steps to prevent water shortage while preserving the
ecology. The judgment underscored the significance of safeguarding natural water storage
resources and advocated for their restoration if they had fallen into disuse.

ND Jayal Case (Tehri Dam) (2004) 9 SCC 362

The ND Jayal case pertains to legal proceedings concerning the safety, environmental impact,
and rehabilitation aspects of the Tehri Dam. Filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the
case addresses issues related to sustainable development, Article 21 (Right to Life),
environmental clearance, and rehabilitation policies. Here's a comprehensive summary:

Background

In 1980, an Expert Group submitted reports recommending the abandonment of the Tehri Dam
project due to safety and environmental concerns. Despite an expenditure of Rs. 206 crores, the
Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) endorsed the project's abandonment in 1986.
However, it was later revived with assistance from the USSR.

Environmental Clearance and Safety Concerns:

The need for environmental clearances became urgent to proceed with the project. In 1990,
conditional clearance was granted by the MoEF, emphasizing the simultaneous execution of
environmental action plans with construction activities. During the legal proceedings, a Group of
Five Experts, appointed in 1996, unanimously concluded that the dam was safe. However, they
recommended further safety tests, including 3-D Non-Linear analysis and simulated dam break
analysis.

Petitioner's Arguments:

Safety Concerns: The petitioners raised concerns about the dam's structural safety and its
potential seismic vulnerability in the Himalayan region. They demanded 3-D Non-Linear Tests
and a simulated Dam Break Analysis to assess earthquake susceptibility and potential damages.

Non-Compliance of Environmental Clearance Conditions: Allegations were made that the

authorities failed to comply with conditions attached to the environmental clearance, causing a
delay in rehabilitation efforts.

Rehabilitation Issues: The petitioners argued that lands were not acquired for rehabilitation,
affected populations were not relocated, and the rehabilitation process was not conducted in
accordance with Tehri project policies.

Defendant's Arguments:
The respondents contended that safety tests were impractical, citing studies by two independent
agencies that deemed the Tehri Dam fail-safe against seismic scenarios.

A high-level committee and seismic experts supported the dam's safety, even under worst-case
earthquake scenarios.

The government referred to additional expert groups, endorsing the safety conclusions and
recommending acceptance.

Judgment:

Environmental Clearance: The court emphasized that when the government makes informed
decisions after considering expert opinions, it is not the court's role to interfere unless malafides,
arbitrariness, or irrationality is established. The decision-making process itself is crucial.

Sustainable Development: Recognizing the importance of sustainable development, the court

stressed that compliance with the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) is essential to ensure a
balance between environmental rights and development under Article 21.

Rehabilitation: The court supported the rehabilitation of displaced individuals as a logical

consequence of Article 21, ensuring a decent life and livelihood in the new locations. Disputes
about compliance with rehabilitation conditions were acknowledged but deemed manageable.

Transfer to High Court:

To monitor environmental clearance conditions and ensure proper compliance, the court
transferred the cases to the High Court of Uttarakhand. The High Court was granted authority to
pass necessary orders while refraining from re-examining safety concerns already addressed in
the Supreme Court.

Dissenting Opinion:

The dissenting judge emphasized the economic, social, and environmental costs of large dam
projects, especially the displacement of local populations. They advocated for safety tests, an
expert committee, and a Grievance Redressal Cell for rehabilitation issues, highlighting the need
for government accountability in addressing the concerns of displaced communities. People will
loss the traditional occupation and ancestral habitat.

B.K. Sharma v. Union of India AIR 2005 Guj 203

In 2004, the petitioner filed a Special Civil Application before the Court seeking directions
against the construction of a blast furnace and ductile iron casting pipe near Mundra, Kutch as
the necessary Environmental Clearance was not procured.
On representation to the Central Government, the same held that the petitioners’ objection to
establishing a mini blast furnace was not justified.
The respondent was granted the environmental clearance subject to strict compliance with the
Environmental Clearance Letter and the same was allowed to construct the blast furnace.
The respondent was granted the environmental clearance subject to strict compliance with the
Environmental Clearance Letter and the same was allowed to construct the blast furnace.
The order of the Central Government granting this clearance was challenged by the petitioners in
the present matter.
The petitioners have asked for a writ in the nature of mandamus to destroy/ demolish the project
in question as well to declare the environmental clearance for the blast furnace null and void as
the blast furnace constructed was an independent unit of the manufacturing units is a separate
foundry.
Moreover, the respondents have prayed that the Court appoint NEERI or any other similar
organization to assess whether the requirements of the two EIAs were adhered to for a seismic
zone, along with any further directions given by the Court.
Respondent-
Petitioners were not competent to file the writ petition
Instant Petition is not bonafide and has been done at the behest of Electro Steel Casting Limited
(ESCL).
Petitioners have an alternate remedy under S. 11 of the National Environmental Appellate
Authority Act.
There were too many factual disputes and the same could not be entertained by the Court under
A. 226.
Decision-
The present petition seems to be a sponsored petition and, pursuant to Ashok Kumar Pandey v.
State of West Bengal AIR 2004 SC 280, the SC has clearly stated that such camouflaged PILs
cannot be entertained. There exists no real and genuine public interest in this case.
While construction had commenced on the blast furnace after receiving only an NOC, the
respondents were under the belief that this was all that was required. Moreover, they had
subsequently received the appropriate clearance under the EPA and hence, the same cannot be
treated as ex post clearance.
The pipe manufacturing plant did not require additional clearance under the Notification. The
word “individual” cannot mean clearance for each and every foundry and while granting the
permission for the Blast Furnace, numerous other safeguards have been put in place for the
protection of the environment.
The Court cannot overrule the decision of a competent judicial authority and in this regard, the
Central Government has opined that the project falls under Entry 13(a) and not under Entry 28
(Foundries (Individual)) of Schedule 1.
A fair hearing does not mean the opportunity to be orally heard. It may also include the
opportunity to make written submissions that are taken into account and in the present matter, the
UOI had given the petitioners the opportunity to be heard.
Hence, this petition was dismissed.
Centre For Social Justice vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
The petitioner challenged the manner in which notifications issued by the Government of India
under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, in the matter of granting of environmental
clearances were not followed in letter and spirit.
Ministry of Environment and Forests issued notification (dated 27-1-1994)
stating that any new project must conduct Environmental Impact Assessment. As
per an amendment Schedule IV was added which made it mandatory to carry
out public consultation as a part of EIA and laid down the process.
Held- The petitioner also prays for certain directions to the respondent authorities about the
manner in which the public hearing should be conducted and public hearing should be made
effective and meaningful so as to achieve the object of the EP Act, 1986.

The Court having considered in detail the Environment Impact Assessment Notification of the
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, laid down the important guidelines
to be followed in the Public hearing procedure of the Environment Impact Assessment:

1)The venue of the public hearing has to be as near as possible to the site of the proposed project.
The period of public notice regarding public hearing should be at least three months;
2) The state pollution control board should publish notice of the public hearing in at least two
newspaper widely circulated in the region, one of which should be in the vernacular language;
3)The first public hearing should be held at least 30 days after the newspaper notice;
4)There should be a summary of the EIA Report in the local language and the EIA report be
made available to the concerned citizen;
5) The quorum of the committee conducting the public hearing would be half its membership
and the representatives of the Pollution Control Board, state department of environment and one
of the three senior citizens nominated by the Collector, would have to be present for a valid
public hearing (at least one of the three senior citizens nominated should have some credentials
on the issues of environmental concerns);
6)The minutes of the public hearing have to be supplied to citizens on demand;
7)The gist of the environmental clearance has to be published in the newspaper in which notice
of the public hearing is given.
In this manner, if the persons who have participated at the public hearing or other persons who
are aggrieved by action of any other authorities of the Central Government are desirous of filing
an appeal before the National Environmental Appellate Authority Act, 1997, they would be in a
position to file such appeal, as the authorities make them aware that a particular unit is granted
the environmental clearance certificate.

Stages in the Prior Environmental

Clearance (EC) Process for New Projects 13
• Stage (1) Screening (Only for Category ‘B’ projects and activities)
• Stage (2) Scoping
• Stage (3) Public Consultation
• Stage (4) Appraisal

What is the primary objective of the Island Coastal Regulation Zone Regulation, 2019?
The regulation aims to protect and conserve the coastal and marine environment of the islands
while promoting sustainable development, taking into account the unique geography, culture,
and local challenges of these regions.
It applies to the entire coastal region of the islands, including the waters, tidelands, coastal
watersheds, and islands within the territorial jurisdiction of India.
Zones are categorized into ICRZ-I, ICRZ-II, ICRZ-III, and ICRZ-IV.
CRZ-I includes ecologically sensitive areas, where no new constructions are allowed, except for
essential community services.
ICRZ-II covers areas that have already been developed. Development here is allowed in
accordance with local town and country planning regulations.
ICRZ-III areas are rural and relatively undisturbed. Development in these areas is restricted,
allowing only activities beneficial to the local community.
ICRZ-IV comprises the aquatic area up to the territorial waters. Activities are regulated here
based on the potential impact on the marine ecosystem.
It mandates a set back line considering sea level rise and extreme weather events to ensure future
developments are resilient.
Development projects must respect and preserve sites of historical importance, traditional
cultural practices, and local aesthetics.
Heavy industries are generally prohibited. Exceptions exist for island-specific needs, but they
must adhere to strict environmental standards.
Disputes are primarily addressed at the state level. In cases of unresolved conflicts, they can
escalate to central authorities.
The ICRZ incorporates disaster management and preparedness strategies, emphasizing on
resilience and local community training.
the guidelines and policies under ICRZ are subject to periodic reviews, ensuring they remain
relevant and effective.

