Environmental protection has emerged as one of the most critical challenges of the 21st century. Rapid industrialization, urbanization, and population growth have placed unprecedented strain on India’s natural resources. Rivers are polluted, forests depleted, air quality compromised, and biodiversity endangered. While the legislature and executive play vital roles in framing policies, it is the judiciary—particularly through the mechanism of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)—that has transformed India’s environmental landscape. This article examines the development of environmental jurisprudence in India, the role of PILs, key judgments, and the path forward.
The Constitutional Foundation of Environmental Protection
Although the original Constitution of India did not explicitly mention environmental protection, subsequent amendments and judicial interpretation have firmly embedded it within constitutional law.
- Article 21: The right to life has been expansively interpreted to include the right to a clean and healthy environment.
- Article 48A: Added by the 42nd Amendment, it directs the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife.
- Article 51A(g): Imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment.
These provisions have provided the foundation for judicial activism in environmental matters.
The Rise of Public Interest Litigation
Public Interest Litigation, introduced in the late 1970s and early 1980s, became a tool to provide justice to marginalized groups and address issues of public concern. The flexibility of PIL allowed citizens, NGOs, and activists to approach courts even without direct personal injury, thereby expanding access to justice.
In environmental matters, PIL has been a game changer. It has empowered individuals and groups to hold the State and industries accountable for environmental degradation, often leading to landmark precedents and policy shifts.
Landmark Judicial Pronouncements in Environmental PILs
- Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985) – Popularly known as the Dehradun Quarrying Case, this was India’s first environmental PIL. The Supreme Court ordered closure of limestone quarries in the Mussoorie hills, citing ecological destruction and health hazards, establishing the principle that development cannot be at the cost of environment.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak, 1986) – Following a gas leak from Shriram Industries, the Court expanded the scope of liability by evolving the principle of absolute liability for hazardous industries. Unlike strict liability, this principle excluded exceptions and imposed complete responsibility on polluting industries.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case, 1988 onwards) – The Court issued comprehensive directions to prevent industries from discharging effluents into the Ganga, stressing that the right to clean water is part of Article 21.
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) – The Court applied the Polluter Pays Principle, directing industries to compensate for environmental damage caused by chemical pollution.
- Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) – The Court recognized the Precautionary Principle and Sustainable Development as part of Indian environmental law, cementing their place in jurisprudence.
- M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) – The Court invoked the Public Trust Doctrine, holding that natural resources like rivers, forests, and air are held in trust by the State for public use and cannot be privately exploited.
- T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1995 onwards) – A continuing mandamus that led to comprehensive reforms in forest governance, including bans on illegal felling and restrictions on diversion of forest land.
Principles Evolved Through Judicial Activism
Indian environmental jurisprudence owes much of its vibrancy to the evolution of certain guiding principles:
- Absolute Liability – Hazardous industries must bear full responsibility for damage caused, without exceptions.
- Polluter Pays Principle – Those who cause pollution must bear the cost of managing it and compensating victims.
- Precautionary Principle – Environmental protection should not wait for scientific certainty; preventive action must be taken in advance.
- Sustainable Development – Development must meet present needs without compromising future generations.
- Public Trust Doctrine – Natural resources are common heritage and cannot be converted for private gains.
These principles have been repeatedly invoked by the Supreme Court and High Courts to balance environmental concerns with developmental needs.
Environmental PILs and Social Justice
Environmental degradation disproportionately affects the poor. Industrial effluents poison the water consumed by villagers, deforestation deprives tribal communities of livelihood, and air pollution impacts urban laborers the most. By entertaining environmental PILs, the judiciary has served as a voice for these marginalized groups.
For instance, in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the Court held that the right to pollution-free water and air is included in Article 21. However, it also warned against the misuse of PILs for personal or political interests, underlining that only bona fide environmental concerns should reach the court.
Criticism of Judicial Activism in Environmental Matters
While judicial intervention has been instrumental, critics argue that courts sometimes overstep, encroaching on the domain of executive and legislature. Continuous monitoring of industries, closure of polluting units, or prescribing fuel norms have raised questions about separation of powers.
Moreover, delays in compliance and lack of effective monitoring mechanisms often reduce the impact of judicial orders. Without proper implementation by executive agencies, court rulings risk remaining symbolic.
Recent Developments and Climate Change Litigation
In recent years, courts have increasingly engaged with global concerns like climate change. In M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court directed measures for protecting the Great Indian Bustard, recognizing the need for balancing renewable energy projects with biodiversity conservation.
High Courts have also taken proactive roles—for example, the Madras High Court in Suo Motu v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) emphasized intergenerational equity in environmental matters.
The judiciary is gradually aligning with international trends, where climate litigation is gaining momentum, holding governments accountable for inadequate action against climate change.
The Way Forward: Strengthening Environmental Justice
- Institutional Mechanisms: Strengthening the role of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to provide specialized, speedy remedies.
- Community Participation: Encouraging environmental governance through Gram Sabhas and local communities, especially in forest areas.
- Capacity Building: Training lower judiciary in environmental jurisprudence to decentralize environmental justice.
- Effective Implementation: Ensuring strict monitoring of judicial orders to prevent symbolic compliance.
- Integrating Climate Goals: Aligning judicial pronouncements with India’s commitments under the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals.
Conclusion
India’s environmental jurisprudence stands as a testament to the power of judicial creativity and activism. Through PILs, courts have not only expanded the ambit of fundamental rights but also crafted principles that shape environmental governance. While criticisms of judicial overreach persist, there is no denying that without PILs, India’s environmental crisis would have been far graver.
The task ahead is to strike a balance—where courts continue to act as guardians of the environment, but implementation is strengthened through robust executive mechanisms and public participation. As India marches towards development, the judiciary’s message remains clear: economic growth cannot come at the cost of ecological survival.