The Lafarge case: 2011(7)SCALE242

Facts

It revolved around the establishment of a limestone mining project in Meghalaya, India. The
project, leased to Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. (LUML), was intended to supply limestone
exclusively to the Lafarge Surma Cement Ltd. (LSCL) plant in Bangladesh. The process
involved crushing limestone at a site in Meghalaya and transporting it via a conveyor belt
to the cement plant in Bangladesh. The project site was found to have thick natural
vegetation contrary to the initial representation of being a wasteland. They subsequently applied
for forest clearance under the 1980 Act.

The legal arguments centered on the disclosure of land characteristics, the necessity of public
consultation, the timing and legitimacy of clearances granted, and the adherence to
environmental and forest regulations.

Judgment

The court leaned on reports suggesting the land's suitability for the project and upheld the
clearances granted, noting that they were based on revised environmental assessments.

The judgment emphasized the concept of sustainable development acknowledging the inherent
conflict between environmental protection and developmental needs. It stressed the
importance of balancing these interests, recognizing that environmental protection cannot be
absolute but must be measured against the benefits of development.

The court found that the project, based on assessments and reports, was permissible on the
selected land. It also concluded that the clearances granted by the MoEF were not vitiated due to
alleged suppression of facts. The approvals were based on revised assessments and were not
granted in ignorance of the land's characteristics.

In its directives for future cases, the court underscored the significance of the National Forest
Policy of 1988, emphasizing that project approvals must prioritize environmental stability and
ecological balance over direct economic benefits. It mandated the consideration of this policy in
decision-making processes.

To streamline the clearance process, the court recommended the establishment of an independent
regulator under the Environment Protection Act, responsible for appraising projects and
enforcing environmental conditions. It also suggested a panel of accredited institutions for
conducting environmental impact assessments, aiming to minimize conflicting reports submitted
by different authorities.

Moreover, the judgment advocated prior site inspections by MoEF, especially when claims about
the land's status are made by project developers. If doubts exist, joint inspections by state forest
departments and MoEF were recommended to ascertain the land's classification.

The case highlighted the complex interplay between development and environmental concerns,
emphasizing the need for a nuanced, case-specific approach. It aimed to establish clearer
guidelines and mechanisms for environmental clearances, urging a balance between sustainable
development and ecological preservation.

Guidelines Provided in the case

 More importantly, the Court has enumerated certain directives to be followed by judicial
authorities as well as the MoEF in similar cases.
 It has promoted the need for a regulator to uphold the principles outlined in the National
Forest Policy, 1988, when read together with both the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,
and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
 it is also suggested that the number of such Regional Offices in the country be increased.
 Corporate entities have also been directed to evolve Corporate Environment Policies to
guarantee compliance with the clearances granted to them.
 Public consultation has also been made a requisite for the process of obtaining environment
clearance. This guarantees those among the indigenous population who are aggrieved by
ideas of upcoming projects to voice their opinions and seek remedial measures, if necessary.
 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.
 Criticism of guidelines
 The Supreme Court presumes that setting up regulators is the ideal solution. The judgment
does not discuss alternative reform scenarios.
 It does not consider the debates around introducing an autonomous regulator in a sector that
affects a very wide array of stakeholders and interests.
 How will the regulator be designed, and empowered, to ensure independence?- This has not
been mentioned in the judgment
The case of Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala
Presented a complex scenario involving the encroachment of forest lands by approximately
66,000 families, leading to a population of about 36 lakhs residing in these areas. Over time,
these forest lands were utilized for non-forest purposes, with structures and developments
established on them.

The State of Kerala decided to regularize this encroachment and de-reserve the occupied forest
land, primarily considering socio-human issues such as the pressure of increasing population and
the challenge of resettling these families elsewhere. The state issued 'Pattayamela' or title deeds
only to those who encroached the forests before January 1, 1977, acknowledging the substantial
improvements and developments made on the land by these occupants.

The petitioners argued that the state government should have followed the procedure outlined in
Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which necessitates the approval of the Central
Government for such actions. They contended that the de-reservation should be considered void
since the State did not adhere to this procedure.

However, the State justified its actions based on the practical impracticality of rehabilitating the
occupants elsewhere. Regularization of occupation was seen as the only viable solution in the
existing locations. The Supreme Court, while evaluating the case, considered Article 48-A and
Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution, emphasizing the state government's obligation to protect and
enhance the environment, both for the state and its citizens.

The Court observed that if the Central Government had already agreed to the de-reservation
subject to certain conditions, then it would be content with 'substantial compliance' by the State.
The judgment emphasized the importance of the constitutional imperatives, focusing on
environmental protection and conservation, particularly under Article 48-A and Article 51-A(g).

Several rulings and decisions were cited during the case proceedings, emphasizing the need to
prevent further deforestation and conserve forests, particularly in cases involving forest land
usage and renewal requests. The Court also highlighted the principle of sustainable development,
stressing the importance of balancing economic growth with environmental preservation.
Regarding the retrospective application of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the
Court clarified that the requirement of 'prior approval' does not apply retrospectively, and
therefore, occupation before the Act's commencement in 1980 would not fall under its
jurisdiction.

Additionally, the Court considered compensatory afforestation efforts by the State as a necessary
step to mitigate the diversion of forest land and the 'Polluter Pays Principle' to ensure
compensation from those encroachers who benefited from regularization.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, implying its acceptance of the State's approach to
regularization, considering the complexities of the situation and the State's efforts to address
socio-human problems while recognizing environmental imperatives.
S. Jagannath v. UoI (Shrimp Culture Case)

This case revolves around the environmental and ecological impact of shrimp farming,
particularly in the ecologically fragile coastal areas of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and other
coastal states. The petitioner, S. Jagannath, filed an Article 32 petition, seeking enforcement of
the Coastal Zone Regulation Notification, 1991, to curb the adverse effects of shrimp culture on
the environment.

Key Facts:

Shrimp Farming Boom: Large corporations developed extensive prawn farming businesses
through aquaculture in ecologically sensitive coastal regions.

Pollution Concerns: Shrimp farming, especially in intensive and semi-intensive forms, was
identified as highly polluting due to the use of protein feed and the discharge of effluents.

Legal Action: S. Jagannath filed a petition under Article 32, citing violations of the Coastal Zone
Regulation Notification, 1991, which aimed to restrict certain activities in coastal areas.

Petitioner's Arguments

Environmental Impact: Modern shrimp farming techniques were deemed highly polluting,
causing economic, environmental, and social issues in coastal regions.

Violation of Notification: Setting up shrimp farms in Coastal Regulation Zones (CRZ) was
explicitly prohibited by the Coastal Zone Regulation Notification.

Hazardous Waste Discharge: Shrimp farm effluents were classified as hazardous waste under the
Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989. The farms lacked authorization
from State Pollution Control Boards, as required by law.

Respondent's Arguments
Shrimp Farms as Industry: The respondents argued that shrimp farms qualify as industries
directly related to the water front and necessitate fore-shore facilities.

Defining Waterfront: The term 'waterfront' was interpreted to include areas with access to
brackish water, essential for shrimp farming.

Dispute with State Laws: The Coastal Zone Regulation Notification, being a central legislation,
was deemed superior to conflicting state laws.

Economic Perspective: The economic benefits of shrimp farming were likely considered as a
counterpoint to the environmental concerns.

Important Reports Considered:

NEERI Report: Pointed out violations in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Pondicherry,
emphasizing the need for restoration of damaged ecosystems and the application of the Polluter
Pays Principle.

Judgment:

International Obligations: The court referred to the Stockholm Declaration, emphasizing the
global responsibility to identify and address critically polluted marine areas.

Environmental Legislation Application: The court applied the Environmental Protection Act,
1986, and the Water Act to address the discharge of hazardous substances and trade effluents by
shrimp farms.

Precautionary and Polluter Pays Principles: Both principles were acknowledged as integral to
sustainable development. The court held that the onus of proof lay with the developers to
demonstrate environmental benignity.

Directions and Remedies: The court directed the constitution of an authority under Section 8(3)
of the Environmental Protection Act, empowered to issue directives and implement the Polluter
Pays and Precautionary Principles. Shrimp farms in CRZ were prohibited, and existing ones
were ordered to be demolished. Traditional farming methods were exempted.

Compensation: The court mandated the determination and recovery of compensation for
affected villages, reinforcing the Polluter Pays Principle.

Center for Environmental Law WWF-I v. Union of India (2013)

Case revolves around the crucial issue of relocating the Asiatic lions from the Gir Forest in
Gujarat to the Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in Madhya Pradesh. The Wildlife Institute of India
(WII), operating under the Ministry of Environment and Government of India, conducted
extensive research at the Gir Forest. Their studies emphasized the urgent need for a second
natural habitat to ensure the long-term conservation of Asiatic lions,
which exist solely in Gir, making it a critically endangered species.

The research conducted by WII wildlife biologists indicated that the creation of a second habitat
was necessary for the long-term survival of the Asiatic lions. Three alternative sites were
suggested for the reintroduction of these lions, with the Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in Madhya
Pradesh deemed the most suitable.

Madhya Pradesh took significant steps toward this relocation by initiating a massive
rehabilitation package for the villagers residing within and near Kuno. However, this required
the relocation of around 1545 families from 24 revenue villages located inside the sanctuary.
Due to the unavailability of suitable revenue land in adjacent areas, it was decided to resettle
these villages in degraded protected forests. This necessitated approval under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, which was obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Forests
(MoEF) subject to specific conditions.

The Government of India formed a Monitoring Committee to oversee the Asiatic Lion
Reintroduction Project at Kuno, based on Wildlife Institute of India's data and studies. The
project aimed to reintroduce lions from Gujarat into Kuno, which had completed the relocation
of villages.

However, the Government of Gujarat opposed this relocation plan. Their objections were based
on several factors:

Concerns about coexistence with tigers in Kuno, as the sanctuary already housed a population of
6 to 8 tigers.

Climate disparities between Gir and Kuno, citing high temperatures in Kuno during summers,
exceeding 45 degrees Celsius.

Questions regarding the adequacy of the prey base for the lions in Kuno.

Gujarat highlighted the natural expansion of lion habitats within the Gir region, claiming a
successful increase in lion numbers in various districts surrounding Gir.

On the other hand, Madhya Pradesh argued that Kuno was ready for the lions' release and had
already relocated villages to facilitate this. They emphasized the need for lion translocation as
per the recommendations of the Wildlife Board.
The National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) recommended the translocation of lions from Gir to
Kuno as crucial for the species' conservation. It stressed the need for continuous conservation
efforts involving all stakeholders beyond mere translocation.

The court examined the legal framework surrounding wildlife protection in India. It referred to
the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Article 48A of the Constitution (added in 1976), and Article
51A, emphasizing the state's duty to protect and improve the environment and safeguard wildlife.

Furthermore, the court highlighted the Anthropocentric vs. Ecocentric approach, asserting the
need for an ecocentric approach that prioritizes the species' best interests over human-centric
views. It underscored the duty to protect endangered species, citing Article 21 of the
Constitution, which protects not only human rights but also obligates humans to preserve species
facing extinction.

The judgment criticized Gujarat's State Board for Wildlife's anthropocentric approach,
emphasizing that the conservation of endangered species should surpass emotional or cultural
attachments.

Ultimately, the court prioritized the conservation of the critically endangered Asiatic lion,
stressing the importance of following statutory requirements and conducting detailed studies
before introducing foreign species into new habitats.

Water Act
However, under the British law, it is the duty of the consent granting authority to make available
the registers for inspection by the public free of charge, at all reasonable hours, and to afford
reasonable facilities for obtaining, on nominal fees, copies of entries in the register. If the
conditions are imposed to reduce the ill-effects of discharge, there is no reason why the register
is not open to the public. Access to the register facilitates access to justice.

MC Mehta Kanpur (Municipality) AIR 1988 SC 1115

was an important judicial intervention in response to the deteriorating pollution levels (no control
over people on causing pollution in river, shitting in the river) in the Ganges river, specifically
focusing on the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika's responsibility for water pollution.

The legal foundation for this case was set in the preceding case, MC Mehta v. Union of India &
Ors (1987), where the court had previously directed the case against municipal corporations
responsible for water pollution to be pursued against the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika. An
Industrial Toxicology Research Centre's progress report highlighted that the pollution from the
Ganges was notably high in Kanpur.
The court's attention in this judgment was drawn to key provisions of the Water Act, 1974,
particularly Sections 3, 4, 16, and 17, which outlined the constitution and functions of Central
and State Boards and the liabilities for offenses under the Act. Additionally, the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, specifically Section 17, was considered, emphasizing the liability of
department heads if offenses under the Act were committed by any department of the
government.

The court issued several critical directives to address the pollution concerns in Kanpur and set a
precedent applicable to other municipalities along the Ganges river.

Firstly, it directed the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika to take immediate actions to mitigate pollution.
This included either relocating dairies outside Kanpur to prevent waste from reaching the river or
arranging for waste removal without compensating dairy owners. Additionally, the Mahapalika
was mandated to expand sewer sizes in labor colonies to facilitate smoother sewage flow and
construct new sewer lines where necessary.

Furthermore, the Mahapalika was instructed to construct an adequate number of public latrines
and urinals to discourage open defecation, which was contributing to the pollution of the river.

Beyond these specific directives, the court took a proactive stance in environmental education. It
mandated the inclusion of environmental studies in the curriculum of educational institutions,
requiring at least one hour per week in the first ten classes devoted to studying and understanding
the protection and improvement of the natural environment, encompassing forests, lakes, rivers,
and wildlife. Additionally, the court recommended short-term training courses for teachers on
environmental education to ensure effective teaching and dissemination of environmental
awareness.

This judgment marked a pivotal moment in environmental jurisprudence in India, illustrating the
court's commitment to ensuring environmental protection through proactive measures, holding
municipal bodies accountable for pollution, and emphasizing the importance of environmental
education for future generations.

Kanpur Tanneries Case - M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 1037

Introduction:
The Kanpur Tanneries Case, a significant legal battle, emerged as a Public Interest Litigation
(PIL) filed by M.C. Mehta addressing the alarming pollution affecting the revered Ganges River
due to industrial activities in Kanpur, particularly those carried out by tanneries. The petitioner
sought a court directive to restrain these tanneries from discharging harmful effluents into the
sacred Ganges.

Legal Proceedings:

The PIL was treated as a Representative Suit, intending to represent the larger public interest.
The court invoked Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), issuing a notice to
publish the petition's essence in leading newspapers. This notice called upon industrialists and
municipalities to explain why they should not be directed to cease discharging effluents without
appropriate treatment.

The court drew upon legal provisions such as Article 48A, 51A of the Constitution, and the
Stockholm Declaration, emphasizing the paramount importance of environmental protection.
Additionally, the court referred to the Water Act and the Environmental Protection Act,
underscoring the significance of preventing and controlling water pollution.

Pollution Impact and Steps Taken: Acknowledging the considerable damage caused by
tanneries discharging effluents into the Ganges, various steps were taken to address the issue:

Jajmau Tanneries Pollution Control Association: Tanneries formed the Jajmau Tanneries
Pollution Control Association to collectively address pollution concerns. Objectives included
establishing laboratories, institutes, and common effluent treatment plants. Periodical charges on
members were proposed for effluent treatment expenses. CLRI, Madras, recommended four
wastewater treatment technologies for tanneries, including segregation, primary treatment, and
secondary biological treatment. Admission that tanneries discharged effluents into the sewage
system, leading to municipal sewage plants and, ultimately, the Ganges.

Recognition of gross pollution of the Ganges by tannery effluents.

Some tanneries had established primary treatment plants, while others were in the construction
phase.

Request for additional time to complete the construction of pre-treatment plants due to
significant expenditure concerns.

Court's Decision:

The court made crucial determinations to address the pollution issue:

Irrelevance of Financial Capacity: The court declared that the financial capacity of tanneries
should be considered irrelevant when requiring them to establish primary treatment plants.
Analogizing it to industries unable to pay minimum wages, the court emphasized that a tannery
unable to set up a primary treatment plant could not be permitted to exist due to the adverse
effects on the public.

Noxious Nature of Effluents: The court highlighted that effluents from tanneries were ten times
more harmful than domestic sewage. Tanneries were not allowed to function unless they
installed primary treatment plants.

Existing Plants: Tanneries with established primary treatment plants were permitted to continue
operations, provided they maintained these plants in good working order.

M.C Mehta vs UOI - The Calcutta Tanneries case of 1997

Stands as a significant legal battle addressing environmental issues, the violative actions of
industries, and the principles of sustainable development. In essence, this legal matter revolved
around the adverse environmental impacts caused by the operation of around 550 tanneries
located in various parts of Calcutta along the banks of the river Ganga.
Initially aimed at addressing the issues pertaining to tanneries in Kanpur, the case expanded to
encompass tanneries in Calcutta following the direction of the Supreme Court. The National
Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) conducted a study, which revealed
alarming findings - the tanneries lacked appropriate wastewater drainage, treatment systems, and
were situated in densely populated residential areas. The prevalent practice of discharging
untreated effluents into the river Ganga led to severe environmental degradation.
The State Government, in response, proposed the shifting of tanneries to a new location
equipped with pollution control mechanisms. However, the process faced obstacles due to land
availability and the tanneries' failure to construct primary effluent treatment plants within
stipulated time frames.
The legal proceedings saw arguments from both petitioners and respondents. The tanneries
contended that it was feasible to set up a common effluent treatment plant within their current
location, offering to fund the project. On the other hand, the State argued that land for the new
tannery complex had been acquired, repeatedly offered to the tanneries, but was not accepted.
Further, the tanneries were found to be operating in violation of water pollution control laws,
thereby posing environmental hazards.
The Court, considering the violation of laws and principles, ordered the relocation of
Calcutta tanneries to the new leather complex established by the West Bengal government.
Failure to deposit the stipulated amount for land acquisition within the specified time would
result in the closure of the industries. The Court also mandated the creation of an agency to
facilitate relocation and appointed an authority to determine compensation for
environmental damages caused by the tanneries.
Moreover, the Court imposed a pollution fine on the tanneries and directed its allocation to an
Environment Protection Fund. This fund was to be utilized for the restoration of the damaged
environment and ecology. Additionally, it ensured the protection of employees' rights by
providing continuity of employment, bonuses, and gratuity during the transition.
This case stands as a testament to the judiciary's role in upholding environmental norms,
endorsing the 'polluter pays' principle, and emphasizing sustainable development. It
highlighted the necessity of stringent actions against industries causing environmental harm,
ensuring their accountability, and offering solutions for restorative measures to mitigate damages
inflicted on the environment.

In MC Mehta v State of Orissa (AIR1992Ori225),

the primary concern of petitioner was to protect the health of thousands of innocent people
living in Cuttack and adjacent areas, who were suffering from pollution as several acts of the
public authorities were alleged to be in violation of Art 21 of Constitution, and laws relating to
protection of environment. Talahandi River used for bathing and drinking purposes was a
recipient of untreated wastewater not only from the medical college hospital close-by, but also
from other parts of die city. The sewage treatment which required upgradation was left
unattended. People were suffering from water born diseases. However, the medical college and
the government denied that they were negligent. It was pointed out that there existed a central
sewerage system in the hospital campus, and that the toilets were connected to it. The Health
Department of the government tried to pass the buck to the Department of Urban Development
which was responsible for the supply of drinking water.

In conclusion the report shows that it is the biological pollution of Taladanda canal as reflected
by the BOD and Coliform levels which is responsible for the down grading quality of water, in
the following words:
"A survey along with the banks of the canal would clearly reveal that the most horrendous aspect
of the present status of the canal is its use as a refuse for sewage and garbage.
A responsible Municipal Council is constituted for the precise purpose of preserving public
health. Provision of proper drainage system in working condition cannot be avoided by pleading
financial inability. Article 51-A(g) mandates compassion for living creatures. Why is it lacking
in them whose primary function is to protect?
The Court held that
We direct the State Government to immediately act on the reports relating to pollution load in
Taladanda Canal and water pollution from Mass Bathing in Mahanadi during Kartik Pumima.
We also direct constitution of a committee consisting of the Executive Engineer, Public Health,
Cuttack; the Chairman, Cuttack Municipality, who will take necessary steps to prevent and
control water pollution and to maintain wholesomeness of water which is supplied for human
consumption.

DEEMED CONSENT
The consent administration envisaged by Water Act aims to prevent and control water pollution
as the title of Water Act itself indicates. After the enforcement of Water Act, none can discharge
effluents to a river, or well, or on land without the consent of the State Board. However, if the
Board neglects, and does not consider an application for consent, there can be 'deemed consent'.
Vijayanagar Education Trust v Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Bangalore 2002
the petitioner, a registered trust constituted with the object of imparting education, approached
the state government for issuance of essentiality certificate for establishing a medical college. In
pursuance of the sanction from Bangalore Metropolitan Development Authority (BMRDA), the
petitioner had begun construction of the hospital and college.
When the construction was half way through and an amount of rupees five crores spent already,
a news item appeared in the press that the construction is likely to pollute Kumudavathi river
which is located near the proposed construction. The river flows in to Thippagondanahalli
reservoir, and there is every likelihood of pollution of the said reservoir which is one of the
major sources of drinking water to Bangalore city. As a result of the news item, a public interest
writ petition was filed.
The petitioner claimed that there was 'deemed consent' based on the provision in sub-s (7) of s 25
of the Water Act which runs:
(7) The consent referred to in sub-section (1) shall, unless given or refused earlier, be deemed to
have been given unconditionally on the expiry of the period of four months of the making of an
application in this behalf complete in all respects of the Board.
Under the provision, an applicant has to only satisfy the following three factors (i) the consent
referred to in sub-s (1) shall not have been given or refused earlier; (li) a period of four months
ought to have expired after making of the application; and (iii) his application should be
complete in all respects. It was contended that on establishing that these three factors do exist in
his favour, consent would be deemed to have been given, 'without much ado, unconditionally
immediately on the expiry of four months period. Explaining these factors, the court in the
present case observed:
In the present case the Board having acted contrary to the provision contained in sub-section (7)
of Section 25, in that it had neither refused nor granted the permission within the time prescribed
under the statute it cannot be allowed to impregnate the impugned order with fresh reasons
which did not form part of its order when it was originally made.
The main question was whether the Board could later refuse when there was already a deemed
consent.
In order to cater to such a situation and to ensure that environment is not exposed to any danger
by such industries going into operation without prior consent from the Board, sub-sec.(5) is
enacted so as to invest the Board with the same powers as under sub-sec. (3) in the case of an
industry seeking prior permission before establishment. Condition can be added in the
deemed consent.

Transboundary pollution and customary international law—

The Trail Smelter case: US v Canada (3 RIAA 1907 (1941))
A Canadian Mining company operated a large zinc and lead smelter along the Columbia river at
Trail, British Columbia. Sulphur dioxide emissions from two large 400-foot chimneys at the
smelter had damaged crops (wheat and oats), trees used for logging, and pastures in the US State
of Washington about 10 miles south of the smelter. The US government objected to the
Canadian government and the dispute went to arbitration on two occasions. The International
Joint Commission by the United States and Canada awarded the US government some $428,000
to compensate for damage caused to forests and pastures and imposed emission limits and
monitoring requirements on the smelter. In doing so it concluded that: no state has the right to
use or permit the use of its territory In such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the
territory of another of the properties or persons therein, when the case is of serious consequence
and the injury is established by clear and convincing evidence.

Although the Trail Smelter arbitration establishes a clear principle of customary international
law, in practice it has been overtaken by negotiated treaties on trans boundary air pollution.
There are a number of reasons for this. First, there is the evidential difficulty of obtaining 'clear
and convincing evidence’ of the causal link between source and effects of long range air
pollution. The distance of 10 miles and the lack of alternative sources in the Trail Smelter case
meant that this evidential burden was eased.
Secondly, the principle is compensatory in nature in that it seeks to pay for serious harm caused
rather than prevent future harm. Preventative measures can only be imposed through
international agreement on the standards to be employed. The failure to prevent harm is
particularly problematic with transboundary pollution where the consequences may not be
appreciated until long after damage has been caused. Thirdly, the requirement of 'serious
consequences' is problematic in that it is a flexible standard which may be dependent upon the
nature of the receiving environment.
Fourthly, the complex interconnected nature of transboundarv pollution is not something that is
easily justiciable in the context of the Trail Smelter principle.
Finally, in cases where the principle is clearly breached, the relaxation of jurisdictional hurdles
has increased the ability of private entities to seek redress through national courts.
The Geneva Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, agreed under the UN
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) in 1979, was the first real attempt to set up a
formal framework of controls over air pollution between nations.
The 1994 Oslo protocol.
The 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Laye
AFD & C Ltd v Orissa State Pollution Control Board (AIR 1995 Ori 84), the secretary of
the Board issued a direction under s 31-A of the Air Act to close down the petitioners' cattle and
poultry feed factory, and shift the same to an isolated place. While this writ petition against the
direction was pending, the Board refused to renew the consent to the petitioner's factory.
However, the Board can issue such directions within the ambit of s 31A only on being satisfied
that the industry in question emits 'air pollutant' by which there has been 'air pollution'.
Possibility' of emission of foul odour or emission of foul odour itself is not enough.

Chaitanya Pulvanising Industry v Karnataka State Pollution Control Board - Court held if the
industry has not obtiained conent from SPCB the SPCB cannot pass an order for the closure of
the industry insisted it has to give punishment under sc 37 Air Act.
Control Over C
arbon Monoxide Emission
In 1976, United States achieved reduction in carbon monoxide saturation in the air by a
substantial degree. Automakers were compelled to install devices called 'catalytic converters' on
the exhaust system of new cars for converting gases to harmless carbon dioxide and water

In MC Mehta. v Union of India (AIR 2002 SC 1696), the attention of the court was focused on
the delay to convert diesel vehicles to CNG by the Central Government, thereby frustrating the
orders of the Supreme Court
Articles 39(e), 47, and 48-A of the Constitution together collectively cast a duty on the state to
secure the health of people, improve public health, and protect and improve the environment. It
was by reason of the lack of effort on the part of the enforcement agencies, notwithstanding
adequate laws being in place, that the court has been concerned with the state of air pollution in
the capital of this country.
Noise Pollution
In Moulana Mufti Syed Md Noorur Rehman Barkati v State of West Bengal (AIR 1999 Cal
15) the petitioner prayed, inter alia, for a declaration that ambient air quality standards in respect
of noise, ie, the maximum noise levels in separate zones, do not apply at the time of the call of
azan from the mosques. The petitioners submitted that all conditions and restrictions notified by
the police and other authorities may be withdrawn.
Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v KKRMC Welfare Association(AIR 2000 SC 2773)
is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court on noise pollution vis-a-vis religious freedom. In
this case, the court dealt with the use of loudspeakers for religious practices in an indiscriminate
fashion.
Burrabazar Fire Works Dealers Association v The Commissioner of Police, Calcutta
((1997) 2 Cal LJ 468), the petitioner was aggrieved by the restrictions imposed by the State
Pollution Control Board and the police, imposing ban on using of certain fireworks, which create
noise and tremendous sound.

Jackson & Co v Union of India (AIR 2005 Del 334) the manufacturers of diesel generator
(DG)
Section 7 of the Act is not applicable only to the person who engages himself in any industry
operation or process but is also applicable to one who permits; discharge or emission of any
environmental pollutant in excess of such standards as may be prescribed.
Not providing such an acoustic enclosure will amount t.o offering for sale a machine that do not
meet with a standard having considerable public importance, and thus constraining others to
commit a breach of the norms. An end-user is always not supposed to know the emission
standards prescribed for a machine, and, therefore, it ought to have to be fixed at the
manufacturing stage.
The court held that as they are compelled to supply acoustic enclosures free of cost, the
manufacturers cannot make any grievance against their fundamental rights to carry on business
or manufacturing activities.
The court explained the mandate in art 21 of the Constitution for state to take every step to
protect the life and liberty of the citizens

'In Re Noise Pollution' heard by the Supreme Court of India in 2005

It is a pivotal judgment addressing the issue of noise pollution and its implications on the
fundamental rights of individuals, especially concerning the right to life enshrined in Article 21
of the Indian Constitution.
This case involved two significant matters. The first matter was a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
triggered by an incident where a rape victim's cries for help went unheard due to loudspeakers
blaring in the neighborhood. The petitioner urged the court to enforce existing laws restricting
the use of loudspeakers and high-volume audio-video systems.
The second matter dealt with the Government of India's amendment to the Noise Pollution
Control and Regulation Rules in 1999, allowing the use of loudspeakers during night hours
(between 10 pm and AM=) for cultural or religious occasions, not exceeding 15 days. The
appellant raised concerns about the lack of accompanying guidelines, suggesting potential
misuse of this provision.
Various interveners presented conflicting requests for relief. These included regulating noise
from horns, loudspeakers in religious places, and firecrackers during festivals, among others.
The Court, in its deliberation, highlighted the significance of Article 21 and its interpretation in
relation to noise pollution. It emphasized that while freedom of speech and expression (Article
19) is fundamental, it's not absolute and cannot infringe upon the right of individuals to live
peacefully. Nobody has the fundamental right to create noise that trespasses into others'
space.
Acknowledging noise pollution as a health hazard with adverse effects on human health and
well-being, the Court recognized the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, that
provided guidelines for categorizing areas, specifying noise standards, and enforcing regulations.
The case drew attention to various legal provisions in India dealing with noise pollution, such as
the Noise Pollution Rules, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 268, 290, and 291, the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Section 133, Motor Vehicles Act, Factories Act, and others.
Responding to interlocutory applications, the Court directed restrictions on bursting sound-
emitting firecrackers during specific hours, emphasizing the importance of Article 25
(religious rights) but concluding that the bursting of firecrackers during festivals wasn't
essential to religious practices.

The Court passed several directions in the public interest to control noise pollution
comprehensively. It laid down guidelines concerning firecrackers, loudspeakers, vehicular noise,
and creating awareness. It mandated the labeling of firecrackers with chemical compositions,
established noise level limits for loudspeakers, restricted vehicular horns during specific hours
in residential areas, and emphasized the need for public awareness and education on noise
pollution.
Additionally, the Court urged the government to enforce rules, provisions for confiscation of
noise-producing equipment, and to take necessary steps in creating awareness at the school level
and within communities.
The judgment was delivered under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution, intending to remain
in force until modified by the Court or replaced by appropriate legislation.
In essence, the case set a precedent for recognizing noise pollution as a significant environmental
and health concern, addressing it as a violation of an individual's right to a peaceful and healthy
life. It emphasized the balance between fundamental rights and the need for regulatory measures
to safeguard public well-being.
� Consumer Education and Research Society v Union of India (AIR 2000 SC 975) was
seized of this question when the Gujarat state legislature, by a resolution, and the
government, by an order executing the resolution, reduced the area of Narayan Sarovar
Chinkara Sanctuary from 765.79 square kilometres to 444.23 square kilometres. The court
held that the reduced area was enough for about 1200 chinkaras and the economic
development of the area was of immense benefit to the people.

� The power of the legislature to reduce the extent of protected area was taken away by the
2002 amendment to the wildlife law. Hence, problems encountered in Consumer Education
and Research Society v Union of lndia (AIR 2000 SC 975, p 979) are not likely to arise in
future. The state government can exercise this power to reduce the extent of a sanctuary
only on the recommendation of the National Board for Wildlife, an institution with
administrative powers rather than mere advisory functions.

Delhi Development Authority (DDA) v. Rajendra Singh (2009) 8 SCC 582

Introduction:

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) v. Rajendra Singh case centers around a dispute
related to the construction of the Commonwealth Games Village (CGV) in Delhi. The
petitioners, contesting respondents before the High Court, sought to challenge the location of the
CGV site, alleging it to be situated on the Yamuna riverbed or floodplain. The High Court issued
directions for the formation of a committee to investigate this claim and cautioned that any
construction or third-party rights created would be at the organizers' and government's peril and
risk.

Factual Background:

The CGV site was adjacent to the Akshardham Temple, a project previously approved by the
Supreme Court. The primary relief sought by the petitioners was to relocate the Commonwealth
Games away from the Yamuna floodplain.

Petitioner's Arguments:

NEERI Reports: The petitioners argued that NEERI (National Environmental Engineering
Research Institute) reports in 1999 and 2005 did not permit the government to proceed with
construction on the CGV site. They questioned the acceptability of the 2008 NEERI report,
emphasizing its inconsistency with prior decisions.
Environmental Concerns: Emphasizing the dependence of Delhi on the Yamuna River, the
petitioners contended that the riverbed and floodplains needed protection. They urged evaluation
by experts like Dr. R.K. Pachauri, as directed by the High Court, to assess the impact on ecology
and the environment.

Delay and Laches: The petitioners acknowledged support for the Commonwealth Games but
expressed concern for the ecology and environment of Delhi. They argued that the Akshardham
Temple decision in 2005 lacked an elaborate study by specialized agencies, thus not constituting
a binding precedent.

Respondent's Arguments:

CGV Site Location: The government argued that the CGV site was not situated on the Yamuna
riverbed or floodplain. NEERI reports of 1999 and 2005 were considered before proceeding with
the CGV, and the 2008 NEERI report affirmed that the site was not a floodplain or riverbed.

Judgment:

Change in NEERI's View: The court acknowledged the petitioner's argument about a change in
NEERI's view between 1999, 2005, and 2008. However, it observed that various conditions and
events had occurred on both sides, making it challenging to accept the petitioner's contention.

Definition of Riverbed and Floodplain: The court provided definitions of "riverbed" and
"floodplain" from legal dictionaries, emphasizing that the CGV site did not fall within these
definitions based on the literal meanings and NEERI's 2008 clarification.

Akshardham Temple Approval: The court reiterated that the Akshardham Temple and CGV
sites formed part of the same area and were adjacent to each other. It criticized the High Court's
comment that the Akshardham Temple decision was not a binding precedent.

Delay and Laches: The court emphasized that delay rules applied to Public Interest Litigations
(PILs) as well. The petitioners, despite claiming awareness of environmental concerns,
approached the High Court in 2007, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions on the grounds
of delay and laches.
The Essar Oil case (AIR 2004 SC 1834)

This case revolves around the permission for laying crude oil pipelines through the Marine
National Park and Marine Sanctuary for transportation to oil refineries. The case navigates
through the interpretation of statutes like the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WPA), the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 (FCA), and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA).

The dispute initially arose when Essar Oil Ltd. sought permission to lay pipelines through the
Marine National Park and Sanctuary. The High Court held that the State Government could
permit Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. (BORL) but not other entities to pump oil, creating a
legal question focused on Essar Oil.

The case primarily hinges on Section 29 of the WPA, concerning the destruction, exploitation,
or removal of wildlife and their habitats within the sanctuary, which necessitates a permit
granted by the Chief Wildlife Warden, directed by the State Government. The contention
revolved around whether the activities proposed by Essar Oil necessitated improvement or better
management of wildlife within the sanctuary to obtain a permit.

The court delved into the statutes' provisions and highlighted the need to harmonize economic
development with environmental conservation, referencing principles from the Stockholm
Declaration of 1972. It emphasized the importance of safeguarding natural resources, including
flora and fauna, while facilitating economic growth.

It stressed that permits could be granted for activities related to habitat as long as they did not
result in the destruction of wildlife and aimed at sustaining habitats.

Regarding the laying of pipelines, the court referenced provisions from England and the Coastal
Regulation Zone (CRZ) notifications, which permitted certain constructions within ecologically
sensitive areas like national parks and sanctuaries, including pipelines. The court clarified that
the laying of pipelines did not inherently constitute the destruction of wildlife and that each case
needed assessment by experts.

The judgment emphasized transparency in decision-making, suggesting that proposals for such
activities be made public to allow affected parties' awareness and participation. It highlighted
citizens' right to information and recommended expert consultations before granting approvals.

Ultimately, the court found that Essar Oil had obtained necessary permissions under the EPA,
WPA, and FCA, adhering to conditions and seeking expert opinions. The court upheld the
permissions granted to Essar Oil and allowed the project to proceed accordingly.

Indian Council for Environment-Legal Action vs Union of India (CRZ Case):

Protecting Coastal Ecology through Judicial Intervention
Introduction:
The case commonly known as the CRZ Case, unfolds against the backdrop of concerns about the
ecological well-being of coastal areas in India. This public interest litigation, filed under Article
32 of the Indian Constitution, revolves around the enforcement and implementation of Coastal
Regulation Zone (CRZ) notifications issued by (MOEF). The central issue pertains to the
relaxation of the 'No Development Zone' and the resultant ecological degradation in coastal
regions.

Background and Facts

In response to the environmental imperative of safeguarding coastal ecosystems, the Central

Government issued the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification on February 19, 1991, utilizing its
powers under Rule 5(d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. This notification
delineated a 'No Development Zone' extending up to 100 meters from the High Tide Line,
restricting construction activities within this zone to repairs and essential activities.

However, on August 16, 1994, the Central Government issued an amendment to the 1991
notification, relaxing the 'No Development Zone' from 100 meters to 50 meters. The petitioner,
Indian Council for Environment-Legal Action, raised concerns about the non-implementation of
the 1991 notification and challenged the validity of the 1994 amendment. The petition argued
that these relaxations were contributing to the degradation of coastal ecology, undermining the
original intent of the 1991 notification.

Judgment and Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, underscored the crucial role of the judiciary in
environmental matters, emphasizing the need for effective enforcement of laws to protect
fundamental rights. The Court rejected the notion that directing the implementation of laws
amounts to an overreach of judicial authority, emphasizing that it is essential for the protection
of people's rights.

The Court expressed reservations about the amendment reducing the 'No Development Zone'
from 100 meters to 50 meters, especially concerning rivers, creeks, and backwaters. It found this
amendment contrary to the objectives of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and
identified potential serious ecological consequences. The lack of guidelines for exercising
discretion and the excessive discretionary power granted by the amendment were major concerns
for the Court.

The Court, in its judgment, struck down the 1994 amendment as violative of Article 21 of
the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life. It held that the reduction of the zone width
lacked a reasonable basis and had the potential to cause ecological harm.

Recognizing the challenges faced by existing authorities in enforcing CRZ notifications, the
Court directed the establishment of Coastal Zone Management Authorities (CZMAs).
These authorities were assigned the responsibility of supervising CRZ Notification
implementation, offering advice to the MOEF and the Government of India on coastal regulation
issues. The Court acknowledged the overburdened nature of Pollution Control Boards and
recommended the establishment of State Coastal Management Authorities and a National Coastal
Management Authority to ensure effective implementation.
In response to the Court's directive, the Government, through a November 26, 1998, order,
established the National Coastal Zone Management Authority (NCZMA) and various State
Coastal Zone Management Authorities (SCZMAs).

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Forest Case 1996

Introduction

The T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case, is a significant legal matter pertaining to forest
conservation in India. It revolves around the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, a legislation
aimed at preventing further deforestation to maintain ecological balance. The case primarily
addresses the application of this Act to all forests, irrespective of ownership, and lays down
crucial guidelines for the preservation of these vital ecosystems. In the Godavarman case,
Interim Guidelines were issued regarding the use of forest land for non-forest activities.

Facts

The case originated from concerns about the rampant deforestation and its impact on the
environment. The Court addressed various issues related to forest conservation and laid down
significant directives. The key points of the Court's holding are as follows:

Definition of Forest: The Court asserted that the term "forest" includes areas recorded as such in
government records, irrespective of ownership. Any mining activity in such forest areas without
prior approval was deemed a violation of the Forest Conservation Act.

Ceasing Invalid Activities: Ongoing activities under invalid mining licenses were ordered to
cease immediately. State governments were tasked with taking necessary remedial measures to
rectify these violations.

Ban on Sawmills: The operation of all types of sawmills within 100 kilometers from the border
of the state of Arunachal Pradesh was deemed a non-forest activity. The Court ordered the
winding up of such sawmills in the specified area.

Responsibility of State Governments: State governments were assigned the responsibility of

reporting on the number of sawmills, their actual capacity, proximity to the nearest forest, and
sources of timber.

Ban on Felling of Trees: A complete ban on the felling of trees in tropical wet evergreen forests
in Arunachal Pradesh was imposed due to their significance in maintaining ecological balance
and preserving biodiversity. Felling of forests in other states was suspended unless conducted in
accordance with approved working plans.

Ban on Movement of Cut Trees: The movement of cut trees and timber was banned, with the
exception of certified timber required for defense purposes.
Constitution of Expert Committees: Each state government was directed to constitute expert
committees to identify forest areas, denuded forests, and areas covered by plantation trees. These
committees were also tasked with assessing the sustainable capacity of forests concerning
sawmills.

Special Directives for Specific States: In the state of Jammu and Kashmir, private agencies
were prohibited from dealing with felled trees or timber. No permission was to be granted for
sawmills within eight kilometers from the boundary of demarcated forest areas. In Tamil Nadu,
tribals participating in the social forestry program were allowed to continue growing and
cutting trees on patta lands, subject to government schemes and applicable laws.

Restrictions on Plantations: Plantations were not permitted to expand further or encroach upon
forests through clearing or other means.

In conclusion, the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case stands as a landmark legal decision in the
realm of forest conservation. It not only interpreted and enforced the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980, but also provided nuanced and region-specific directives to address the complex
challenges associated with deforestation and ecological imbalance. The case reflects the
judiciary's proactive role in environmental protection and the imperative of balancing
developmental activities with the preservation of natural ecosystems.

Questions
Problem-based Question:
A multinational corporation (MNC) has acquired a large piece of land near the outskirts of
Kolkata for setting up a manufacturing plant. The location was initially designated as a green belt
in the city's developmental plan due to its rich biodiversity. However, due to significant political
influence and a reclassification of the land, the MNC has managed to get a green signal for the
plant. Local citizens and environmental NGOs fear that the plant will lead to extensive pollution,
damaging the local ecosystem and posing health risks to the surrounding population. A local
NGO, EcoGuard, files a case against the MNC and the government, arguing that the construction
of the plant violates environmental laws, developmental plans, and the right to a healthy
environment under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. How should the Supreme Court handle
this case?
Answer Key:
The court must assess whether the plant's establishment is in line with the guidelines provided by
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) for sustainable industrial development.
The Supreme Court should evaluate the validity of the land reclassification, ensuring that it
adhered to proper procedures and laws.
The Court should consider the Stockholm Declaration, which emphasizes the safeguarding of
natural resources for present and future generations.
Evaluation of the potential environmental impact of the plant on the local ecosystem should be
considered, in line with the National Environment Policy 2006.
The court should consider the role of environmental impact assessments in the decision-making
process for the plant, as per the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986.
The court needs to verify whether all necessary permissions and clearances were obtained from
the Central and State Pollution Control Boards.
The Court should consider the rights of the citizens under Article 21, which has been interpreted
to include the right to a clean and healthy environment.
The Forest Conservation Act, 1980, should be referred to if any forest land is involved.
The court should consider the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle, as they are
part of environmental jurisprudence in India.
The Court should scrutinize the company's commitment to Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) in terms of environmental protection.
The case should consider the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which
emphasizes the environmental rights of citizens.
The court must assess the potential public health risks involved, in line with the World Health
Organization's guidelines.
The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, which provides for immediate relief to persons
affected by accidents while handling hazardous substances, must be considered.
The court must consider the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts, which empower
local self-governments to protect and improve the environment.
The court should check compliance with the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, in the case of
biodiversity-rich land.

Problem Statement:
Raghav, a well-known businessman, claims that the waters of the river Yamuna are polluted by
the effluent discharge from the factories of ABC Ltd. He petitions the National Green Tribunal
(NGT), alleging that the pollution is a direct result of ABC Ltd.'s activities. ABC Ltd. argues that
the State Pollution Control Board has implemented effective measures to monitor and regulate
pollution. Raghav has a long history of purchasing industrial waste from ABC Ltd. for his
business. Recently, when ABC Ltd. refused to increase their waste supply due to environmental
concerns, Raghav brought a case against them. In addition, a criminal case under IPC and
Essential Commodities Act was filed against Raghav for unauthorized removal of waste. Raghav
appeals to the High Court for rights to collect waste, which was dismissed due to dispute over
land rights. Amidst this, Raghav files a petition for injunction against ABC Ltd. Is Raghav's
petition for environmental justice valid or is it a guise for personal interest?
Answer Key:
International development:
Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration, 1972 affirms that states have the responsibility not to
cause damage to the environment of other states.
National laws:
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 regulates water pollution.
Section 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code govern theft and dishonestly receiving stolen
property.
Essential Commodities Act deals with regulation of production, supply, and distribution of
commodities.
Policies:
National Environment Policy, 2006 promotes conservation, sustainable use, and environmental
governance.
Constitutional Mandates:
Article 21 guarantees the right to a clean and healthy environment as a part of the right to life.
Article 32 provides the right to constitutional remedies.
Article 48-A obligates the state to protect and improve the environment.
The judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which established the
principle of absolute liability for harm to the environment extends to all enterprises.
The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 provides for the establishment of a specialized body
equipped with the necessary expertise to handle environmental disputes.
Principle of sustainable development is the balancing concept between ecology and
development.
The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 provides for immediate relief to persons affected by
accidents while handling hazardous substances.
The Hazardous Waste Management Regulations govern the handling, generation, collection,
treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste.

General Argument
 Respondent (State Pollution Control Board &
Appellant (Petitioner - Subhash Kumar) Respondent-company)

The water of the river Bokaro is being The State Pollution Control Board found no
polluted by the discharge of sludge from the evidence to support the allegation that the
respondent-company's washeries. respondent-company was polluting the river.

The appellant had the right to collect slurry The respondent-company refused the appellant's
from the respondent-company's land as it did request for more slurry and maintained that the
not belong to them. slurry on their land belonged to them.

The appellant was entitled to collect slurry The respondent-company maintained that the
that was discharged from the washeries, as it slurry remained their property, regardless of where
was neither coal nor mineral, but industrial it was deposited, and no one else had authority to
waste, as per a previous judgment. collect it.

The appellant sought permission from the The respondent-company filed an appeal against
court to collect slurry from raiyati land, the Patna High Court's judgment, which the
arguing that the respondent-company was Supreme Court allowed, reaffirming that the slurry
preventing him from doing so. belonged to the respondent-company.

The respondent argued that the appellant was

The appellant invoked Article 32, stating that misusing Article 32 for his personal grudge and
the alleged pollution infringed his business interest, rather than genuine public
fundamental right to a clean environment. interest.

Legal Provision Argument

Respondent (State Pollution Control

Appellant (Petitioner - Subhash Kumar) Board & Respondent-company)

Article 226 of the Constitution: Used to justify his Criminal Case No. 178 of 1987 Under
petitions to the High Court of Patna for permission Sections 379 and 411 of IPC and Section 7
to collect slurry from raiyati land. of Essential Commodities Act: Cited as
 Respondent (State Pollution Control
Appellant (Petitioner - Subhash Kumar) Board & Respondent-company)

evidence of the appellant's unauthorized

collection of slurry and harassment of the
company.

Patna High Court's judgment in Kundori

Labour Co-operative Society Ltd. v. State of
Bihar: Cited to argue that slurry discharged from
washeries did not belong to the company as it was
an industrial waste of coal mine, not subject to the
provisions of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation
and Development) Act, 1957.
Mines and Mineral (Regulation and
Development) Act, 1957: Used to argue
that the slurry, as a byproduct of mining,
remained the property of the mining
company, and no one else had the right to
collect it.

Article 32 of the Constitution: Argued that

the appellant was misusing this provision
Article 32 of the Constitution: Invoked as a means for personal gain, not public interest,
to address an alleged violation of his fundamental referring to legal precedents discouraging
rights, particularly his right to a clean environment misuse of Article 32 for personal grudges
under Article 21. under the guise of public interest litigation.

Problem-Based Question on 'Industrial Battery' under the Battery Waste Management Rules,
2022:

In 2022, PowerTech Ltd., a leading battery manufacturer in India, launched a groundbreaking

industrial battery line named "IndusPower". These batteries were specifically designed for use in
heavy machinery, power backup solutions for industries, and other large-scale applications.
PowerTech claimed that these batteries had a longer lifespan and were made using
environmentally sustainable methods.
However, by mid-2023, several industrial units across the country reported significant issues
with the disposal and recycling of "IndusPower". Many of these batteries were found dumped in
landfill sites, causing environmental concerns. A non-profit organization named EcoGuardians
filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India. The PIL accused PowerTech
of not adhering to the guidelines laid out by the Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022,
specifically in relation to the management and disposal of industrial batteries.
The central issues presented before the court were:
1. Did PowerTech violate the provisions laid out in the Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022
concerning the proper disposal and management of industrial batteries?
2. Were the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) obligations of PowerTech clearly defined,
and if so, were they adhered to?
3. What is the role of the State Pollution Control Boards in ensuring that companies like
PowerTech are compliant with the rules?
4. How should the Supreme Court address the environmental damage caused due to improper
disposal?
The matter is of utmost importance, considering the rising importance of sustainable practices in
the wake of climate change and the role of corporations in environmental conservation. The
court's decision could set a precedent for future cases related to waste management in the
country.

Answer Key:
1. **Definition of Industrial Battery**: As per the Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022, an
industrial battery is designed for use in industrial applications like power backup, machinery, etc.
2. **Obligations of Producers**: Producers like PowerTech are obligated to ensure that batteries
are designed in a manner that reduces their adverse environmental impact.
3. **Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)**: Producers must have a clear EPR plan, which
ensures that waste batteries are collected back, either directly or through a take-back system.
4. **EPR Implementation**: PowerTech must set up a system to collect back the used batteries,
either by themselves or in collaboration with other agencies.
5. **State Pollution Control Boards**: They are responsible for ensuring compliance with the
Battery Waste Management Rules by granting registration and monitoring activities.
6. **Improper Disposal Consequences**: Producers can face penalties if found violating the
rules, especially concerning proper disposal.
7. **Battery Management during Product Lifecycle**: Producers need to be responsible for the
battery from its design phase to its end-of-life.
8. **Environmentally Sustainable Methods Claim**: PowerTech's claim of using sustainable
methods can be cross-examined with their actual disposal practices.
9. **Role of Producers in Awareness**: Companies are obligated to create awareness among
consumers about the correct disposal methods.
10. **Dumping in Landfills**: The rules prohibit the dumping of batteries in common landfills.
11. **EPR Authorization**: PowerTech's EPR plan must be authorized by the Central Pollution
Control Board.
12. **Third-party Collection Agencies**: If PowerTech had contracted third-party agencies for
waste collection, their adherence to the rules can be investigated.
13. **Correct Recycling Processes**: The rules dictate the processes that need to be followed
while recycling.
14. **Restitution for Environmental Damage**: The court can order PowerTech to undertake
corrective measures to rectify the environmental damage caused.
15. **Setting a Precedent**: The decision will have implications for other manufacturers and
serve as a guideline for future waste management cases.

FOREST

• The passage emphasizes the crucial role of forests in maintaining ecological balance and
outlines their various benefits. It highlights their contribution to climate regulation, soil fertility,
prevention of erosion, and support for perennial stream flow. Additionally, forests serve as
habitats for wildlife, protect gene pools, and provide shelter for tribal populations.
• Referring to the Supreme Court case *Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of
Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1988 SC 2187)*, the text underscores the environmental and ecological
advantages of forests. It notes that, apart from these benefits, forests generate revenue for the
state, supply raw materials to industries, and serve as sources of fuel and fodder.
• The passage quotes the court's observation from the Rural Litigation case, highlighting
the intricate relationship between trees, water, and the atmosphere. It emphasizes how trees
contribute to the completion of the water cycle, purify the air through photosynthesis, and play a
vital role in maintaining balance on Earth by holding up mountains, cushioning rains, and
controlling floods. Forests are also credited with sustaining springs, breaking winds, fostering
soils, and maintaining cool and clean air.
• The text acknowledges that forest management often leads to conflicting viewpoints,
especially when development activities, such as dam construction or industrialization in forest
areas, are considered. In a society governed by the rule of law, the passage suggests that conflicts
of values should be reconciled, and priorities set. It emphasizes the importance of this process in
formulating legal policies and strategies for effective forest management.

HISTORY
The Indian Forest Act 1927, a comprehensive legislation on forest management, consolidates
pre-existing laws. Originating during the British colonial period, the Forest Act primarily reflects
exploitative motives rather than environmental and ecological concerns. Its primary focus was
regulating forest produce transactions to boost public revenue through timber duties.
The first Indian Forest Act (VII of 1865) was enacted by the Supreme Legislative Council,
reflecting the dwindling forests and eroding local rights to forest produce. The Forest Act of
1878 and its amendments constituted the general law for forests in British India.
The Forest Act of 1927 consolidated pre-existing laws and initially applied to specific territories.
Over time, it extended its jurisdiction to cover various regions, including Gujarat, Himachal
Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, and Haryana.
The Act includes provisions on reserved forests, allowing the state government to declare any
forest land as reserved, granting regulatory rights and ownership of forest produce. Acquisition
of rights in reserved forests occurs through succession, government grant or contract, with rights
lost upon draft notification issuance.
Regulating activities within reserved forests, the Act prohibits unauthorized acts like tree
clearing, setting fires, hunting, trespassing, quarrying, fishing, and trapping, subject to
prosecution. The government can assign rights in reserved forests to village communities,
establishing rules for their management.
Protected forests, distinct from reserved forests, are governed by state government notifications,
determining permissible uses and regulations. A significant portion of the Forest Act is dedicated
to revenue generation from forests.
While some princely states had enacted forest legislations previously, the Forest Act of 1927
spurred other states to enact their own forest laws and make amendments to align with the central
legislation.
Forest as Source of Revenue:
The Forest Act of 1927, though initially appearing environment-oriented with concepts of
reserved and protected forests, had a devastating impact on the ecological system, shaking its
foundations.
Forest Conservation: A Leap Forward:
The widespread concern over large-scale deforestation, leading to ecological imbalance and
environmental degradation, prompted the enactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980
(FCA). The FCA aims to restrict de-reservation of forests or the use of forest lands for non-forest
purposes.
Key Provisions of FCA:
1. Restrictions: FCA prohibits state governments or authorities from de-reserving forests, using
forest land for non-forest purposes, leasing forest land to private agencies, or cutting naturally
grown trees for re-afforestation without prior Central Government approval.
2. Non-Forest Purpose: The term 'non-forest purpose' includes breaking up or clearing forest land
for cultivating tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticulture crops, or
medicinal plants. Re-afforestation is not considered a non-forest purpose, but cutting naturally
grown trees for it requires prior sanction.
3. Approval Process: The Central Government can appoint a committee to advise on grant
approval. Proposals for approval must include a certificate affirming consideration of
alternatives, infeasibility of other options, and the minimum required area.
New Perspectives Towards Forest Laws:
The Supreme Court, acknowledging forests' role in maintaining ecological balance, hasn't
dismissed the Forest Act as a mere taxing enactment. In State of Tripura v Sudhir Kumar Ranjan
Nath (AIR 1997 SC 1168), the Court recognized the Forest Act's objective to preserve, protect,
and promote the nation's forest wealth. The Act regulates cutting, removal, transport, and
possession of forest produce in the interest of the states and their people.
Sustainable Use of Forests: The Rights of Forest Dwellers:
The utilization of forest resources for industrial growth poses complex challenges, including
conflicts between short-term benefits and long-term environmental losses. In Banwasi Seva
Ashram v State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1987 SC 374), the Supreme Court acknowledged the
national importance of industrial projects for energy but emphasized sustainable development. It
imposed responsibilities on the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) to address
the rights of those affected, focusing on rehabilitation, resettlement, and various provisions.
Tribal Rights to Minor Forests and Livelihood:
1. Fatesang Gimba Vasava v State of Gujarat (AIR1987Guj9):
- The case highlighted the impact of forest reservation on tribal habitats.
- Despite tribals depending on bamboo for livelihood, forest officials hindered the transport of
articles, wrongly citing potential forest exploitation.
- The Gujarat High Court emphasized tribal rights to depend on forests for livelihood, stating
that transformed bamboo articles were not forest produce.
2. Suresh Lohiya v State of Maharashtra [(1996) 10 SCC 397]:
- The Supreme Court reiterated tribal rights, declaring the confiscation of bamboo mats made
through tribal labor as invalid.
- It clarified that commercially distinct articles made from bamboo were not forest produce
under the law.
- The court rejected the forest department's plea that excluding bamboo products from the
definition of forest produce would harm conservation efforts.
3. M Prabhakar Reddy v Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2006 AP 386):
- The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that sawn timber, being forest produce, requires a
transit permit.
- The court justified the levy on sawn teak, asserting it does not adversely affect the interests of
tribal people engaged in timber business.
These cases collectively underscore the significance of recognizing and preserving tribal rights,
ensuring sustainable forest use, and balancing industrial development with ecological
conservation.
Tribal Lands: Legislative Measures for Protection:
Over the years, economically advanced groups encroached on tribal lands, leading to exploitation
and endangerment of tribal populations. Recognizing the need to protect tribal lands, various
states enacted legislative measures. In Karnataka, a law declared the purchase of lands granted to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by non-members as null and void, with provisions for
restoration (Sri Manchegowda v State of Karnataka AIR 1984 SC 1151). Maharashtra and
Andhra Pradesh also enacted laws to annul transfers of tribal lands and facilitate restoration.
Tribal Lands: Legal Safeguards:
1. Presumption in Andhra Pradesh Regulations (P Rami Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh AIR
1988 SC 1626):
- Regulations presumed that land held by non-tribals in Scheduled Areas was transferred from
tribal individuals.
- Addressed the vulnerability of tribal in proving land ownership against economically stronger
non-tribals.
2. Protective Legislation in Maharashtra (Lingappa Pochanna v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1985
SC 389):
- Legislation for the annulment of land transfers from tribals and restoration.
- Aimed at preventing non-tribals from exploiting tribals' ignorance and taking over lands.
Tribal People: Rights and Privileges in Forest Areas:
1. Pradeep Krishen v Union of India (AIR 1996 SC 2040):
- Emphasized the need for urgent steps to prevent environmental damage caused by villagers
and tribals living around sanctuaries and national parks.
- Highlighted the prohibitions in reserved forests, including hunting, fishing, trespassing, and
cattle grazing.

2. Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund v Union of India (AIR1997SC1071):

- Resolved a dispute between Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra regarding fishing permits for
displaced tribals in Totladoh reservoir within Pench National Park.
- Balancing environmental concerns with the rights of tribals, the court stressed proper
consideration for tribal livelihood in resettlement.
These cases underscore the importance of legislative protection for tribal lands, acknowledging
the vulnerability of tribal and the need to balance environmental conservation with tribal rights.
Tribals Ousted in Development: Narmada Bachao Andolan Case (AIR 2000 SC 3751):
In the Narmada Bachao Andolan case, the Supreme Court addressed the displacement of tribal
people from a forest area for a development project involving the raising of a reservoir's height.
The project aimed to benefit several villages and towns in Gujarat and Rajasthan through
increased water supply. The court emphasized the simultaneous pursuit of engineering works and
rehabilitation measures.
- Rehabilitation and Dam Construction:
- Acknowledged the challenge of rehabilitating thousands of tribal people.
- Determined that lands allotted to the displaced were equal to or better in quality than their
original holdings.
 - Recognized the multifold improvement in the environment due to dam construction.
Empowerment of Tribal People: Scheduled Tribes Forest Dwellers' Rights:
The forest rights law of 2007, known as the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest
Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2007, aimed to address historical injustices and
empower tribal people.
- Provisions of STFD Act, 2007:
- Recognized the symbiotic relationship between tribal people and forests.
- Endowed forest dwellers with rights (Sec. 3) and duties (Sec. 5) to regulate access to
community resources.
- Empowered gram sabhas to make decisions for meaningful forest management (Ss. 3(2)(ii),
4(2)(e), 5, and 6).
- Empowering Gram Sabhas:
- Enabled democratic decision-making for forest dwellers, especially in Fifth Schedule areas
without self-government.
Challenges and Fallacies in Forest Rights Law:
1. Conversion of Tribal Villages into Revenue Villages:
- Concerns about potential conversion of tribal villages into revenue villages, defeating the
law's purpose.
2. Critical Wildlife Habitat Provision:
- Raised concerns about the impact of the provision for 'critical wildlife habitat.'
- Allows modification or resettlement of forest rights in critical wildlife habitat areas, reducing
tribal people's freedom.
3. National Tiger Conservation Authority's Perspective:
- Acknowledged the potential adverse effects of treating tribal as foes, not friends, of the forest
habitat.
- Suggested recruiting local forest-dwelling tribes as field staff in tiger reserve states.
These considerations underscore the need for a balanced approach in forest rights laws, avoiding
unintended consequences and ensuring the genuine empowerment and protection of tribal
communities.
Forest Conservation: Role of Central Government - Judicial Scrutiny:
The Forest Conservation Act (FCA) has designated the Central Government as the guardian of
forest protection, requiring prior approval for non-forestry activities in forest areas. Judicial
scrutiny of FCA provisions has sought to ensure the Central Government's role aligns with the
objectives of safeguarding the forest environment.
1. Pre-FCA Mining Activities:
- In State of Bihar v Banshi Ram Modi (AIR 1985 SC 814), the court held that prior approval
was not necessary for mining activities conducted under licenses granted before FCA's
commencement.
- The court emphasized the need to avoid felling trees during mining, especially in virgin areas.
2. Renewal with Prior Permission:
- Ambica Quarry Works v State of Gujarat (AIR 1987 SC 1073) clarified that post-FCA,
license renewal required prior permission from the Central Government.
- The FCA aimed to address ecological imbalance resulting from deforestation.
3. Approval Exclusion Disapproved:
- In KM Chinnappa v Union of India (AIR 2003 SC 724), the court disapproved the exclusion
allowed by the state government regarding prior approval.
- Examining mining in an area later declared a national park, the court insisted on mandatory
prior approval despite mining rules allowing renewal.
4. Impact Study and Temporary Permission:
- The Government of Karnataka recommended temporary working permission for two years
after the license expiry in KM Chinnappa's case.
- This recommendation aimed to balance environmental concerns while avoiding undue
hardship.
“The Godavarman Cases: A Milestone in Forest Protection”

TN Godavarman Tirumulpad v Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1228) stands as a landmark case,
embodying the concept of sustainable development. The key pronouncements of the Supreme
Court in this case are summarized below:
1. Broad Definition of Forest:
- Forest includes areas recorded as such in government records, irrespective of ownership.
2. Mining License Violation:
- Mining licenses in forest areas without prior approval violate the Forest Conservation Act
(FCA).
- Ongoing activities under such invalid licenses must cease, and state governments are tasked
with necessary remedial measures.
3. Ban on Sawmills:
 - Running sawmills within 100 kilometers from the border of Arunachal Pradesh is deemed a
non-forest activity and must cease.
- State governments are responsible for reporting on the number and capacity of sawmills, their
proximity to forests, and timber sources.
4. Ban on Tree Felling:
- A complete ban on felling trees in tropical wet evergreen forests in Arunachal Pradesh is
imposed to preserve biodiversity.
- Felling in other states is suspended, except in accordance with working plans.
5. Ban on Timber Movement:
- Movement of cut trees and timber is banned, except for certified timber required for defense
purposes.
6. Expert Committees and Assessments:
- State governments should form expert committees to identify forest areas, denuded forests,
and assess sustainable forest capacity regarding sawmills.
7. Specific Measures for Jammu and Kashmir, Tamil Nadu:
- In Jammu and Kashmir, private agencies should not deal in felled trees or timber. No
permission for sawmills within eight kilometers of the forest boundary.
- In Tamil Nadu, tribals in social forestry programs on patta lands other than forests may
continue following government schemes and applicable laws.
8. Plantation Restrictions:
- Plantations are not allowed to expand further and encroach upon forests.
9. Follow-up and Oversight:
- A high-power committee is constituted to oversee the strict and faithful implementation of
orders in the North Eastern region.
10. Additional Measures in Subsequent Godavarman Case (AIR 1998 SC 769):
- Measures include relocation of industries, identification of ecologically sensitive areas,
consultation with institutions and NGOs with expertise, intensive patrolling, and state-level
committees for licensing regulations.
Influence of Godavarman Cases:
- The dicta in the Godavarman cases significantly shaped environmental norms in forest
protection, emphasizing the need for prior approval not only for forest use but also for the use of
dry crop lands adjacent to forests (Goa Foundation, AIR 2001 Bom 316).
Net Present Value (NPV) in Forest Conservation
When seeking prior sanction for non-forestry purposes, the loss of tangible and intangible
benefits from forest lands needs to be addressed, cured, and compensated. The concept of Net
Present Value (NPV) comes into play, as explained in the Godavarman case (2006) 1 SCC 1.
Definition of NPV:
- NPV is the present value (PV) of net cash flow from a project, discounted by the cost of capital.
- Expenses incurred over multiple years are brought down to their present value using an
appropriate discount rate in the NPV calculation.
Losses in Forest Diversion:
- Forest lands diverted for non-forest use result in losses of tangible and intangible benefits.
Policy Towards Sawmills:
- In Jawaharlal Sharma v Divisional Forest Officer, Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2002 SC 769), the
Supreme Court outlined the policy for sawmills near forests.
- Existing licenses for sawmills can continue only if they adhere to court-mandated laws.
- In Nandlal (AIR 2002 All 41), the Allahabad High Court directed a fresh decision considering
forest limits, sawmill location, and industry nature.
Eco-Tourism and Forest Protection:
- Tourism growth in India raises concerns about environmental disturbance.
- Eco-tourism, focused on watching wildlife without disrupting flora and fauna sanctity, can be
part of biological park projects.
- In Niyamavedi v State of Kerala (AIR 1993 Ker 262), the Kerala High Court supported a
project designed to watch wildlife without interference.
- In MC Mehta v Kamalnath [(1997) 1 SCC 388], the Supreme Court, citing the public trust
doctrine, quashed prior approval for river diversion to augment a motel, emphasizing the state's
duty as a trustee to protect natural resources for the public benefit.